The Nose Knows

By Stephen Cheney

There are many processes in Nature, and Science has found that, except for all things that are metaphysical, numbers or ratios capture their timeline of activity; thus laws mimic reality.  Virtually all can be reduced to number and formula, because numbers, though an artificial construct, are yet based on the logical physic of this reality.
In a different universe, a different number system maybe would be used; whatever logically fits. Two numbers added together are an event, or movement from inertia, and the end total is the result, the effect of the cause. Both Fore and After are dependent on the other, and the seeds of the first predict the end bloom.

However, Nature is a complex network in a cluttered environment, and although there may be formulae for things, there may be just too many components and too many variables for formula to be used in any way but as a vague guide.  So where constituents and data are not precisely known, neither can there be extracted from them clearly predictable conclusions.  This can also be seen in Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty, where the act of nailing down one characteristic interferes at the quantum level and makes uncertain the calculation or predictability of other characteristics.  Like a tidal wave into a fishpond, Man and his instruments are also a quantum force, one of cyclone magnitude.  Under examination everything gets tainted physically, but also mentally by bias.

Like computers with sensory/ data input, all living creatures sense and absorb information from the environment and process it to their advantage.  There may be Mathematics and formula involved, such as seen in the organizing of the spirals in sea shells and the arrangement of leaves up a rose stem, but the Mathematics is not 'seen' by those users (rote learners) as the workings are at unconscious or at lower-layered levels, such as molecular or DNA.  Atoms may follow quantum rules of number because they are space-time entrapments of energies, energies not chaotic but pressed into frequencies, and frequencies have ratio and thus number.  Science has found that the Universe operates on different laws (or number conglomerates) depending on a sliding scale of Quantum to Cosmic, the individual to the statistical; seemingly but one thing stretched to look different at different observations/ examinations/ sizes.  Science is looking for a Universal panacea, that is, a formula, to encompass all and relieve the headache of trying to see higher dimensions from the outpost of lesser, trying to see five dimensions from four.

Some phenomena are not suitable for analysis at the level on which they occur or from which level they are observed.  They may, however, be analyzed at another level.  Even the level of mind -- as Psychology and its various offshoots delve into.  For instance the Gas laws are considerations, not of individual gas molecule happenings and behaviors, but rather are examined and formulated on another level, that of multiple instances, statistical behaviour.

What method of thinking is best used to any circumstance depends on what is the level of complexity.  Officially in terrorism there is no system of exact prediction.  As in Nature, there is layered thinking and what may be perceived at the bottom is not the same as what is perceived at the top.  Different laws apply at different levels; such is human business, government, society and even parenthood.  There is a lot of room for system improvements even if absolute certainty is not obtainable.  Science marches on undaunted achieving ever increasing probabilities and accuracies.  Decision-Makers however, distain probabilities for they must make an Absolute decision.  They want a sure thing, a done deal, so tend to be influenced by the most confident or dominant personalities rather than the data.  Nothing is scarier than having to decide before full information is in, as they must, the information that is to be used must justify all at later reviews or criticisms of decisions made, data that is just a conglomerate of probabilities.

Garbage in, Garbage out.  The quality of Analysis depends on the Quality of the data input.  When you are examining terrorists and their activities you are not examining machinery and mechanical motions, you are examining human behaviour, and therefore must make human judgments.  Thus excellence in result is achieved by the coming into play of exceptional senses and abilities, they are needed but they are all too uncommon.  It would be great if we could all use a sixth sense, instead we have systems.  Sometimes the human mind can link into reality far better than any artificially constructed system.

Reliance on logical processing thinking, on systems and the management of them is the standard everywhere for maximizing efficiency in order to achieve wanted results in a real world environment.  However, artificial constructs, taught courses, training and education in a secluded environment are sometimes lesser systems when compared to the esoteric judgment of an expert who draws from unique experiences as well as from intelligence.  Experience comes from engagements with reality, and all worldly gains are reality based and are not fantasy based.  Thus the achievement ability of an expert who adds to the feed of information or data they receive by following his/her honed instruments of thinking and subconscious sensitivities, by using his/her sensory pickups in addition to past experiences, and processing all of these onto in the mind’s mental holistic blender: an analyst in general can achieve a higher level of results.  Not only is the environment real but also is real the brain that reviews that environment.

