Ancient Puzzle

(click title above)
PUZZLER:

An Ancient Puzzle:

Metaphysics:

Some say, for empirical purposes, we should not be concerned with that which is metaphysical, which they often “define” as that which is beyond physical observation, detection, measure, prediction, or statistical analysis.

Such a definition affords a practical point of beginning, by which to attempt to apply it in specific, non-trivial cases. As will be seen, however, the devil is in the details, such that no non-trivial application of such definition appears to be complete.

Regardless, many say “intuition” of the metaphysical, as a common attractor for bringing us together, in mutual and humble respect, can and should inspire empathies for helping to lead us to more civilizing mores and traditions.

Bright Line:

Regardless, most of us seek a bright line test by which to distinguish what is metaphysical from what is physical, and, perhaps, by which to distinguish that which is only epiphenomenal of either (or both).

Consciousness:

Before long, budding meta-physicists and physicists become concerned with how to categorize a common condition, i.e., Consciousness, especially Consciousness that is self aware, while remaining unable presently to know or predict how it should apply (or “will”) its consciousness with regard to parameters availed for its future experiences or “choices.”

Morality:

In respect of consciousness and choice making, one becomes confronted with choices regarding how one “should” choose to define and respect that which separates the metaphysical (perhaps the subjective, imaginary, intuitive) from the physical (perhaps the objective, empirical, measurable)?

Defining:
So, with regard to non-trivial concerns, the puzzle deepens. One begins to ask: By what logic or system can we conceptualize any definition for any non-trivial thing or idea in a way that is clear, cataloguing, consistent, coherent, and complete?


LIMITS OF LOGIC:
In trying to conceptualize and communicate non-trivial definitions, in many respects, we soon bump up against limits and problems and concerns of logic and math, such as:
1) Circular limits on trivial definitions for communicating non-trivial ideas [Wittgenstein’s Tractatus];
2) Paradoxes relating to: mathematical infinities and the canceling of levels of infinities; how mathematical forms assume patterns by which they can be pressed to “recognize” and react to one another; nothingness vs. somethingness; and virtual particles emerging out of “nothingness” [identity ex nihilo];
3) Incompleteness inherent in logical sets respecting systems of categorization [Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem];
4) Irreducible unpredictability derivative of Chaos and Butterfly effects [irreducible complexity];
.
5) Quantum uncertainties regarding fundamental particles and measurements [Schrödinger’s Cat];
6) Measuring problems which affect that which is being consciously measured [Heisenberg uncertainty principle];
7) Apparently irreducible difficulties in measuring and predicting consciousness and choice making [unpredictability of free will];
8) Our fundamental dependence upon consciousness, whose essence seems to remain derivative of a “known unknowable,” making it reasonable to question how we can possibly expect, merely with “either-or” logic of the excluded middle, to make it less unknown [practical limits of logic vs. necessity of intuition];
9) Subjective uncertainties derivative of fluxing of separate points of view and frames of reference [limits of cognitive resonance and accuracy of empathy];
10) Qualitative differences in perceptions of Qualia in respect of differences in life-path accumulations of informational perspectives [cognitive qualia];
11) Artificiality of perceptual and interpretative impositions on features for defining and separating parts [cognitive conditioning];
12) Continuous telescoping of each idea not yet defined, to overrun each advancing effort to define it [cognitively perpetual incompleteness];
13) Capacity of whole mind, almost unnoticeably, to alternate among inconsistent or incoherent perspectives of parts [cognitive dissonance];
14) Lag time between change of will and brain’s appreciation and rationalization of decision (compare dreaming , when a dream, like a movie, may seem preset, as if in advance of the dreamer’s following, for the dreamer to judge and appreciate as if lagging from behind) [mind vs. brain];
15) Incapacity of particular perspectives to apprehend the whole [Whitehead problem of parts vs. whole];
16) Lack, as mortals, to direct access to Meta-Source, Meta-Consciousness, Meta-Purpose, Meta-Conceptualization, or Meta-Math [problem of regressive “meta’s”];
17) Holistic or Final Synchronicity of “physical” Causes, with no measurable source of the set of particular Causes [final cause];
18) Conundrum of Awareness of Consciousness of Self, as a separate Identity, rather than as an Identity of Indiscernibles [Awareness of Self];
19) That no perspective, while entirely defined or limited to one universe, is allowed to peer beyond or outside the space-time of such universal holography [Normalization to Centrality of Perspective];
20) That mathematical Information and sensory stimuli may sometimes pertain only within a particular field of experience for a particularly compartmentalized “holon” (level and layer of whole-part), subject to a hierarchy of other vertical and horizontal holons [Compartmentalization of Experience];
21) Ambiguity of Consciousness, regarding whether and how physics generates epiphenomena of consciousness, or whether and how consciousness generates epiphenomena of physics [Hard Problem of Consciousness];
22) Conundrum of how Meta-Source images math, in association with what “substance” [How to meaningfully relate what is beyond measure to what is measurable]; and
23) Uncertainty of purpose of Meta-Source [Purpose vs. Progress; Random vs. Chosen Evolution].

