Thursday, July 7, 2011


Regarding Plato's allegory of the cave:  The only aspects of Reality that are quantifiable are things expressed in terms of relationships to the caveAll that is non-trivial (trivial pertains to aspects of mathematics whose proofs follow from their assumptions), quantifiable, and therefore restricted to substance (whether of matter or energy) conveys only a stream of relative pictures or metaphors that, at the end of analysis restricted to themselves, necessarily remains incomplete, incoherent, and inconsistentSubstance consists of relationships with recordable sensibility, not of independent bits of exhaustive, mutually exclusive particles, summed within some closed, universal, set piece.  Yes, tinkerings and appearances continue to flow forth, for which imagination avails often ingenious rationalizations, which may be made astonishingly practical to contrived ends.  Such tinkerings, however, will never avail a quantitatively complete, coherent, and consistent explication of Reality itself, or of its potential.

A problem inherent to mathematical logicians is that they often fool themselves by taking an assumption as proof.  It is absurd to assume Reality is entirely measurable and quantifiable, and then to demand that anyone of a different view prove it in respect of the mathematically quantifiable.  It is to demand an inherent contradiction:  quantitative proof that there abide real qualities which defy complete reduction to quantification.  When bivalent proof of trivalent beingness is absent, as it necessarily will be, it is folly to congratulate onself for the superiority of bivalently mathematical presumptiveness.  Those of insight immediately sense and decline such invitations to errands for fools.  For that which is inside information, intuitive and qualitative, the EVIDENCE, of course, will be intuitive and qualitative --- not empirical or mathematical.

If a non-trivial, complete, consistent, and coherent Truth or Reality abides, it must abide in connection with more than that which is merely quantifiable.  It necessitates consideration of that which clearly presents (to innate intuition, not to demonstrable empiricism) as being qualitative, beyond quantification.

Consider three obvious fundaments of the Source implicated in the presentation of Truth and the conservation of Reality:
(1) Substance, (2) Information, and (3) Consciousness.
In other words, (1) Substance, (2) Representation of Substance, and (3) Awareness of Representation of Substance.
In other words, (1) (quantifiable forms and representations of matter and energy), (2) (qualitative representations of forms [in-form] of representations of matter and energy), and (3) (awareness or sensation of in-forms of representations of matter and energy).  After all, how could patterns evolve in respect of their relational associations if they could not sense, apprehend, or somehow be aware of one another?  Indeed, except in relative, sensible association, no pattern can be thought meaningfully to exist.  All that substantively abides consists of relationships, not things in themselves.  (To what realm of non-beingness are those patterns confined which were only possible but not recorded or sensed?)

Substance may be conceptualized as being monovalently finite in actuality, even if infinite in potentiality for occupying space-time or cycles thereof.  Information may be conceptualized as being bivalently infinite in respect of an infinite variety of potential ways to figuratively or otherwise represent Substance.  Consciousness may be conceptualized as being trivalently infinite in respect of an infinite vairety of potential ways to be aware of and apprehend representations of substance in the openness of space-time.  If the Universe is conceptualized as encompassing the potentiality of, and often the actuality or manifestation of, Substance, Information, and Consciousness, then the Source of the Universe of Reality presents and conserves an interfunctioning of aspects that are finite, open, and infinite.  The non-trivial Truth of such a trivalent Reality cannot be reduced by any one of its three fundaments to bivalently measured quantification.

Reality does not avail a luxury of appealing only to indifferent, objective, quantifiable Substance.  Reality also requires of us an intuitive, caring involvement that cannot be objectively pigeon-holed.  A Substance-monist puts more faith in indifferent pre-determinism (believing that "God does not play dice").  An Information-dualist puts more faith in random representationalism (believing that "God does play dice").  A Consciousness-tri-alist puts more faith in empathetic moral guidance (believing that "God loads the dice that God plays with").  (A merging-consciousness-tri-alist believes the upshot of merging interests of perspectives of consciousness loads the dice.)

