Of Godel and Descartes -- Cartesian relation between mass and information:
No measurable thing or event can be completely described either in purely local or purely universal terms. Rather, any complete inventory of descriptions, even if possible, would require sets of descriptions from the conscious perspectives of particulars and the perspective of the holism. However, this is inherently productive of ambiguity, uncertainty, and non-linear, often circular or spherical transformations or transmogrifications.
It’s not just that there are measurables that consist in having simultaneous aspects for being wholes and parts (field waves and particles). It’s that all abstractions and representations of descriptions and events that appear to unfold in respect of relations among such wholes and parts have their own aspects for consisting of wholes and parts. That is, every event can be abstracted for being modeling and considered as if it had a local, “mass-like cause,” and every such event can also be considered, simultaneously, to have a contextual like, “field cause.”
Necessarily, the feedback that fluxes between such local perspectives and the holism is synchronous and coordinate with what we experience as “causally” related sequences. This flux between the encompassing field and the local perspectives of consciousness may have more to do with the manifestations of information that lead to appearances of mass-like cause then may otherwise, at superficial consideration, appear to be the case.
If consciousness is the source and cause of all appearances, relations, and measurables, then no logical set of appearances can entirely encompass or cause consciousness. That is, information dressed up as mass (forms, sizes, motions, and densities) is caused to appear to consciousness; consciousness is not caused to appear to information or mass. IOW, mass is derivative of information, which is derivative of exchanges of communications among variously organized and/or overlapping layers and levels of particular and holistic perspectives of consciousness.
If mass is “in-form-ation-made-physical,” and our perspectives of consciousness couple with mass in order to avail us expressiveness as conscious beings, then must at least One conscious being couple directly with information in order to create our various perspectives as conscious beings? Yes, but our perspectives will communicate information in Cartesian-coordinate respect of mass-agents of cause, such masses being expressed in respect of numbers, forms, sizes, motions, and densities. IOW, the capacity of information and mass to give expression to one another is necessarily in respect of a dualistic, Cartesian relationship. At least, for mortals who are subject to the rules that bind the measurables of our universe.
May any inferior perspective of consciousness ever directly sense or communicate the essence of an informational exchange, except upon coupling in respect of causal relations among numbers, forms, sizes, motions, and densities (i.e., masses)? IOW, can fluxing layers and levels of immaterial agents, souls, angels, or ghosts possibly be self aware, to see and talk with one another? Or, across mediums, to us? May an encompassing, holistic consciousness avail a character or ground of being for such communications? I seem to have no empirical way to justify such a belief. Is there a mathematical way? An intuitive or empathetic way?
With ordinary algorithms, our knowledge allows us to manipulate local relations with predictable results. However, to know the algorithm that synchronizes all parameters with the holism, we would need to have holistic means to test and effect predictions with it. This we could not do, without being able to step outside the universe with which our very definition and beingness depends. That is, I believe there is such a meta algorithm, but I cannot see how we could “know” it, apart from justified belief. Regardless, assuming it abides, its functioning would seem easily translatable as akin, for us, to a synchronizer of expressions of free will.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Are organized and disorganized information inter-convertible, so that the total amount of information within the universal system, as it abides at any slice of space-time, always limited by a same constant? Can the totality of the conservation of matter and energy be alternatively translated as explicating a limitation in the capacity of our universe to store and manipulate information?
For us to have meaningful access to any holistic algorithm that is postulated to synchronize the universal interchange of information at any given sequence, would we have to have capacity to test that algorithm? But how could we test it, even in a purely mathematical experiment, without by each test injecting a new factor that would alter that which we wish to test? To have capacity to use such an algorithm in order to test it, would we have to have capacity to step outside space-time, to make and test for predictions? Would we have to have capacity to make choices that would effect universal causal changes? Would we have to be that which avails space-time? Would we have to be God to Godel?
I suspect there abides such a meta-algorithm, which gives expression to what we may sometimes call random chance and sometimes call free will. If so, that meta algorithm is beyond our measurable comprehension, yet synchronizes to cause changes in holistic events. I suspect an inferior algorithm also abides (the Nature algorithm), by which we can measure parameters for any given local changes in those parameters that are measurable. The first algorithm relates to why or how each so-called individual random event is actually chosen, caused, or determined. The second algorithm relates to how to measure and statistically predict those parameters that can be rationalized locally.
Even though consideration of the first algorithm should perhaps, as Hume suggested, be committed to the fire insofar as its consideration is useless to our empirical purposes, many believe, not unreasonably IMHO, that its very consideration avails morally assimilating purposes.
To know that which a thing or event is … is to be its complete author and sustainer. For anything that is not trivially true, as completely derivative of a system of definition or prescription (however incomplete that underlying system itself may be), we do not know it in the sense of “either-or.” Rather, as avatars for a conscious free will, we “know” in a sense of justified belief and chosen, purposeful commitment. That is, we know in a sense of intuition, empathy, and inspiration, as factored or justified under many sided logic, not bivalent logic.
The bivalent math that is availed to mortals is incomplete. Another way of referencing that statement is to suggest that a meta algorithm runs choices for firing and synchronizing the operations of the algorithm that establishes all parameters for those relations and interactions that are measurable to mortals. The meta algorithm is beyond mortal capacity to complete or fathom. In whatever way it functions, we are unable to distinguish that way as being different from how we may expect a Field of conscious free will (i.e., God) to function.
What reasonable person does not make non-trivial choices that are factored and inspired in conjunction with many-sided logic? To try to constrain oneself to a life of pure, bivalent logic would be to try to surrender one’s conscious free will to an unconscious, calculating robot; it would be to willfully flagellate one’s expressiveness of free will.
Indeed, are all of physical masses and their causative relations mere derivatives, i.e., after-the-fact storehouses of information, for which experience, communication, and feedback are represented or signposted as our “physics”? Is mass merely a representative of information, produced to our sensation as byproduct of inter-apprehensions among a single Field of consciousness and its particulate expressions? Are our separate identities, experiences, and decisions secondary phenomena, derivative of the capacity of a common Field of consciousness to receive and synchronize responses to empathetic feedback from many connected, coordinate, particular perspectives?
Post a Comment