To function as an observer, one necessarily conceptualizes or focuses upon the difference between that with which one is then and there identifying as one's self versus all of that which one is considering as otherwise. In doing so, one necessarily considers all of that which one observes in a way that is partial, i.e., not inclusive of one's own mind, brain, or body. Thus, every observer's interpretation of reality is inherenly limited by partiality, depending on purpose and context. It appears that no mere mortal can enjoy a holistic, less than partial, view, interpretation, or belief regarding the whole of existence, reality, beingness, universe, or consciousness. Rather, whatever a mere mortal thinks, senses, or does, it will entail partiality, i.e., less than perfectly complete wholeness. Further, unless one takes a solipsistic view, this is compounded even more when one considers that every perspective of consciousness, regardless of how dim, functions under a similar burden. Thus, who but a child would presume that the synchronous effect of the interfunctioning of all perspectives, taken together, should render the pursuit of a material-explanation-for-everything other than a receding illusion?
It may not be needed to conceptualize mortals as being fallen to original sin, but it is naive to fail to recognize that we are incomplete and imperfect. Indeed, per Godel, this state of mortal affairs that entails incompleteness seems to be implicated in the very mathematics that is availed to mortals. In such light, it seems childish to presume that scientific tinkering can really lead us to perfect any so-called standard model, universal field theory, theory of everything, or complete explication of the ultimate building block of substance and mass (Higgs boson?).
Indeed, the various childish fascinations that flow from such presumptiveness seem to infest much of mankind's economics, politics, morality, and utopian ideals. Somehow, we need to temper our pursuits of theories about materials and facts with more respect for an inherent mystery regarding the potentially self-fulfilling empathy, character, and quality of consciousness --- apart from forced idealizations of quantitatively measurable, matter-based utopias and final field theories. We need to accord decent, empathetic respect for one another's dignity, as agents for the separately purposeful expression of consciousness. A social structure that unduly represses the need for such expression is an abomination to decency.
*****
Such a state of affairs seems to implicate a strange kind of self fulfilling illusion of unbounded freedom. It becomes plausible to believe that nearly every system that can be imagined may possibly be floated, confabulated, or believed. All that is needed is that enough perspectives of consciousness become inspired to believe and want to make it so. Example: Consciousness may unknowingly and unavoidably inject itself into virtual worlds whereby strange rules appear to control, even though all are derivative of higher (meta and unknown) rules that define the virtual system.
*****
Test: As a perspective of consciousness, can I --- artificially, completely, coherently, and consistently ---develop, or imagine how to develop, a non-trivial system, subset, or game, for which all expressions within it would be rigorously constrained to mathematical prinicples and rules that are entirely known to, and preset by, myself? If not, can I, with rigor, imagine how even God could do any such a thing? Can I imagine how I, or even God, could invent or design a system that would: (1) allow perspectives of myself to take on different roles for different avatars; (2) wherein each avatar of conscious expression would be separate from and unaware of the quality of conscious expression of each other avatar; (3) wherein all possible varieties of expression would be mathematically constrained to rigorously preset laws of substantive conservation? Even if such were possible, could a denizen-avatar of such a system, whose identity of partial separateness was entirely dependent on the system, ever reliably, scientifically, and mathematically comprehend the nature or character of any identity that is not confined to such a system, or even fully comprehend the applicable math?
My Answer: I don't think so. I think the partiality that is requisite to an expression of consciousness of that which is apart from its own consciousness will always necessarily implicate that no particular expression of consciousness can ever design a mathematically perfect, known, and internally coherent, consistent, and complete system. In other words, the problem of partiality will always contaminate each new attempt by a partial expression of consciousness to explicate or design a perfectly complete system that is not merely trite or circular.
Sub-question: May any particular or superior Avatar of consciousness ever defeat death or depletion, to acquire perpetual capacity or knowledge for how to transition or transcend back and forth between separate and independent systems that avail expressions of consciousness? If so, may IT instil and inspire in others an intuitive faith regarding such possibilities, without necessarily proving IT's basis, either logically or empirically?
My Answer: I don't know, but I intuit or believe, YES.
No comments:
Post a Comment