In business, survival and much else, it is results that matter; results obtained and then utilized that extend the existence of an entity from the present into the future.  An educated professional can follow his/her handed-down systems.  An expert can, as well, also follow his/her “nose”, and also design new systems of their own.  The nose wins by a nose.  The nose knows.  One should not disparage talent just because it tends to go off at a tangent to normal systems, expectations or higher directives, as it may return from unknown journeys with answers to problems.  Directives may have, unintentionally, imbedded in them a mesh of unspoken restrictions that actually isolate an analyst from a solution.  Though a finder may not be able to explain clearly how the answer was found, they should not be chastised for that when it is they, and not the chastiser, who holds solutions in their hands.  If others and their workplace systems could do what a talented person could do, they would have done it already, and the especially talented person would have then not been necessary and thus not even sought after.

A talented expert who perceives and detects truths that other experts do not, who has a nose for truth, not only draws inputs from the external universe environment, but also from the internal universe environment; from experiences on file and lessons learned from them; from talents not common perhaps even hidden from their own awareness in the cellar of the subconscious.  By “nose” I mean not a body part in a subjective sense such as that used by “heart” for mind; but a dynamic collective, a nose or collective portal between external and internal realms, a hub that absorbs all and expounds all.  What achieves special results is not a qualified professional as such, not a qualification dependent job or position, not a holder of a certificate of learning.  It is a human being who happens to have the special capabilities that penetrate all of a problem’s obstacles even though the “How” cannot be satisfactorily explained.  But that is not a total necessity when the achievement is in hand.  The nose knows.

(Source of Edited Image: Google)


  1. Hi Cheney,

    True, most people don't realise that tackling one issue triggers a lot of other issues as a consequence and that is why we must tread carefully in everything we do (although over zealousness is dangerous as well).

    I am a huge fan of observation. I like to observe people and their behaviour since it reveals far more than any spoken word or intention. Behaviour patterns are important and I agree that a machine can't analyse it, only humans can.

    "Officially in terrorism there is no system of exact prediction"

    Ah, so true. But then unofficially...

    "They want a sure thing, a done deal, so tend to be influenced by the most confident or dominant personalities rather than the data."

    Because they lack true understanding of things: the only certainty is uncertainty. And because they lack that understanding they tend to be influenced by dominant personalities. What's interesting is that once in power they act contrary to the behaviour that got them in power in the first place. Interesting.

    Cheney, loved loved and loved this post - brilliant.


  2. Stephen, I don't understand quantum science but I agree that analysts are important if we want to fight terrorists. I get you when you say the nose knows; BTW I like the way it sounds cause it seems you're saying 'knows knows' as a confirmation.

  3. Excellent work, Stephen. I don't think there's much to add since your conclusion says it all:

    "What achieves special results is not a qualified professional as such, not a qualification dependent job or position, not a holder of a certificate of learning. It is a human being who happens to have the special capabilities that penetrate all of a problem’s obstacles even though the “How” cannot be satisfactorily explained."

    I can relate.

  4. I got to go back to the lab today to look for some problems in my equations due to some anomalies that I came across yesterday, even though it is a Saturday, but thought I should give a few reactions before I run off:

    First, "Science" is inanimate, so it has never actually "found" anything. The discovery that number and formula seem to govern the universe owes entirely to the diligence of the ancient astrologers, who were fixated on the stars, eclipses, and seasons. On the other hand, the "scientists", according to Aristotle's "On The Heavens", gave us the flat earth theory, which lived on with the science obsessed Epicureans, who never did any math.

  5. I agree with Looney, science is not exact cause today they tell us one thing as being true and tomorrow they'll change their mind. But that doesn't mean that science didn't help improve our quality of life, it did but it's not everything and the arrogance of the scientists irritates me!
    But Mr Cheney, I wonder what do scientists say about people with special abilities?