Regardless, all who partake of Reality are required to partake of a trinity:  the science of Substance, the art of Information, and the passion of Consciousness.  Thus abides the fundaments of our essence.  To fight our essence is to make ourselves and our society sick.  As a sign of sickness in our society, consider how the most corrupt are more and more found most to profit.  Our present path may avail individuals in a short run, but it will not sustain lasting, decent civilization.  A decent society should inculcate the good of its enlightened community in order that the good of its individual members may be enjoyed; a decent society should not allow contrivance of the good of its enlightened community in order to serve only the wishes of its most sociopathically false elite.  The moral goal should be (and eventually will be): decent freedom of opportunity for self expression among enlightened individuals; not sacrifice of individual minds to forced equalization of results.


Confidence in bivalent, either-or, true-false analysis of our beingness, under a law of non-contradiction, would be greater --- provided the domains or fundaments of Substance, Information, and Consciousness remained as separate, not inter-transposable factors.  However, we have no empirical way to prove such separateness and non-intertransposition is the case.  Indeed, it seems counterintuitive to suppose such three fundaments should interrelate or interfunction without inter-transposing.  Indeed, why should such fundaments abide, if they do not inter-react, depending on observational point of view and shared frame of reference?  That the fundaments do inter-react is consistent with empiricism, in that tests confirm that the collapse and formation of material particles out of waves of energy depend on interactions with, contextual proximity of, and attentions of, measuring observers.

If Substance, Information, and Consciousness do interfunction, in qualitative ways and behind measurable scenes, so that any apparent finiteness of Substance is conserved for every point and context of measure, then, for all we know (and as seems intuitively likely), there are qualitative inter-transpositions that yet preserve quantitative measures of Substance.  Thus, it does not appear that mere bivalent analysis, while often astonishingly practical, will ever explicate Substance, in itself, in a way that is complete, coherent, and consistent.  Indeed, the impossibility of such a synthesis seems foretold, consistent with limitations of mathematics, per Godel.

It appears that Conservation of Substance depends upon a guiding pre-apprehension of awareness, in order that patterns that can be meaningfully and measurably related to can collapse and form.  It appears also that Conservation of Conscious awareness depends upon reliability in the presentation of forms.  Indeed, to what extent is the conservation and indifference of science and substance dependent upon the sponsor or upshot of our common, merged faith, shared Source, and shared frame of reference?

Depending on purpose, point of view, and context, reflection suggests that models of conception can apply equally well, regardless of whether Substance is considered to be reliably and indifferently pre-determined, indifferently random, or caringly guided based on upshots that merge and arise out of evolutionary competitions among perspectives of consciousness.

Thus, depending upon purpose and context, I think Conscious belief does have direct effects on Substance, but I also think such belief is supported by clear intuition, rather than by mathematically-based empirical testing.  Indeed, how could statistical testing ever confirm whether or how the quality or fervor of one's paranormal faith, belief, or pre-apprehension may directly affect substantive results?  After all, if a set of believers were suspected to have shown paranormal effect, then, to the extent they were shown to have lost such effect, it could not very well be determined whether the loss of effect were due to mere chance or to loss of faith.  In other words, before or after chance seems favorable, belief may increase, and before or after chance seems indifferent or disfavorable, belief may diminish.  Thus, a sort of uncertainty principle precludes empirical determination of whether the relation between faith and chance is causal or merely associational.  Thus, validity in one's worldview or faith regarding general moral guidance can be real enough, when related to one's unfolding context and purpose.

If not quantifiable, may the interfunctioning of Consciousness, Information, and Substance be indirectly qualified, perhaps estimated, even conjured, depending on purpose, perspective, and context?  May the receptiveness of Substance to inter-associational, inter-functioning fields of Consciousness and Information have something to do with what we have come to model as cosmological constants, quantum fuzz, Higgs bosons, virtual particles, and dark matter and energy?