Angst:
Where does all this empirical uncertainty and incompleteness take us? It seems to take us to a “place” of existential angst, where we become considerably less certain of any bright line by which to distinguish between the Reality of what is “physically accessible” to a scientific or empirical method of Indifference versus what is “metaphysically accessible” only to a holistically-intuitive, self-reflective, and empathetic-Caring of consciousness.

Metaphysics of Caring:
To me, all this leads to receptive, Holistic Intuition that “physics” of Indifferent nature is merely a convenient hindsight representation, and that metaphysics of Caring consciousness is synchronized among varying perspectives, which emerge in concert or interaction with Something else (God).

Replicating Algorithms:
I believe all our differently conscious perspectives of “physics” emerge in derivation of a Meta-Source of Consciousness, exercising power to enspirit perspectives out of nothing more than capacity to image a mathematics of self-replicating and building algorithms.

Fusion of Physics and Metaphysics:
Accordingly, for all non-trivial and practical applications, I believe physics and metaphysics are FUSED. That is, no means is availed to mortals to impose any absolute, bright-line of distinction between the apparent Indifference of physics and the Caring of metaphysically empathetic consciousness.
In other words, no mortal attempt to define any non-trivial thing or idea will ever be so complete in itself as to be constrained within “bright lines.”
In other words, metaphysics relates not to a withdrawn Deity, but to an interacting, caring God.

Hope:
Appreciating the FUSION of metaphysics and physics hardly cures existential angst, but may leverage faith and hope, which are often self-fulfilling for civilizing purposes.

****

Inducing Mathematical Telescoping Of Physical Science And Art:

Platonic Existence Of Qualia:

As I imagine a clown balloon, being caused to twist and bulge, my brain pictures the balloon as a result of my many disparate synapses assembling something which is not a really a clown balloon, but something for me to interpret as a picture in my mind of something having the quality of a clown balloon.

So, regarding the qualia of such a clown balloon as I imagine it: Where, if anywhere, does that exist?

Such a mental image of mine does not exist in another person’s brain. But, may it somehow “exist” in a realm of potential, un-manifested possibilities? Is there a realm of Higher Consciousness, whose essence has planned and availed the storing of images of platonic forms of un-manifestations, by the leveraging of its higher essence with layers of algorithmic functions of math, which is not generally availed for objective manifestation to mortals?

May some mechanism ever be invented for mapping the quality of a clown balloon as I may image it in my mind and simultaneously projecting it upon a three dimensional holograph, so that others may objectively perceive that which I am only imagining?

Perhaps, to some extent. But I doubt the mapping of imagined and fluxing shapes, forms, colors, textures, and associated feelings (and “will”) could be entirely accurate.

After all, my imagination is built not just on synapses, but also on a fluxing history of information stored generally within my brain (and wider mind), including a history of emotional associations. So, how could any such a physical projection also project my subjective and fluxing feelings to the objectively consistent understanding of other persons, whose own interpretations and perceptions will likewise be separately clouded in different and fluxing ways through the lenses of their own histories? Further, the very act of mapping and measuring the images in my mind will to some extent alter them, perhaps both to my interpretation as well as to the interpretation of each observer.

Teleological Aspects Of Science:

I suspect it is in The Panoply of consciously willed choices, which affects how mathematical functions merging on mathematical functions are accumulated, by which our telescoping of “objective” science is directed and made manifest.

After all, who has not noticed the eerie timeliness by which new discoveries in math seem to create new possibilities in science and technology?

Higher Science:

In other words, how objective, really, are “laws of physics”?

Higher Evolving Art:

Perhaps, our one universe is based on God’s “playfully” synchronizing exploration of artistic possibilities associated with building upon one fundamental, otherwise self-replicating, algorithmic formula.

Perhaps, each of us will eventually subsume into a holistic perspective, where the information regarding each of our life’s experiences will be re-considered and re-combined, for further exploration at variously interesting and overlapping levels and degrees.

If God, to God’s satisfaction, exhausts such artistic possibilities, perhaps the essential formula as applied to God’s essential Mind may be recombined or remixed, to begin each new universal system, to be based on such new, re-combined formula, as such new universe’s systemic basis, perhaps with its own coordinate counterparts of entropy, space, time, matter, energy, and associated relational constants.

