.
Consciousness seems to enjoy a property of singularity of focus, as well as of synchronicity among plural iterations and contexts. Surely, every cell in my body is replaced multiple times during my life, yet some aspect of my identity, my I-ness, remains the same. Consciousness may abide as a one of a kind, singular entity that is limited only by math in terms of its potential for iterating, subdividing, overlapping, and complicating in vectors and unfoldings of disorganizations of the manifest and reorganizations and renormalizations of the potential.
.
A God who can will and image ITs-singular-self as variously organized perspectives and iterations of ITs-plural-self, among IT-self, would seem potent to renormalize just about anything that can be imagined in space-time. The challenging question is: What should we iterations of such reconciling Consciousness (God?) seek to coordinate as "NORMAL," as space-time unfolds? As Consciousness "grows," what should it (God?) seek to express, and how are we, bonded as we are to mere iterations and incomplete perspectives, to receive such instruction? What change-agents are attuned to sense, rather than merely rationalize, that metaphysic?
.
I don't see how mere science, free of resort to inner intuition, could "answer" such a question. To answer such a question, it would seem that space-time should be an empirically testable thing-in-itself. However, I don't fathom how space-time could be such a thing, by itself. Physicists often consider time to be a stubborn illusion. Illusion of what? Of consciousness? If so, must not the entire web of space-time be illusion, derivative of Will of Consciousness? Even as Will deludes and vectors itself, to believe space-time abides as a real thing in itself, I doubt all of reality could be empirically measured or reduced to a coherent and consistent explanation under any such a belief or model. I don't see how mere practice of delusion could force a metaphysic to become merely empirical. I don't intuit that any theory of everything could ever explicate all that is possible to make apparently manifest in physics.
.
6 comments:
From A.T.
RE: But if we adopt the stance that Nature is just whatever it is, then we can call it something as undefined as "Life", or "Being" or "Existence" and it just works the same way.
- AGREED.
RE: "Much of modern physics, however, does not seem consistent with a notion of pre determinism." I think you're wrong. I think that it's a common story told about modern physics. But I don't think it's valid under scrutiny.
- Einstein thought God did not play dice. Quantum physicists seem divided on whether the quantum universe really is random versus whether it simply works best for purposes of calculation to treat it as if it were. It might help to think about what we mean by "determine." When I make a contemporaneous choice, I am making a "willing determination." Einstein seemed to mean "determine" in the sense of predetermine. That invites a concept of a designing deity --- although Einstein and Hawking would be prone to say that, like Elvis, the deity has left the building. I don't think the deity has left the building. I think the building is merely the logos of the deity. However, I think we, being imperfect perspectives and mortal creatures of the deity, participate in determining how the logos unfolds. If God is speaking (using words, i.e., signs and logos), I presume HE is not merely repeating HIMSELF, like a wind up toy. I think evolution happens, in that things change. They change subject to feedback. But I don't think it's merely feedback based on some trivial notion of "the fittest." Rather, I think determining the fittest is a qualitative process of meaningful appreciation, in which our feedback is participatory. When we begin designing dna, will people then say evolution is driven entirely by natural selection, or will they say it is driven by "artificial" (guided) selection? Instead of free will, we may do better to think in terms of participatory will. That is, God is the reconciling, conserving Will, and we are the participatory perspectives that avail feedback. I think it is unnecessary and unhelpful to conceptualize that God's future is predetermined. What America is lacking is assimilating moral guidance for the future. I do not believe that telling the laity to sacrifice their freedom and dignity to infallible dogma as pronounced by elitists is the way to revive the American spirit for participating in determining the unfolding of America's future.
RE: a random resolution of a quantum wave breaking a vial and killing the cat. This is a pretty determined set of circumstances. Besides it seems to have escaped Schroedinger's notice that a cat is arguably an observer, and given an observational device like a vial of poison, might be responsible for a wave collapse before you ever open the box. Thus, considering the cat has *observed* through the shattering of the vial of poison, it's natural processes (even though involving electrons) have ushered it to the beyond or the natural process of being able to breathe and not starve in the box, without a broken vial have continued its existence. Scientists are ba-a-a-ad philosophers in most cases. I think you get indeterminacy, I don't think you get a lack of pre-determination as anything more than simple indeterminacy.
