Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Consciousness as source of fuzz

I suspect empiricists tend to begin with an assumption: that most of that which is not perceived by themselves does not exist, except as inanimate and unconscious matter. This is troubling. It tends to discount that consciousness may subsist in various primitive, developing, evolving, and unfolding levels and relationships. It tends also to assume that whatever things empiricists perceive as being inanimate could not be byproduct of other features of the same things, which at some level are conscious. Having begun with an assumption, empiricists tend to contrive models that are consistent with it. Then they work backwards, as if the contrived consistency in models somehow proved the initial assumption.


I agree with a belief that some essential thing must exist, that is more than math, and that math in itself could not be the entire explanation for “the territory.” I believe that essential thing has incredible potency, charge, and potential. But I doubt that any particular perspective of it can contrive a complete explanation of it. I also doubt that any particular perspective of it can contrive even a partial explanation, that is both perfect in itself and non-trivial. But I do agree that we can contrive fuzzy explanations, tinker with them, and actually influence and build on our environment with them.

Re: “A muon is not a "feature". Nobody knows why it exists, but it definitely does exist ….”

Well, for modeling purposes, it is often pretty to think so. (Would a muon by any other name smell so sweet?) In any event, you’re not going to get a muon absent an environment in which it can survive (however briefly). IOW, a muon’s definition is not severable from its relationship with its environment.

The key word here is relationship: “things” exist in relationships. Relationships entail things that have capacity to relate to (“sense”) one another and react in recognition of one another’s features (i.e., properties). Relationships are measurably balanced, like equations. Surely, muons have properties, else how could one know a muon from a gluon?

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I suspect stuff “exists,” because we of this web-like universe happen to be compatible for relating to it, measuring it, and making or drawing pictures to represent it.
But is there an essence to this “stuff”? May there be some unifying aspect or character of this web-like universe (the existential environment), which allows us to happen to be compatible to it? If so, what is that character -- if not consciousness?
“We” (the evolution of algorithms coordinated and poised to respond within our very bodies?) can contrive very clever models that are perhaps as wondrous as math itself -- for dazzling purposes that can be coordinated consistent with our limiting perspectives (as imperfect, incomplete parts of an encompassing whole).
No doubt, the Whole, being implicated in our math, exists. But how does any perspective --- confined as it is to (1) laws of math that define it and to (2) all with which it can establish meaningful communication – deign to define the limits or character of the whole of “reality” (i.e., the face of God)?

Anonymous said...

In each sequence with which one observes the universe, one will be otherwise focused, so as not to be observing oneself, so that the remainder that one does observe and model, necessarily, will avail an incomplete way to reflect upon that which is defining oneself -- even as “oneself” is changing. (How do you scientifically measure or predict the quality or response of an observing perspective of “I-ness”?)
In that respect, each of us will always be playing catch up with a receding rainbow. The model of reality that can most reasonably be shared among human beings will necessarily remain incomplete, so long as we must observe reality by abstracting ourselves (our perspectives of consciousness) apart from its remainder.
This leads me to intuit or believe that “consciousness” is the fundamental essential thing, that consciousness carries innate aspects, that consciousness can leverage complex relationships among perspectives, and that consciousness itself carries features which are beyond mathematical measurement.
Why do I think this is important? Because many empiricists have grown too hubristic… as if there were a best scientific answer to every concern. But if human dignity is to be preserved, even for non-elites, then over-greedy scientific encroachments should be questioned. IMHO.
I have no interest in hobbling bona fide science. My concern is that scientists -- when they presume to know best how to resolve social, political, economic, and moral issues – need to be challenged … right from the start.

Anonymous said...

No one should doubt that “we” (i.e., the evolution of algorithms coordinated and poised to respond within our very “bodies”) can contrive very clever models that are perhaps as wondrous as math itself -- for dazzling purposes that can be coordinated consistent with our limiting perspectives (as imperfect, incomplete parts of an encompassing whole).
No doubt, the Whole, being implicated in our math, exists. But how does any perspective --- confined as it is to laws of math that define it and all with which it can establish meaningful communication – deign to define the limits or character of the whole of “reality”?
In each sequence with which one observes the universe, one will be otherwise focused, so as not to be observing oneself, so that the remainder that one does observe and model, necessarily, will avail an incomplete way to reflect upon that which is defining oneself -- even as “oneself” is changing. (How do you scientifically measure or predict the quality or response of an observing perspective of “I-ness”?)

In that respect, each of us will always be playing catch up with a receding rainbow. The model of reality that can most reasonably be shared among human beings will necessarily remain incomplete, so long as we must observe reality by abstracting ourselves apart from its remainder. And once we are subsumed within the whole, “you” may not be “observing” it at all.

