Trivalent Modeling

THREE MODELS OF EMPIRICAL AND MORAL REALITY:


1) Model 1 – CLASSICAL CAUSAL DETERMINACY: For an event to be conceptualized as having been determined by a particular instrumentality, to that extent, is to rule out randomness.

2) Model 2 – QUANTUM CAUSAL INDETERMINACY: For an event to be conceptualized as having been random, to that extent, is to conceptualize that any particular instrumentality is indeterminate beyond general statistical analysis.

3) Model 3 (Free Will) – UNIFICATION OF DETERMINACY AND RANDOMNESS: For an event to be conceptualized as having been byproduct of wilful choices among a group of actors is for such event both: to be determined in association with interplay of wills among such group; and (2) to be indeterminate as to which, if any, actor’s wilfulness was dominant or sufficient in itself.


THOUGHTS ABOUT UNIFICATION:

BIVALENT LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION (where consciousness is presumed to be merely artifactual): Models 1 and 2, in themselves, cannot unify the continuity of gravity within the space-time field with discrete leaps within the quantum state of particulars. Notwithstanding fairy notions of “gravitons,” the mathematical, logical law of non-contradiction excludes complete, simultaneous unification of a general theory of certain determinacy with a general theory of uncertain indeterminacy. There may be a feedback flux idea, for a empathetic kind of alternating or vibrating between perspectives of holistic continuosity and perspectives of discrete particulars. However, by definition, that would not yield simultaneous unification from either kind of perspective, in itself.

FOLLY: So, absent respect for conscious free will, is it not folly to try to unify causal determinacy with causal randomness? Is that not akin to occupying one’s mind with whether God is so omnipotent as to be able to fashion a rock which He would be unable to move? (And to think atheistic scientists often make fun of biblical fundies!)

ADD MEANING WITH NO LOSS IN SCIENCE: So, if the goal is complete unifying certainty and predictive value for all fields and states, then neither an approach under Model 1 nor Model 2 can suffice. For that concern, neither can Model 3 suffice. However, Model 3, by definition, does not undertake any such goal. Rather, Model 3's “unification” is at cost of giving up quests for ultimate empirical certainty in exchange for enhancing regard for conscious choice and empathy. Model 3, while recognizing the absurdity of trying to unify Models 1 and 2 in themselves (i.e. without incorporating conscious will as a reconciling aspect under a kind of logical trivalence), does not surrender any degree of empirical certainty that is achievable either from a perspective of Model 1 or 2.

STATE OF BECOMING: Model 3 is not limited to bivalence between “state of is” and “state of is not.” It incorporates regard for a trivalent state, i.e.: “fuzzy state of is or is not becoming” (depending on flux of competition and cooperation among disparate perspectives of conscious free will). That is, Model 3 substitutes a concept of one universe of one field of conscious will interacting with one field of gravity for a concept of a preposterous number of splits of universes and worlds. That is, Model 3 accepts a notion of spiritual free will (you can sense your conscious will, after all!) as being superior to a notion of dumb, disparate, and unseen universes.

DEATH CULTS: In throwing cold water on the goal of explicating a completely predictive and objective model of the unfolding of our universe, Model 3 begs a question: Why should any conscious will desire that its will should be reduced to being merely artifactual of an entirely predictable unfolding? Why should anyone not envious of zombiehood wish to constrain his future to scientifically availed, preset planning and complete predictability? To invest one’s essence in such a goal would seem akin to wishing to surrender one’s will, perhaps even to snuff out one’s body or to sacrifice oneself as a suicide bomber in order to precipitate mass submission to Borgdom. How could one undertake such a sacrifice of will, unless one were already near spiritual death?

FREE WILL IMPLICATES MEANING, I.E., INVESTMENT OF EMOTION AND COMMUNICATION OF EMPATHY: Model 3 addresses roles at levels both of holistic groups and particular individuals, as well as aspects of both determinacy and randomness. Model 3 conceptualizes that a holistic field of consciousness facilitates condensation of particular Perspectives of Will, which entail investments of emotion and communication of empathy. The field of gravity (folds sensed and lensed in space-time geometry) may be conceptualized as facilitating means for collapsing, storing, inflating, and communicating measurable counterparts to investments of empathy for the information and logos of physics.

In other words, Model 3 conceptualizes that a holistic field of consciousness (free will) lenses to interact with a gravitational field (physics, which is constrained by space-time geometry to obey mathematical parameters). The byproduct interpreted from such interaction is condensate of a universe of (1) particular perspectives of consciousness and (2) contemporaneous, collapsing particle-aspects within space-time ... for such perspectives to sense and manipulate to communicate and build upon interests and feedback among themselves.