Beebop

Hiya Rob,
Thanks indeed for the response --- yes I did stumble on Tim Palmer's description in New Scientist, and it kind of struck me as absurd that one would want to use an invariant state to describe the underlying fabric of the universe. While the invariant set of a chaotic system is definitely a fractal, it flies in the face of the holistic approach, especially the one pioneered by David Bohm.

I don't think one ought ever to treat a system as reducible and in isolation, and especially NOT the universe, since it is a conglomeration and superposition of every possible state. On the other hand, as this forum is testament to, we are now looking for academic boundaries to be broken, and to unify spiritualism, science, metaphysics, philosophy, the arts and consciousness in a broad framework. We're talking about a web of interconnectedness, without sectioning findings into pigeonholed boxes. I reckon there's a few cosmologists who had better embark on some genre-hopping before getting too bogged down by the process of due diligence.

In the same way that Bohm illustrated a technique in which there are no such things as fundamental constants or irreducible quantities, it makes sense to talk about a homogeneous approach to fractal behaviour which is unifying and not standing alone.