If I understand the idea, entropy relates to an increase in disorganization within a conserved system. Within a conserved system, a local decrease in disorganization should, eventually, average out to obey the law of entropy. Do we really have basis to believe that is the case? What if we open the system even further, to take the apparent cosmos as only one bubble among many worlds? Our bubble measures to obey the conservation of matter and energy. Our bubble is (supposedly) measurably finite yet unbounded. (If unbounded, a notion that the present, past, and future are already and eternally extant seems incompatible.) Suppose a cosmos where the measurable interfunctionings of apparent substance were merely signs of the cause, rather than the cause itself? I wonder whether such a cosmos would look much like the one we happen to inhabit? Is not perpetual conservation the sign of The Cause? Is not perpetual change the sign of Severable Perspectives of The Cause?
.
***********
.
It seems that all measurable significations are temporally transitional, always obeying a conserving balance, in respect of which they are born into manifestation and then are sacrificed into transitions. Conservation is constant, change is continuous. In that respect, if laws of nature are assumed to be an alternative to laws of an empathetic and reconciling Consciousness (Nature's God?), providing an indifferent mechanism for evolution by selecting among births and deaths among patterns of measurable expression, then what mechanism of change is not attributable to "natural selection" that is exclusive of God? In pretending to prove too much, doesn't a notion of indifferent natural selection self-disqualify as a meaningful alternative to empathetically guided selection under God's Nature?
.
***********
.
It seems that all measurable significations are temporally transitional, always obeying a conserving balance, in respect of which they are born into manifestation and then are sacrificed into transitions. Conservation is constant, change is continuous. In that respect, if laws of nature are assumed to be an alternative to laws of an empathetic and reconciling Consciousness (Nature's God?), providing an indifferent mechanism for evolution by selecting among births and deaths among patterns of measurable expression, then what mechanism of change is not attributable to "natural selection" that is exclusive of God? In pretending to prove too much, doesn't a notion of indifferent natural selection self-disqualify as a meaningful alternative to empathetically guided selection under God's Nature?
.
Behind big words and circles of confusion, doesn't godless natural selection reduce to a trivial notion that things change because they change, and that things obey conservation because they obey conservation? In what way may such thinking constitute a "causal" explanation?
.
If indifference is parsimony, then natural selection may avail a parsimonious way for explicating how measurable significations remain in balance. However, natural selection avails little, if anything, for explicating how any culture of perspectives of consciousness ought to help guide the unfolding balance. Measurable significations may be involved in guiding choices among an immeasurable range of alternatives, but they do not entirely rule how or why specific choices ought to be preferred or made. In that respect, the parsimony of natural selection is barren, and an "explanation" sponsored under its indifference seems inherently incomplete. In effect, sponsors of natural selection seem often to advocate that God's Nature "ought" to be assumed to play no role in ruling godless nature. Behind the various circles of thought and powers of self expression, there seem to abide advocacies by assumptions. Some wish, perhaps for temporary glory, to lord to others, or to reduce the lordship of others, to the effect that beingness is only the fruit of indifference and meaninglessness. Others don't.
.
************
.
.
REALITY: The Physics of mathematically measurable geometrics conserves and expresses interrelational vibrations, spins, waves, radiations, and bursts, organizing to record and preserve Information to the experience of perspectives of Consciousness. One may interpret such forms to assume there is a "real" basis for measuring interactions among coordinate expressions of particles. I join in that. I also assume there is a "real" basis for intuiting conscious empathy among sympathetic points of view. Is that unreasonable? Might the obvious only seem fantastical because som many have worked so hard to condition themselves to believe so obvious nonsense?
.
.
************
.
FORMS AND SIGNS: A system of mathematical relations among geometric forms can be conceptualized to consist of spins of nothing more than spins. Such a system, of which we happen to have been induced to share, appears to have been established. Who or what established and continues this common system, of which we happen to share? These spins do not exist independently, by themselves, nor are they the cause, by themselves, of the forms of which we are given to relate to as significations. The significations they impart are "real" to us only because we happen to be given a situation such that the very forms of our bodies are given to be expressed so as to interpret these spins within spins as "real." I doubt this conceptualiztion need do any damage to common or worthwhile notions of physics, biology, or psychology --- even those based in math.
.
It is often suggested that society would gravitate to sustainable civilization even without express notions of religion. I think, however, this depends on one's idea of "express" and "religion." A person, in his habits and inclinations, can be as spiritually or metaphysically receptive as a literalist believer. No doubt, many whistle past graveyards. Confucious taught a supposedly secular kind of system of civic goodness. Yet, he related it to a "mandate of heaven." I doubt he pictured heaven as a place of golden harps and choirs, but his idea still seems based in metaphysics. I suspect most political would-be philosophies, even Libertarianism, are likewise not completely walled from the metaphysical.
.
IMAGINATION RUN RIOT: The World may be analogized to an assimilated bubble of imagination run riot. The imagination of the world is reconciled to the assimilation, not to any particular perspective of it. The bubble conserves the limits. The particular perspectives stroke the bubble and seek to apprhend the trend of its unfolding assimilation of imagination..