*****

Until then, who knows -- life may be breathed into a new commentator: “spots on an albino duck.”

Anonymous said...

Re: Making a better microscope (perhaps, looking for ever smaller particles – in order to examine spots on an albino duck?)
PhysicsNut –
I am hardly a scientist, nor do I presume to be in your league. However, I do endeavor to understand, as best I can. It seems there comes a point where wavelengths of light can no longer adequately illuminate that which is of shorter wavelengths. So we illuminate further by bouncing features that are smaller (wavelengths of electrons) around with other features that are smaller.
My main quibble or question is this: Are “features” really manageable as independent or separate particles, or do we (and algorithmically compatible functions of our very bodies) only contrive feedback, interpretations, and conventions for representing features AS IF they were independent?
As we relate to (and change) a physical function or feature that is part of something else, do we not necessarily and simultaneously change that larger function, also?
One may image a model of features, interacting AS IF they were independent. For example, one could take an albino duck that was nearly invisible, that had tiny black spots* on it, and, by flashing hot lasers on various of the black spots, contrive to cause the duck to cause the spots to present us with various replicable patterns, just as if the black spots were independent “particles.” Indeed, in relation to our tinkering with our model and our experiment, the black spots may, as convention, be considered just as if they really were separate particles. But that reality would be a relational one. It would not be “The Reality.”
This is not to suggest despair. It is merely to suggest something about our relationship with the Whole. It may say something about “finite but unbounded” limits of empirical science. It may tamp against some of the hubris of scientists who actually believe they should be able to “define God.” But it in no way limits the wondrous things we can accomplish – in science, by using empirical-based math and reason, and in politics, by using intuitive-based good faith and good will. Does it?

*Spots-on-an-albino-duck could just as well be an alternative alias for trout-fishing-in-America.

Anonymous said...

Well, I doubt anyone means to suggest that we do not happen to share a web that respects laws. Else, how would we meaningfully communicate anything at all? So surely there are laws that we happen to share and that we can model. But the models and metaphors themselves are not the laws. And I doubt the models will ever become exactly coordinate with the laws. But I do suspect the models themselves may color the laws. That is, the models themselves may become “parts” of reality, on which we build our towers -- sometimes our shaky towers. I suspect reality, while it will shine forth even behind dazzling masks, will never quite shed the masks. I don’t see that as cynicism. I see that as an inherent aspect of being an imperfect perspective of an encompassing whole. Could one ever manage to model the whole from every possible perspective, and then resolve a true focus for what the whole “really is,” by somehow adducing from the sum of all particular parts? That is the fantasy I doubt. That is the fantasy I sense to be far too hubristic in deigning itself qualified to entirely replace God. As to the dazzling ride: that I do not doubt.

Anonymous said...

“God” is a facilitator of relational communications (empathetic feedback of consciousness) – not an enabler of independent particles (dumb materialism). Indeed, there is no such thing as an “independent particle.” The very idea is mathematically and logically self contradictory. It is an oxymoron. As such, it certainly has not been demonstrated empirically (to the chagrin of many of the people of the LHC). On the other hand, a "facilitator of relational communications," while not empirically measurable, is certainly and directly experience-able.

Relationships simply cannot be sustained when they become too close, too distant, or too un-modulated or un-moderated. Freedom of conscience cannot very well be sustained among citizens relating within a civilization when some become too big (too politically and economically influential) or when too many fall too far behind. The center cannot hold things from falling apart when the chasm of decency between “haves” and “have nots” becomes too great.

Decent respect for humanity requires “Extreme Moderation.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WGjwNnq0Ic That is, it requires means for both facilitating and modulating human liberty. Ordered liberty cannot be sustained absent checks and balances for preventing anyone or any entity from becoming so absolutely powerful as to become absolutely corrupt. Neither can ordered liberty be sustained without inculcating concern for facilitating opportunities (rights and responsibilities) for all.

To seek to become independent of any concern for that which facilitates our society is to fall into sickness and evil. It is to reduce or to destroy oneself in the process of seeking to reduce or to destroy others. It is one thing for a social system to facilitate everyone’s pursuit in the acquisition of material, wealth, and power. It is another thing for a social system to allow such acquisitions to become so disproportionately various as to sever anyone’s connection with decent regard for others.

There is no mathematical formula or legal trick by which to ensure appropriate modulation. There is, however, a meta Guide (“God”) for helping us continuously to re-calibrate our evolving relations. When we so disrespect the meta Guide as to believe we can replace it’s hand of providence with legal machinery to be produced for us by the free hand of our elite betters -- who presume to know better, even than the meta Guide, that which is best for the rest of us -- then all of us will have fallen into a difficult and self-punishing inferno indeed.

