Beyond Chance And Necessity

.
Beyond Chance And Necessity:

I am early into reading the 2006 paperback edition of Nobel Laureate Lederman’s “The God Particle.” I think “Gene Man” (of A.T.) may have put me onto it. Coming to page 59, I need to set out some thoughts before passing further. Lederman quotes the Greek, Democritus: “Nothing exists except atoms and space; everything else is opinion” and “Everything existing in the universe is the fruit of chance and ncecesity.” It seems to me that such quotes of Democritus lie at the heart of the materialistic philosophy that is so common among Ainos (Americans in name only).

******

But I suspect there does exist Something beyond chance and necessity. Namely, choice. In fact, I suspect chance and necessity may be secondary to choice. That is, I suspect there subsists a competition among choices of perspective, and that choices of perspective may somehow convert back and forth between perspectives of wholes and of parts.

For the Universe as we share it, I suspect an Algorithm controls parameters for such conversions, sort of like formulas for chemical conversions. Any “equality” sign for such chemcal-like formulas is far from arithmetically trivial, in that there is an inherent difference in aspect or quality on the side of the formula for the perspective of the whole as opposed to the side of the formula for the perspectives of comprising parts.

While Democritus was a bona fide genius, I think it hubristic of scientists to follow him in presuming that nothing exists except particulate “a-toms” and space. Rather, when Democritus says everything else is “opinion,” I suspect he neglected a more encompassing role for an Author (or Consciousness) of opinions.

It seems popular to consider existents as being derivative of expressions of fields and their quantifiable or representational counterparts, i.e., particles. As in a Higgs field and a Higgs boson. Or perhaps a field of space-time with counterpart particles of matter-energy. Or perhaps all of Potential with counterpart particular “units of potential.” Or Holistic Consciousness with counterpart units or perspectives of consciousness. Perhaps, within a field of existential consciousness of possibilities, our very universe serves a role as a mere particle.

In any event, it seems to me that “physical particles” may be mere “placeholding signs for carrying information forward” in an experiential chronology of such perspectives of consciousness as are in empathetic inter-communication. That is, “physics,” as any-thing-in-its-particular-self, is illusion that is artifactual, yet helpful to feedback, for communication among perspectives of consciousness.

Perhaps “consciousness” pertains to that which comprehends and facilitates uncertain yet quantifiable conversions and feedback of Information between perspectives of wholes and of parts. In other words, perhaps Consciousness, with its perspectives, is superior and prior to even the mathematics of chance and necessity.

Perhaps one’s consciouness at any particularly apparent locus in space-time is merely derivative of how one’s perspective has somehow come to identify with a System Of Math, with which others with whom one communicates have also somehow come to identify. In other words, the world of physics is derivative of nothing more than a shared Algorithm, which itself is derivative of Consciousness, aka, God.

In any event, to disprove God, choice, and superiority of consciousness, one would need to prove that everything, including morality (“shoulds”) can be objectively accounted for within a math that is rigorously restricted to chance and necessity. That, I suspect, cannot be done.

Unlike those who believe there is naught but physical science, I think we live under implication of an inherent and spiritual moral injunction: “Be receptive to the dignity of each perspective of consciousness, in its representation as physical avatar for That Who empathetically facilitates communicaton and evaluation of choices; all else is vanity and illusion.”

In any event, such an injunction seems consistent with the American notion of a self-evident right to pursue happiness. And I doubt that any serviceable, inspiring, moral injunction can long sustain a decent civilization under a dead philosophy that “nothing exists except atoms and space.”

While I believe an Author is facilitating our pursuit (not acquisition) of meaning and happiness, each is called upon to do his or her part.