Regardless, each of our holographic perspectives seems to be derivatively epiphenomenal of a Holistic Perspective, or Synchronization, for imaging a fundamental formula or unity, in respect of which each of us appreciates that we share one universe at a time.

God need not make all possibilities manifest to all perspectives at all times. Rather, God may choose when and where each perspective and possibility may be made manifest within God’s synchronizing system. The quality of holistic and holographic empathy each of us gives expression to may be evaluated to God’s artistic, holistic taste. Of such empathies, some may be carried forward into re-sequencing manifestations, and some perhaps not.

****

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/change_some_may_not_want_you_t.html:

Gene Man wrote:

Unless 'pure math' can conjure up mass, then that argument won't get it. Math is a symbol or map and as Korzybski taught, "the map is not the territory" -- symbols will not produce reality.
It's reasonable to assume that the particle zoo will forever increase, but there are grounds for doubting this, as explained in the book I referenced, "The Atheist and the God Particle".
Either you believe that consciousness is 100 percent non-physical, or else you concede that consciousness interacts with the physical world. If you agree that it does, you might be surprised by some of the implications, covered in the book.

****

Appreciate your reference. I'll read that book.
I do recognize the concern, regarding pure math conjuring up mass.
I recognize that we mortals cannot produce physical reality out of mere symbols.
At first blush, it seems counterintuitive that even God could.
But, if the Higgs Boson (or Group) is not found, won't resort have to be made to a mathematical function, to account for how mass is transferred?

In any event, in the experiment brewing in my own mind, I am not quite ready to throw in the towel.
Note that I do not posit pure math-in-itself doing the conjuring.

What I "posit" is a holistic Source of the conjuring, One I doubt any mortal, particular perspective will ever confine to a mapped explanation.

Even so, a set of fundamental mathematical relationships does appear to govern the universe we share.

And, as to the math part, we very well may eventually reduce fundamental aspects of that set to a single, unifying, fundamental, self-replicating algorithm.

Provided, I do not believe we can reduce Consciousness within that algorithm.

Rather, for math to conjure would seem to call for a Mathematician.

As to whether some Meta Source of Consciousness ("God") may be the conjurer, able to conjure our perspectivistic translations of "physics" by imaging a system of fundamental algorithms for building algorithms for building yet more algorithms, I doubt we, in applying our limited perspectives of "physics," are equipped to pass judgment on whether God could do that.

As I see it, the problem consists in:
1) not implicating any more work for "Goddidit" than is necessary to a most consistent "solution";
2) reducing an explanation (mathematical) of our individual perspectives to a simplest form that will still serve all fundamental concerns, both "physical" (empirical) and metaphysical (spiritual).

I am a lawyer, hardly a physicist or scientist.
I am trained to have a B.S. detector, so I am not "candy" for narrow experts.
Even though it sometimes takes awhile for me to detect my own B.S.
I will brew and read the book.

Re: "Either you believe that consciousness is 100 percent non-physical, or else you concede that consciousness interacts with the physical world."

I am not so sure. I believe there is a Meta Source of Consciousness. It may be "physical" to its own understanding, even though its thing-in-itself physicality is beyond our limited, particular comprehension. That is, IT may be comprised of "substance" that, in imaging mathematical relationships, has capacity to present "physics" to our appearance. If so, to us, at least while we remain mortal, I do not see why IT would be other than metaphysical, or "100% non-physical."

If IT is holistic, its "Consciousness" may be so far greater than ours as to be beyond our compare. For all we know, its Consciousness may "interact" with the physical world as is presented to our limited translations in a way that is beyond our physical or empirical detection, i.e., by imaging the coordination of a holistic, synchronous, orchestra of inter-functioning algorithmic perspectives of itself.

The trick would be in math; the trickster would be the Mathematician. Leveraging a built up, heirarchical system of math, God would not need to be operating "on the seat of his pants while sweating every last conscious choice" among parameters of possibilities for every last nit, bit, and quanta of our particular interactions.

I do not "posit" such notions as hypothesis for physical or empirical testing. This is because any such testing would be beyond us; plus I believe "physics" is epiphenomenal to God imaging and leveraging math.
I posit such notions only as possible bases for rationalizing a source of higher empathy, as a basis for inspiring civilizing and moral cooperation. I recognize that I am rationalizing mainly from intuitive evidence, rather than reasoning from "physical" evidence.

It is the mathematical implications that may be somewhat more testable.
If a mathematical function can be useful for explaining mass transfer, that may begin to show a way.
Next, mankind will need to reduce a NQTOE (not quite theory of everything), to try to map, model, or account for all "physical" measurements as derivative of a single fundamental, apparently self-replicating algorithm.

