Consciousness and the Circularity of the Web of S-T-M-E --
Of that which exists measurably and that which exists immeasurably:
Consider space, time, matter and energy. Are they not dimensions which, taken together, encompass all of that which is commonly considered to constitute measurable physics? Is there anything of any physical nature that is not encompassed within the set of such dimensions?
Consider E = MC squared. Does that formula not define each of such dimensions in terms of the other three? E is for Energy; mass is an aspect of Matter; the speed of electromagnetic radiation relates to matter (massless photons?) traveling over a distance of Space at a certain speed within Time. So space, time, matter, and energy seem to account for all of physical phenomena that is subject to measure, but the prime equation that defines their relations defines each, circularly, by reference to the others. No one of such four dimensions can be understood in itself.
So what, if anything, can account for each and every said dimension by reference to phenomena, whether physical or not, in any way that is not circular or absurd? Is there any phenomena outside of those four? Well, no combination of said four proves itself. While they may in themselves store information by which their interactions could be measured in respect of physical marks and patterns, they are not in themselves the measurer or observer. That role goes to consciousness.
So is consciousness something, whether measurable or not, that is not entirely accounted for by the interactions of said four dimensions? If conscious awareness (or will to represent) is neither entirely measurable nor entirely derivative of interaction of the four dimensions of physics, then may consciousness reasonably be conceptualized as a fundament that is essential to the existentiality of the web of physical dimensions? Indeed, may the physical dimensions be entirely derivative of some fundamental capacity of consciousness in itself? Is there any other notion that could reasonably account for the circular relationships among the four dimensions that are physical in the sense of being measurable with regard to their interrelations or interconvertibility?
What would avail or direct choices among the myriad of unfolding possibilities for each of the dimensions to be defined in terms of the others, with no reference to any superior, measurable substance, except something which exists, but which itself, at least in some aspects, defies being measured? That seems to relate to that which may be "God."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Dreams within Dreams within Dreams:
If our existence is likeable to a dream, then the reason our existence makes so little consistent sense may be likened in respect that no dream makes sense.
Suppose God entertains capacity to dream by imagining Himself from numerous different, imperfect, subjective perspectives, being synchronized in respect of only one common reality: that each of us plays out a perspective of one god, who is dreaming-imagining-imaging.
Does the end of the dream occur once all matter is perceived to have dissipated beyond the capacity of conscousness to couple with it?
Does consciousness then awaken, begin judging the dreams, begin collapsing and considering how to improve the collapsing, and begin to bring all within a perfect design for the next cycle of dreams?
Once a dream cycle were to collapse into a perfect symmetrical singularity, consciousness may collapse to a perfectly singular point, from which to ignite the next dream cycle.
Until God wakes, we respect God -- in that we intuit some of that which the potential of God wants, and in that God's dream permeates into much of what we intuit.
"Matter" may be entirely secondary to something likable to synchronized dreams of perspectives within one consciousness.
God may sleep while we perceive, then awaken to judge while we are collapsed. It may be that there abides a constant cyclical expansion and contraction, not in matter, but in consciousness.
KNOW THYSELF -- of aspects of the Oneness of Consciousness, i.e., Imaginative power, Intuitive potentiality, Creative will, and Empathetic communication: Are they byproducts of Space, Time, Matter, and Energy … or are S, T, M and E byproducts of I, I, C, and E?
Why do our tests for laws of physics seem to become ever more accurate, consistent, and coherent, but never quite perfectly complete? What is the relation between: Imagination and Reality; Intuition and Potentiality; Creativity and Purposefulness; and Empathy and Morality? Does the receding incompleteness of our mathematics for explicating physics suggest something about infinite potentiality for our Consciousness?
Is the only constraint on laws of physics a requirement that they must not contradict the most accurate of the then and there combined, synchronized accumulation of Information of our various Perspectives within the overall Field of Consciousness? Can the mathematical map that seems to constrain our physical interaction be stretched to any purpose, so long as the purpose can be rationalized to the commonly measurable perception and appreciation of each and every then Perspective of Consciousness? May the apparent mathematically related laws of physics be manipulated and phased, provided only that the phasing Rationalizes and does not contradict the then and there state of accumulated Information to the experience of each and every Perspective of Consciousness?
Is it possible that, to whatever extent our experience of sharing an accumulation of real Information appears to be serviceably coherent and non-contradictory, such is only in respect that: (1) our individual apprehensions of physics are necessarily incomplete; and (2) physics itself is only an illusion that is perpetuated in respect of “spiritual inertia” of our combined Consciousness? In other words, may it be that: An aspect of Imagination of Consciousness presents its Reality; an aspect of Intuition of Consciousness presents its Potentiality; an aspect of Creative will of Consciousness presents its Purposeful synchronization of particular Perspectives; and an aspect of Empathy of Consciousness presents its Morality?