Every mortal elitist who reduces his charges to sock puppets by leading them to despair of God will thereby have reduced himself, simultaneously. In humble respect for humanity, both god-nihilism (godless communism) and god-monopolism (jihadism) should be shamed and shunned, for both are paths that lead to relational despair and madness.
Rather than a god particle, there is perhaps a “god function.” That is, there may be an algorithm that establishes parameters in respect of each relationship, in its brief context in space-time, entailing (1) that which one who observes can measure and experience and (2) that which is doing the measuring and experiencing.
A fulfilling relationship would seem to be one that is chosen and enjoyed by those who participate; it is not forced. A fulfilling relationship entails self-reliant participation, not governmentally enforced participation. For government -- needlessly, wantonly, and forcibly -- to redistribute wealth is more akin to rape and pillage than it is to secular morality.
Much of the rift between concepts of physics and concepts of god may be derivative of failure to relate to limits of metaphorical and modular literalism. Surely, rational physicists do not really believe in the ultimate independent particle! Surely, rational metaphysicists do not really believe in a material god who appears to everyone in the same long beard! Do they!?

Anonymous said...

Re: “It certainly looks like the design of the world is mathematical. The problem is what kind of math Nature obeys.”
Well, I wonder how much circular futility haunts analytical logicians, physicists, and philosophers. How much futility could reasonably be sidestepped by giving up the assumption that any “physical thing” actually exists in itself, apart from serving conventions and markers for the mathematically confined exchange of observations and ideas in relationships among such perspectives of consciousness as happen to share a same web or meta-holism?
As to whatever conventions exist, as conventions, do they not become blurry and ambiguous, when examined too closely, too distantly, or too much in the shadow or sway of other conventions? How we choose to communicate about conventions – in our beliefs, metaphors, models, and experiments – necessarily affects how we will interpret and be affected by “physical things.”
In respect that each of us shares the web of consciousness with every other perspective of such web, it may be that no one of us is potent to eliminate all the fuzziness in how “things” will unfold to the experience of our consciousness. Against parameters of the web, no one of us is omnipotent, yet no one of us is without power to inject choices that affect the synchronicity of the web. For us, there is availed meaning in receiving feedback and making choices, but we are not availed with foreknowledge or pre-ordainment.
Were we to look beyond “physical things,” we may get further along in the math of our analytical logic, to better appreciate that which may account for the obvious indeterminacy, incompleteness, and fuzziness of every so-called “physical thing” or particle. Doing so need in no way compromise our study of laws of nature that bind the web of consciousness with which we happen to participate and share in our relationships with all with whom we find ourselves able to communicate.
So what’s the difference, or the advantage in such a notion? There would be no disadvantage and no difference in our empirical and scientific pursuits. The advantage would be for enhancing spiritual insight and facilitating reasoned appreciation of the same Source of consciousness of which each perspective experiences a share.
This is less about “making metaphysics reputable again” than it is about reducing the hubris of analysts of materialism. It’s about getting this clue: You’re not God. That which is God may have capacity for communicating shapes, relations, and conventions that have few limits, except in concert with pure math.
The Higgs may be nothing more “physical” than a mathematically ordained relationship. The “territory” with which the math interacts may -- in its charge, capacity, and potential -- be beyond our modeling in physics. It may be that we only toy with such forms as happen to be availed to our perspectives, within any particular context or web that we happen to share.
It’s a pursuit; a pastime. We get to share music here for awhile. Then our consciousness moves on, on “little cat feet.”

Anonymous said...

From A.T. -- Re: "I've yet to read anything except hyperbole and superlative-spewing idol-worship over the amazing wonders we are about to discover. "
Not so. Tinkering with ideas, models, experiments and measurements does yield new technology, new music, and new wonders to behold. CT scans, MRI, high tech medical treatments and tests -- these were developed in concert with investigations concerning the model of particle physics. The tinkering and modeling have real, communicable, and wondrous results. Even so, although such investigations affect our ways for communicating about, and relating to, the conventions that appear as "our physics," the higher point is that they do not draw us any nearer to a complete theory of everything about physical reality. Rather, they give us new conventions, on top of which we can tinker and build ever new conventions, ad infinitum. The search for the ultimate particle is like the search for the end of the rainbow, albeit a search that yields new potentials for technology.
Still, science and empiricism are not tools for "filling gaps" in any theory for explaining all of physics, because there is no physics that is independent of unfolding experiences of consciousness. But for conscious observation in some form, however primitive (every necessary relationship entails a form of primitive recognition or conscious respect among the different components of the relationship), there is "no collapsing of the wave function" that could produce any particle. There is no ultimate God particle because there is no ultimate particle and because God is not a particle, but a facilitator of relationships. IMHO.