I say "apparently self-replicating," because I believe the evolutionary path taken by such replications would still require a synchronizing source of directive choice (aka, God) among all possible parameters.

If so, each of us is but an expression of self-reflective perspectives of such Holistic Synchronizer of Choices for “playing” with implications emerging out of the interactions of mathematical algorithms. In a way, we are each a perspective of a caring God.

It is in hindsight to the past that "physics" appears to be "indifferent."
In respect of choices for how our future will unfold, the Synchronizer is empathetically caring.
But even the Synchronizer seems to feel constrained, to synchronize with respect to what we perceive to have been the past.
That is, each new building up of presently expressed algorithmic information, while availing tools for choosing among parameters for the future, is limited in respect of the previously existing system of algorithms upon which it is built.
The past is indifferent, but the future is wild.

****

Re: “It's reasonable to assume that the particle zoo will forever increase, but there are grounds for doubting this, as explained in the book I referenced, "The Atheist and the God Particle".”

Well, so long as our basic model remains mistaken with regard to the reality that underlies our experiences (apart from God), whatever the descriptions of forces and particles that our measurements and calculations may point to, as we try to derive them consistent with such mistaken model, will necessarily remain incomplete and mistaken, and will change with each newly substituted, incorrect, and ambiguous hypothesis or model, never to produce an accurate, complete, exhaustive, mutually exclusive set or coherent inventory of fundamentals.

That is, so long as we adhere to inconsistent and incoherent models of the holistic reality that holds and encompasses our fundamental set of particulars, we are hardly likely to derive consistency within such a set among the component parts themselves.

****

Concern: Suppose some meta-substance or Mind, by itself conjuring with pure math, were postulated to account for all of physics, as secondarily derivative of such Mind of Math as it conjures with math.

This, then, would seem to beg a question: Trivial formulas deal only with numbers. So, how could any sort of non-trivial formula be of any practical or meaningful application, unless its numbers and functions could be related to “things” (like dollars, grams, energy, distance, time, or other commonly experienced aspects of a physical nature)? How could mortals find it useful to try to formulize whether physical things (or perceptions of physical things) can be derived only out of pure math?

Well, there may be paths for wrestling with this seeming conundrum.

For one thing, if the Higgs Boson (or Group) is not found, won't resort somehow have to be made to a purely mathematical function, to account for how mass is transferred?

For another thing, suppose the “thing” to which our most fundamental algorithm applies, upon which all other functions are built, were a “unit” of “empty” space? After all, what space, void, or nothingness is “really” devoid of somethingness?

Until such “unit” is solved for, it may be considered unknown. Meanwhile, taking all other “physical” things we perceive, we may relate each of them towards trying to adduce the parameters they may share in common with the postulated fundamental “unit of space.”

Eventually, we may adduce a fundamental, “building block algorithm” that applies to each fundamental “unit of space.”

In other words, each unit of space within our universe may be equal to all others in potential for expressing phenomena to be translated by forms of conscious perspectives. Each unit may capacitate differently observed features or aspects of density, inertia, mass, spin, charge, polarity, radioactivity, transference, or radiation, and yet remain equal in potential with all others.

The potential of each unit of space as it is expressed may relate to how it is relatively measured or observed by each form of conscious perspective.

****
CONCEPTUALIZING ---- MYTH MAKING AND JOSEPH CAMPBELL; INTELLECTUAL INTERPRETATIONS OF HINDUISM; VEDANTI:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfN3BKkWW8k&feature=related

REFLEXIVE UNIVERSE:
Holonic Functions --- Holons nesting in a Holarchy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUXkKZsDChY

SPIRITUALITY:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUNlpyfT2LU

METAPHYSICS:
Seeking Coherence regarding the non-trivially Non-Verifiable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv67x1GP2w4&feature=related; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXJPEwa4wl0

So many people seem to assume there is a clear way to distinguish ideas about metaphysics (supernatural and intuitive) from ideas about physics (nature and empiricism).

But who, if anyone, has produced a clear idea for defining a way or line of distinction, such that most folks would be able to agree to categorize any particular idea as relating either to metaphysics or physics?

In other words, when we use the words “metaphysics” and “physics,” how much of a clue do we have about what we are talking about?

****

Kant Metaphysics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv67x1GP2w4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVrUxWGm7VI
Can you coherently explain anything that is not trivial that is physical but also not metaphysical?
Apart from one’s conscious and regressive attempts to ideate or conceptualize classifications and categories of metaphysics and physics, do such concepts actually apply to any real ideas or physical things?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfd7-s_XuSY&feature=related