Imagination / Intuition / Will / Empathy: What are their limits?
Perhaps, imagination is reality, and Walt Disney is its prophet.
From A.T. --
@searcherseeker said, "So, why do [roaches] they endeavor to survive"
This gets into personal belief, but I will tell you. I don't think of "souls" in any traditional way. Let's just say I don't worry about dogs, roaches, or bacteria going to heavenly salvation. As to why they endeavor to survive, the way I personally visualize this is best explicated by Ed Klingman, in his book, "Gene Man's World." In essence, Klingman postulates a field of consciousness with numerous episodes of collapsed particles of consciousness. He is a physicist, logician, and computing expert. His ideas are both testable and radical. Since they are radical, there is no money in testing them. Yet the math is internally consistent. If he is wrong, his ideas can be falsified. I have not seen anyone undertake to do that. Apart from simplism of uninformed name callers, I have not seen anyone of competence dare to refute him. They like to say, show me a testable proof. Ok. Read his book. To answer another part of your concern: Yes, something innate in every expression of conscious will does seek to preserve itself.
@searcherseeker said, "So, why do [roaches] they endeavor to survive"
This gets into personal belief, but I will tell you. I don't think of "souls" in any traditional way. Let's just say I don't worry about dogs, roaches, or bacteria going to heavenly salvation. As to why they endeavor to survive, the way I personally visualize this is best explicated by Ed Klingman, in his book, "Gene Man's World." In essence, Klingman postulates a field of consciousness with numerous episodes of collapsed particles of consciousness. He is a physicist, logician, and computing expert. His ideas are both testable and radical. Since they are radical, there is no money in testing them. Yet the math is internally consistent. If he is wrong, his ideas can be falsified. I have not seen anyone undertake to do that. Apart from simplism of uninformed name callers, I have not seen anyone of competence dare to refute him. They like to say, show me a testable proof. Ok. Read his book. To answer another part of your concern: Yes, something innate in every expression of conscious will does seek to preserve itself.
As to "oughts": If there is a field of consciousness, and if it finds expression in numerous particular perspectives, no matter how lowly, then, to me, it seems a relatively small leap of faith to expect that they are intuitive and empathetic of the field and of other perspectives of the field which they enounter. Conscious will, with capacity to make "ought" choices within a range of parameters, abides at even lowest levels. The quality of meaningful intelligence associated with each perspective of consciousness depends on how its organization is coupled with matter. As to "ought," I don't think it is empirically measured; I think it is guided. I cannot improve on the Golden Rule, although I would sometimes express it in shorthand thusly: Be empathetic. As to the quality of our capacity to be empathetic, I suspect it improves as we increase in capacity to be receptive to the field of consciousness.
Re: "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny"
When a debate is confined to a box of trite tautologies, what good is done? I don't care whether some accept a definition that religion pertains to "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny." That is not my religion, nor my faith. I don't believe God "controls" fate in the sense of preordaining it. I believe moral interaction is guided in respect of a higher consciousness, not predetermined. I don't concern myself with religious practice as a means to salvation (whatever that is). I am concerned with respect for a higher guide to moral behavior, so that not everything is blessed as being moral merely because it came to pass. To me, that is either trivial or meaningless.
So I ask, what is the purpose of encouraging receptivity to and respect for a higher Guide to moral conduct? Well, by my intuition, it has something to do with meaningfulness. Now, an atheist can approach such concern in several ways. (1) One, by trying to confine a debate to a matter of his definition, so that he "wins" by definition. (2) Or by denying that there is such a thing as morality or meaningfulness. (3) Or by adopting a dramatic pose that it is "self evident" that all behavior is moral and meaningful. (4) Or by postulating his own system of a higher atheistic moral code, based on "reason."
If (1), then he is just playing a trite word game. If (2) or (3), then fine and dandy, but he simply has nothing to contribute to those who believe otherwise. If (4), then he can be challenged to state what is this higher moral code of atheists, is it really so self evident as to be shared in common by all atheists, and if not, then by what "reasons" does he advocate such code? Now then, as soon as he advocates his "reasons," then unless he can demonstrate their logical or mathematical infallibility, why then he is taking his entire moral code on faith or belief. When he says he is doing no such thing, he is simply making noise. (Or, for the ears of atheists, I suppose it is "music.")
Post a Comment