  6. @Leila/ Looney.
    Science also expounded to us round Earth and in Cosmology Saddle Universes. Each small segment of a circle is like near straight. That is how Archimedes worked out his estimate of Pi. There is nothing wrong with Flat Earth so long as it is applicable to the size of the landscape you are dealing with. The ancients knew the whole Earth was near spherical; they worked it out using a stick and sunlight. Laws and rules are applicable to the parameters that limit them.

    People with special abilities are studied by sciences such as Anthropology, Mathematics, Neuroscience and Parapsychology. However most of these are infant sciences where experiments yield data but not clear understanding, the theory is as yet little developed and the military do much of the funding and also bias outcomes and focus.

  7. @Stephen, my point is that there is a lot of garbage out there that poses as science, but is not. Thus, we have to proceed cautiously. Academia is in love with its errors, and cares only about true science to establish credibility. There has never in history been a single martyr for true science. We should not worship science.

    Or to put it another way, if we read a good book we don't congratulate ourselves as we discover each new word, phrase or sentence. Instead, we praise the author to the degree that the book is pleasing to us. We should proceed the same way, but more so, as we try to work out the laws that govern nature, which God is the author of.

    1. "We should proceed the same way, but more so, as we try to work out the laws that govern nature, which God is the author of." - that's right, Looney.
      Science can and probably will broaden its horizons, it's just a matter of time, especially when scientists get tired of shunning spirituality and the unknown from all their research. This being said, I get it that Stephen is a more enlightened scientist.

  8. Another stick – ship’s masts – in daylight also, determined that the world was a sphere: the appearance first of masts and the disappearance of masts last at the sea horizon. Telescopes made this more undeniably obvious.
    Also climbing higher such as up a mountain enables the seeing further around the curve of the Earth. AS per the following equation, workable for any oceanic planet – in case you more than astral travel  -
    D equals the square root of: (H squared plus 2 times R times H).

    ‘D’, the distance from your eyes to the sea horizon. ‘R’ being the radius of the sea planet in question and ‘H’ your height above sea level.

    The Human mind has always been entranced by mental phenomenon beyond the normal.
    Also engaged in the investigation of exotic mental phenomena are the non-sciences such as Yoga: T.M.; Occultists; Religious persons; gambling or chance theory and overcoming it; military research; spirituality; Art – art lives in and for a mental realm beyond the mundane, inspired; and the Dark Arts of the Martial Arts.

  9. Stephen, I am really curious how you use a telescope to prove the Earth is round! I was looking for the original source for Eratosthenes' computation of the Earth's circumference, which was amazingly good. And I will leave this discussion with the following quote from Aristotle:

    Anaximenes and Anaxagoras and Democritus give the flatness of the earth as the cause of its staying still. Thus, they say, it does not cut, but covers like a lid, the air beneath it. This seems to be the way of flat-shaped bodies: for even the wind can scarcely move them because of their power of resistance. The same immobility, they say, is produced by the flatness of the surface which the earth presents to the air which underlies it; while the air, not having room enough to change its place because it is underneath the earth, stays there in a mass, like the water in the case of the water-clock. And they adduce an amount of evidence to prove that air, when cut off and at rest, can bear a considerable weight. " - On The Heavens.

    Note that Democritus gave mankind the word, "atom". Darwin plagiarized his "Theory of Evolution" from Anaxagoras, and Anaximenes was nick named "the atheist".

  10. A telescope simply makes the horizon event clearer. A large sailing ship, when viewed through a telescope coming from the horizon, the smaller top of the vessel is seen first and only later the larger bottom portion. If the Earth was flat the Larger portion would be seen first, distance then being the only factor and not also the curvature of the surface upon which the vessel travels.

    When Democritus gave the world the word "atom" he gave the non-divisible concept, not the object. We nowadays know that the object we label "atom' is further divisible into its constituents which differ from each other in their properties. As all matter is only energy, as shown by Einstein, and energy is a oneness, then it is the Planck quantum of energy that perhaps should be better labeled with the term "atom".