REALITY: The Physics of mathematically measurable geometrics conserves and expresses interrelational vibrations, spins, waves, radiations, and bursts, organizing to record and preserve Information to the experience of perspectives of Consciousness. One may interpret such forms to assume there is a "real" basis for measuring interactions among coordinate expressions of particles. I join in that. I also assume there is a "real" basis for intuiting conscious empathy among sympathetic points of view. Is that unreasonable? Might the obvious only seem fantastical because som many have worked so hard to condition themselves to believe so obvious nonsense?
.
I rather doubt dogs believe there is no real basis for empathy within their packs, in order for their packs (doggie civilizations) to survive and flourish. I rather doubt they consider their inter-pack empathies to be mere random happenstance, otherwise unsupported by any meaningful reality. I rather doubt they seek to "inspire" or assimilate pack loyalties by teaching one another that reality holds nothing but indifference. Rather, "I," with help from those like me, will really design I. I will really do it in respect of, and in association with, a real ethereal aspect that avails and unfolds severable expressions that remain subject to conservational balancing.
.
BLACK HOLES: A black hole need not signify a violation of conservation. The general mass it seems to absorb is simply signified as having been generally spread and smeared out. A black hole may, however, warn intelligent organizations of avatars to keep their distance, and it may mark a locus within the geometric logic that we happen to have been induced to share where mortal interfunctioning with significations may not tread beyond..
6 comments:
1) I think I appreciate the concern to try to carry math and empiricism as far as they can carry us, and resorting to God and irreducible infinities often gets in the way of that. So I agree that metaphysics does not belong in those kinds of classes. (Well, at least not beyond the level of questioning whether there may be irreducible complexities and whether math and science can ever provide a complete explanation. I don't believe humility about limits of science is necessarily a bad thing.)
.
2) Extraterrestrial gamma radiation does seem a likely candidate for inducing mutations (and one that does not initially seem altogether favorable to an idea of a contemporaneously active God).
.
3) Regarding design at the cellular level, not necessarily God: There are so many ideas about the nature or character of "God" that the concept is difficult to discuss without talking past one another. I don't think of God as a control freak who wants to create, judge, and commit people who please or disturb Him for eternity, either to choirs of angels or to flames of hell. I don't think much of eternal salvation or heaven.
.
I know little of Confucianism, but I watched a short presentation today. I think Confucius' philosophy would be consistent with the notion many people have that society would gravitate to sustainable civilization even without express notions of religion. I think, however, this depends on one's idea of "express" and "religion." A person, in his habits and inclinations, can be as spiritually or metaphysically receptive as a literalist believer. Confucius taught a supposedly secular system of civic goodness. Yet, he related it to a "mandate of heaven." While I doubt he pictured heaven as a place of golden harps and choirs, his idea of goodness still seems to me to be based in metaphysics. I suspect most political would-be philosophies, even of Libertarianism, are likewise not as "walled" from the metaphysical as "wall proponents" may believe.
My idea of "God" would relate more to something like a superior to a Conscious Internet. I don't know what consciousness at that level would be like, nor whether it could be ascertained or communicated with. I do think some kind of generally inculcated respect for the possibility of it could be helpful for inspiring civic goodness. IAE, I think ridicule of religion for inspiring assimilation of civic goodness has not been good for America. So maybe I have become a bit like a beginner at Confucianism --- except that I don't quite consider it godless.
.
3) Regarding design at the cellular level: Organs of our bodies effect complex chemical calculations far below the level of our conscious awareness. I don't think these kinds of balancing operations are made merely by "math in itself." However, a system of mathematical relations among geometric forms can be conceptualized to consist of spins of nothing more than spins. Such a system, of which our bodies and minds happen to have been induced to share, appears to be established and conserved. Who or what established and continues this common system, of which we happen to share? These spins do not exist independently, by themselves, nor are they the cause, by themselves, of the forms of which we are given to relate to as significations. The significations they impart are "real" to us only because we happen to be given a situation such that the very forms of our bodies (and cells) are expressed so as to interpret these spins within spins as "real." (I doubt such a conceptualization need do any damage to common or worthwhile notions of physics, biology, or psychology --- even those based in math. What it may do, however, is avail a way of thinking about and inspiring common respect for interconnections among perspectives of consciousness at a most fundamental level.)
.
4) If each perspective of consciousness is an iteration of a common quality of consciousness, a question begged is: How is a perspective induced to adopt a severable system of spins within spins as its body or center for its point of view? That is a problem I suspect we will resolve, in part, but I doubt its resolution should significantly alter a decent notion of "God." As we resolve that problem, I suspect evolution will partake far more of design than of randomness. At that point, "theories" about how evolution had been induced before such time may become more of historical interest than scientific interest. To me, a God like question is, has Something, unknown to us, already partaken of that role? That question might not ever be answered. Even so, it sometimes raises hair on the backs of necks.
