Below, Margaret Turnbull answers the second of our three questions.
I have always felt that the notion of distinct disciplines in science is more of a reflection of our thought process, and perhaps maturity as a scientific civilization, rather than an accurate representation of how the universe is organized. The universe--literally, the "one word" or "one song"--is not really a collection of parts that can be analyzed independently. I see the universe as a network of relationships where individual components have little meaning (or even existence) when taken out of context. Scientific disciplines are defined somewhat arbitrarily by a combination of intellectual heritage and often unspoken communal agreement. In that sense, the combination of fields is really just part of our never-ending discovery that the "one song" is more all encompassing than we thought it was five minutes ago. I believe that any discipline will eventually stagnate if scientists studying those areas don't strive to grasp the bigger picture.
- Log in to post comments
I composed an orchestral work, One Song Universus http://www.onesonguniversus.com
based on the idea of the universe as one song the parts of which are irrevocably bound and gain meaning only from their relationship to each other. I thought of it as one - turn as the circular motif (a snake biting it's own tail)is a common ancient depiction of the world.In my piece it is the endless repetition of a note sequence( AGE) .
Ayup, Wayne Dyer has said the "one song" idea as well. Good idea, I think. Worth perpetuating.
Glad to see the distinction between 'what is' and 'what we think it is' being discussed. David Bohm and others were deep into this long ago: "The Observer is the Observed". Here is an interview with Bohm at the Niels Bohr Institute talking about the difference between 'wholeness' and 'parts' in the context of physics and consciousness...
i know its poetic and all, but my OED says that universe comes from uni and 'versus' from the verb 'vertere' meaning 'to turn'. so it could be more like 'one turn' or even 'one side'. Now, I know that 'verse' as in song comes from the same root, but I'd like to know whether universe comes from the song meaning or whether it is derived from the 'turn' meaning more directly.
@tbell1
I just found the following written on "Universe" by John Ayto: "Universe denotes etymologically 'turned into one,' hence 'whole, indivisible.' It goes back ultimately to Latin universus 'whole, entire,' a compound adjective formed from unus 'one' and versus, the past participle vertere 'turn.' Its neuter form, universum, was used as a noun meaning the 'whole world' (based on the model of Greek to holon 'the whole'), and this passed into English via Old French univers. The Latin derivative universalis gave English universal." [source]
Wikipedia also has a thorough backstory, I like the Greek ÏεÏιÏοÏα - "something transported in a circle" and that it ties back to food/the meal.
So we'll agree that there is music and there certainly are spheres - the root "verse" might be a little misleading though.