Most of our universe's shared potential for the measuring of unfolding Substance and its continuing generating and storing of Information does not necessitate the associative involvement or superintending of Consciousness, beyond innate, minimal kinds and and degrees of pattern-sensate reactiveness, so that the higher conceptual guidance that accompanies SUBSEQUENTLY WILLED (loaded dice playing) choice-making is not there needed.  Rather, there is a sort of autopilot of Consciousness there at work, secondary to the fact that no part of finite Substance exists, except in association with some pre-instilled, PRE-WILLED (dice playing), pre-created (not dice playing) aspect for such autopiloting sensate-reactiveness of relating patterns of Substance.  God does not laboriously yoke higher consciousness to deciding minutiae.  However, no minutiae exists, apart from its patterns' being innately related to the low level of awareness that permeates the sensate-reactiveness of each and every unfolding pattern of Substance.  But for a permeating, innate capacity for unfolding patterns to sense and be aware of one another, all patterns would be without non-absurd existence.  That is, they would be non-patterns of patterns, or non-existing existence.

HOLISTIC GOD:  This begs a very significant question:  It seems reasonable to conceptualize that the unfolding of Substance near the realm of the human field of consciousness is necessarily consistent with the synchronized upshot of variously merged apprehensions, wills, and choices of various high level perspectives within such field of consciousness.  However, this could not explain how it is that we share a universe that sequenced from a commonality shared to a singularity, for which every pattern of Substance is pre-set with a capacity for sensate-reactiveness.  Does this make reasonable a belief in a creating, guiding, holistic, God?!

There abide quantifiably conserved and measurable aspects, which we call Substance.
All such measurements (whether taken by instruments or by senses) entail potential for relating or representing each pattern, locus, or quality of Substance against all others.
Such measurements as can be made for relating representations of interactions among patterns of Substance constitute Information.
For patterns to change and interact, it is necessary that they have capacity to sense or recognize one another.
The capacity in each pattern to randomly sense, represent, and react to another can be conceptualized as implicating a permeating involvement with an innate, low level of awareness (or consciousness).
In most aspects, such conscious capacity for allowed parameters of patterns to sense and react with one another is pre-set, having unfolded in respect of a shared singularity (or Big Bang).  We do not know the Source of such Big Bang, but we reasonably believe all that subsequently unfolds is derivative of its occurrence or creation.  To some, this seems reasonably to entail God.
A higher level of conscious observance, perhaps arising from guided evolution, can be reasonably conceptualized as entailing awareness of self, with subsequent or evolving capacity to experience non-pre-set, wilful apprehension, empathy, and choice making.
Such higher levels of consciousness, especially when merged in concert, enjoy capacity to divert unfolding patterns of reactions from their random paths.
Thus, it appears reasonably consistent and coherent to conceptualize and believe that God has availed us a universe within which to experience empathy and will. i.e., moral responsibility.

@Thus spake Dlanorrenrag.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Regarding Governor Perry: His adventures trying to sell out Texas toll road infrastructure to foreign investors seems not unlike his co-state adventurer's (W's) exploits in trying to sell port inspection rights to Dubai. Although I'm only 1/64th Cherokee, I'm not unmindful that our politicians and their apologists of economics often want to sell our country out to international corporatists about as fast as former Chiefs sold out Indian lands. Indians' choices were few: join white civilization, go down fighting, or sell out. Present leaders' only "excuses consist in moral avarice, ignorance. or cowardice. We should watch their hands rather than listen to their blandishments. So far, Bachmann seems to be the only candidate who understands the imporatnce of: national integrity and infrastructure; the family as the basic unit of decent civilization; and respect for a reconciler of higher empathies. Every alternative to Bachmann points towards throwing individual freedom and dignity into the maw of an international hierarchy of corporate wise guys. Not to worry. In trade, we will always have Mickey Mouse.