The idea seems to be that the driving principle of evolution (survival of the fittest to replicate) of biological beings, at least in our little neighborhood, presently just happens to be superior to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This seems not altogether unlike the kind of magical thinking science-heads are so quick to accuse metaphysicians of. To me, the entropy thing, as a fundamental and universal law of "Reality" --- applicable alike to measurable substance, information, and evolution of consciousness --- seems paradoxical. Heat energy dissipates: I think I get that. Disorganization increases: That gets me scratching my head. Ok, atoms dissipate, space expands, galaxies lose contact with one another, etc. But what about the organization of Information and Conscious Beings? Do those organizations "really" become more disorganized? Survival of the fittest to replicate seems to be applicable not just to biological patterns, but to all patterns of expression, even inanimate and fractal patterns. It's sometimes said that there is no progress to evolution, only a dissipating unfolding. Maybe. But I don't quite get how anyone but a "backwards-reasoner" could so blithely say such a thing, based on sciences of energy versus sciences of information.
The outbound-space-expanding-thing also seems paradoxical. If one adopts a point of view, one observes that one's influence tends to dissipate, the further away from oneself things are seen to occur. However, there is no favored point of view within the cosmos. No objective "center." Rather, one can take oneself as an arbitrary center and notice that everything in every direction seems to be dissipating. But this seems to apply as well to every available perspective of consciousness. I doubt any perspective can find or measure itself to be "at the edge of the cosmos." It is often said that neither space nor time is real, but only space-time is real. I sometimes wonder whether the independent reality of space-time is also a stubborn illusion, that can make no sense without adopting a point of conscious view. If so, consciousness would seem to have to have been with space-time "from the beginning." Insofar as consciousness seems to relate to capacity to communicate significations among severable, adoptable, empathetically-connected perspectives, I begin to wonder whether the "reality" of entropic disorganization may have more to do with a superior reality: web overlaps of fluxing empathies that are "outbound" only in relative appearance.
When it's convenient to a model for some purposes, space and time are said to be just stubborn illusons, so space-time is thought to be the reality. But, when convenient to other models or problems, it seems space is said to be real, in the sense of really expanding. Sometimes, it's said that no measure of time, by itself, at least as measured from any arbitrarily selected locus, is favored. Yet, when cosmologists apply time to the cosmos as a whole, the "age of the universe" since the Big Bang is thought to be measurable. I doubt anyone can truly claim not to be perplexed about some of these stances of convenience, even though they can be astonishingly precise for practical purposes and local technologies.
There is not enough canvas in my belief system to make a tent big enough to cover rampant foolishness.
Since Lefties are entertained by Animal Farm, even as they fail to see themselves in it, it's probably time to pull out Koestler's Darkness at Noon. Even then, given the closed and self centered universe of Lefties, who pretend to be champions of the collective, the message will likely fall beyond their capacity. Indeed, the message will not just fall; it will be twisted. Recall when Starr was hounding Clinton. It was not as if Clinton had not brought much travail upon himself by his own unlimited capacity for self justification. In Clinton's closed, upside down, high school mind, he compared himself to Rubashov, the tragic character in Darkness at Noon. Rubashov had spent his life using the socialist end to justify every means. Rubashov realized that he had not been an innocent to his own destruction. Clinton and Obama, however, seem incapable of that realization. Rather, they will use any means to weaken and finish American exceptionalism and human self determination. They seem incapable of considering that, perhaps, they should not undertake to push God to the side and yoke the collective to elitist rule, as if such rule were some kind of personal right. They will only pull God out as a stunt, when necessary to divert gullibles from noticing their pagan agenda. Instead of affirming the God given right of each person to pursue his own happiness, Obama and Clinton want to affirm the state given right of hierarchical elitists to (pretend to) pursue socialist utopia in the imposition of collectivist order. This is indeed darkness!
We measure spins of nothing more than spins (no "thing-initself" can be identified as spinning) and vibrations of nothing more than vibrations. Then we rationalize that we must be spinning and vibrating some measureable, inanimate, and unconscious "thing" -- which we often call substance. But what if appearance of substance (indeed, even of spatial geometry) is merely sigificatory of communications and feedback among qualities and perspectives of a more ethereal reality, which reconciles as what we may call a field of consciousness? Were such apprehension shared, what would accompany it? Such apprehension would seem not to imbalance science, math, or logic in the least. However, may apprehension of it qualitatively better affect apprehensions of empathy and morality? Suppose perspectives of consciousness can no more be induced to organize free of conservational constraint than can dirt. Dirt is constrained in its measurable signification to a law of conservation. If consciousness is not constrained to measure, then may it yet be constrained to give back qualitatively, to balance meta scales of moral justice? If we do not obey the golden rule in life, may some karmic unfolding of purposefulness be balanced or reconciled to give back in death what we have borrowed in life? Which is "really" more parsimonious to a need to model both substance and purposefulness: (1)to assume that random, chaotic interactions among measures of spins of space evolve to manifest such patterns as happen to be most fit to replicate within their contexts; or (2) to assume that spins of space are guided as significatory communications among such competitive and cooperative perspectives as are most fit to a reconciling field of conscious purposefulness?
Post a Comment