- On that, you "might" be right. However, I don't think you can prove pre-determination, nor do I see any need in science or religion to assume pre-determination to be the case. I think it's unhelpful and unprovable, therefore not a falsifiable or "scientific hypothesis." I do recognize that carefully defined contexts can be preset (predetermined). However, that entails that, at one time, some aspect or person contemporaneously effected the preset.
.
RE: We don't shepherd for a second the thought that the observer *wished* the cat dead--for how did that *work*?
- This is akin to the problem of trying to imagine the "mechanics" for how purely spiritual, immaterial, immeasurable, qualitative apprehensions of observers can have influence on the material. That's largely a vain road. I believe our qualitative and subjective participation (prayers) do have real effect, but I don't think the effects are entirely subject to controllable or calculable channels. (I fudge with the word "entirely" because, given a carefully defined and preset system, brain waves may leverage electrical impulses for moving matter. Recognize, however, that even with such a preset system, such system was necessarily contemporaneously contrived at some time, and then remained subject to further use.)
RE: having scripture gives one much more *context* by which to discuss links to the vast unknown.
-AGREED. However, fundies and militants often argue that their base can only be inspired so long as it remains fundie and militant. I would turn that around and ask: By taking such a stance, how many thinking people are divided and driven away from forums for preserving an assimilating, cultural glue? How much of America has been lost because thinking people have been alienated? I simply cannot find it in me to accept science as "proving" evolution to be unguided, nor can I accept any "holy" book or "messenger" as being objectively infallible for all conditions for all time. If God is logos, then His word is holy everywhere, not just in contrivances of sacred stories, selected under Constantine and used to support a banner under which he expected to conquer. Rather, I view sacred and moral truths as being subject to application to contexts and feedback. That is, our feedback is part of each moral equation. We are not God, but God appreciates our prayerful feedback. Whitehead. Jung. Feedback among participants, whole to parts, digital, qualitatively unfolding, contemporaneously determined --- not necessarily pre-determined.
I suspect there are numerous people who think both fundies and militants are wrong headed. Many are good-faith thinkers who will decline to participate with a church that expects the entire heirarchy and laity to swallow whole every literalistic piece of dogma. I could not in good faith raise a child to believe that all biblical literalisms are scientifically demonstrable. If free-thinkers remain divided and unwelcome to needed forums for cultural assimilation of moral principles, then I don't see how even churches can have a prayer to help us assimilate in order to salvage America from those who in effect want to be their own Gods -- as opposed to trying to be humbly receptive in their own way to God (free from faux-infallible intermediaries).
Among pilgrims, there abide varieties of faith. The key for promoting a decent America is faith in an inviting Guide to moral goodness. That entails good faith in taking responsibility for thinking for oneself, guided by the context of signs to which one is presented.
Leading to an elitist ruled society, to be ruled by absolutist messengers of God or pagan evolution (Nature):
Solution seems not that different from Mill's, except to rationalize moral predetermination under God, while Mill did it under Nature. The Koran is based on similar rationalizations of pre determinism. Much of modern physics, however, does not seem consistent with a notion of pre determinism. To justify pre determinism under pronouncements of elitists who claim to be moral mouthpieces for God or Nature is at odds with dignified adulthood among responsible thinkers, IMHO.
No doubt, many low thinkers prefer to be told in absolutist terms what they must or should believe. Tyranny reigns when they unite behind an absolutist mortal to impose his will. For those who want or need to be told what they should in chorus believe, that is fine. However, they need not presume to impose on those who prefer an invitation to think for themselves
Never mind. It's probably just as we'll for you to believe that the Bible is of one objective truth as it is for secularists to believe that unguided evolution is the complete answer to all our concerns.
Post a Comment