    As to Eratosthenes:
    The noon summer solstice sun shines directly down a well in Syene (Aswan) but casts a shadow from a pole in Alexandria (7.2 degrees) – here we have great secrets unmasked by a stick again. Thus he had the difference in degrees from the centre of the earth to the two cities. Knowing the distance between the two cities it gave him that segment of the curve of the Earth. Knowing that 7.2 degrees is a fiftieth of a 360 degree circle he worked out that the circumference of the Earth was about 250,000 stadia. His derived value was 39,350 kilometers in our terms, which compares well with our now more accurate figure of 40,033 kilometers. Thus the power of the ancient Greek mind.

    Columbus also considered the Earth to be round but as much ancient knowledge had been lost of missed, he thought that the circumference was smaller and so when he reached land in the New Americas he thought that he had reached the spice-wealthy Indies, so the Caribbean is called the West Indies. A good thing that the Americas were there as if it was all ocean he would have starved to death by sailing too long due to a poor calculation. The Earth is actually slightly pear shaped due to being top-heavy in the northern hemisphere.
    A measuring stick really is a magic wand that reveals much about the Universe. Man is the measure of all things, that is, is the measurer of all things; and what he cannot measure, he finds hard to understand; for those he makes up truths rather than knows truths.

  11. Stephen, the telescope won't tell you how far the ship is, and given the winds, a sailing ship would be leaning at an angle that is unknown to the observer. No one would use a telescope to determine the size of the earth. A mariner with a sextant would have been much better equipped for this measurement.

    We should probably leave it at this. Unless you would like to help me with my low earth orbit satellite heat balance calculations. I will stick with my position that the vast majority of opinions that have been produced in the name of "science" are garbage. In those sciences where experimentation is possible and engineering or medicinal utility is to be gained, science grudgingly gives way and adjust itself to reality. It then boasts before God and refuses to acknowledge the Creator of the laws that they stumble across.

  12. I should leave you with a quote that goes around today's engineering community: "Success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan".

  13. Looney. The telescope, as an instrument of deeper insight, I did not say it could be used to measure the size of the Earth. It can be used to determine more clearly that the Earth is a sphere. Galileo Galilei viewed through the telescope the moons of Jupiter and saw the structure there of globes circling the planet. Later the time difference of those same moons sighted in orbit would be used as a rough estimate of the speed of light.

    The fact that indeterminate winds can sway masts one way or the other is not a factor in determining that the Earth is curved. For whatever way the mast leans or not, it is still the small top or the vessel and not the larger lower bulk that first presents itself to the eye, that is, better still to the telescoped eye. Thousands of vessel sightings would provide no exception to the phenomenon. If the Earth was flat, and it is convenient to take it is so over small distances (a circle being an infinity of straight lines, if space has a straight line quantum), far objects in flat landscapes show their largest portion first visually and not only the smaller top. When the top comes over the horizon first, with the rest of the mass always rising a bit later, then it is fairly clear that a sphere landscape is involved. This can be done with any ball in the hand and moving a smaller object from behind it up and over.

    A single telescope can only measure distance if the linear view is marked by measurements, in the case of the ocean with buoys spaced in a line for instance when the incoming object follows such a line. Not very accurate. However you can use a telescope to measure distance if two telescopes are used to utilize two and not just one dimension. Two telescopes with a known distance apart on land can be aligned to the target vessel and thus provide two angles also. From this triangulation the distance to the object can be known. I think in WW I the dreadnought battleships used a smaller version of such an arrangement, a range-finder instrument for determining the distance to a target to guide the aiming of the guns.

    There is a lot of error in science of course, as in many disciplines, however science when best practiced does try or should try to successfully repeat experiments and thus confirm results (this rigorous practice is seriously lacking in the drug-bio commercial industry), and best science is self correcting. There is always a problem when humans are at the helm. They are corruptible like those at the helm of philosophies, religions, business enterprises or politics. But politics or religions that suspend doubt are not into the same the thinking process as used by science, which is a deliberate doubting and testing; for scientific truth is not at all searching the same dimensional landscape as is say a religion. Science wants only to know what is, religion wants to know what should be. Science is limited to measuring and the measurement of what is, science cannot measure the entity of God, and it is not at all designed to.


Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers