Reality as Self-Contained

It just does.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nothing can't exist as it is the absence of existence. So there is no "nothing", but without consciousness there would be no existence, it would be the same thing as nothing. I believe that to exist is to be conscious and that there is an awareness of everything.

Interesting analogy, I like it. Like the saying; "many small streams makes a river". I've always had a interest in questions like; if there is 50/50 chance that something would happen or not, what is it then that makes the actual choice? I know that there are very few such situations in physics (for every action, there is exactly one reaction), but I read that there are a few, especially in QM (when two electrons meet and scatter, for example, there is no way of knowing which electron took which way, according to QM not even the physics behind it knows).

Ok, well I like original concepts, there's always something new to learn

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, that can be said about anything. But I know that there are theories that some things just happen to be that way. Sounds like God to me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If we could give an explanation for why time moves forward then what's to stop it from moving backward, unless that was the only option? Also, could we even distinguish the difference between backward and forward if it were constantly moving either way?

Btw, nothing exists as a complementary state along with something, otherwise we couldn't distinguish it.

 

Do you think that a universe devoid of consciousness would not exist?
Or are you defining existence to be in some way "that which consciousness perceives to be..."
i.e. question begging between "consciousness" and "existence".
Personally I think if all life and all consciousness was removed / died out... the universe would still exist.
I do not think existence (unless you define it along the lines of the above) is dependent upon consciousness.
Only the perception of existence might be.

 

What we call "forward" is that the direction is towards higher entropy, certainly we would notice if time moved towards lower entropy even at a constant rate, it's uncertain though if there would be a "we" to notice it. There is probably something fundamental that stops it from going backwards.

In my opinion; nothing must always be a potential something, and a potential something is also something in itself but in the background so to speak. There is no existence of nothing that is actually "nothing at all", it is obviously contradictory. As I see it, if the universe had a start, then it had a start from a potential which is something in itself but not yet realised into something definitive (something that can be said to be something in particular).

Basically I believe that existence and consciousness is the same thing, if something exists then I believe that it has that existence because of consciousness. In which I mean consciousness as being aware of existence (not necessarily human consciousness, or even physical consciousness as bound by particles, not everything might be founded on particles). We don't yet know by which right something can exist, or by which rule that allows anything to exist, I think that rule is that there is some kind of awareness of that existence. How otherwise would a universe be different from nothing? By which right does it exist on it's own if there isn't any realisation of it's existence? That is, in my view, what makes it real, what makes it a reality. Actually, in my view, what makes it anything at all.

After all; the only thing we actually know when it comes to the foundation of existence is our own existence, our body exists, and would even if our awareness didn't exist, but could we really call it our body then? We are the only ones, that we know of, who knows what it is like to exist. That is our self-awareness, that is our consciousness, that is what it is like to exist. The default should be that everything that exists to some degree share our own sense of what it is like to exist.

Even if not individual particles/atoms/lumps of matter is self-aware as such, there has to be a self-awareness that encompasses them. Such that a thought isn't self-aware but our self-awareness encompasses the thought, hence it exists as a thought.

 

The thing is though , while time seems to move forward , in our perception of time , matter can be and is recycled

So when we look at time more deeply , we can separate , perception of movement , the forward movement of things by observation , and the recycling of matter , such as decay in the soil

 

When humans believed the world was flat, this perception of the earth did not make it so. It still existed as a round earth. It was the mind, distorting reality, due to filters of the mind. Humans have willpower and choice and can tailor their perception of reality by adding filters of the mind. The composite of reality and filters may appear as reality, if the collective enforces/agrees the composite reflects reality.

As an analogy, say an entire culture had to wear red colored glasses. This is analogous to a filter that will impact their perception of reality. If everyone goes along, they will all agree the blue sky is now purple, since red colored glasses and blue sky add to a purple sky. If only you decided to remove the red glasses, and saw the blue sky for the first time, and then tried to tell others, as long as everyone else retains red glasses you will be considered out of touch with reality. What is real is not what they will see. Nor will millions of red glass filters make the reality of the sky change to purple for you without glasses.

If humans lacked willpower and choice, the brain would arrange all the sensory input data, stemming from reality, into natural patterns. But through learning using willpower and choice we will add extra layers of filters so what reaches consciousness is a composite. The reality of nature caters to the natural consciousness within and not the subjectivity of human filters.

 

The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe:

A New Kind of Reality Theory

Christopher Michael Langan


Abstract:
Inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality of which perception itself is the model (or theory-to-universe mapping). Where information is the abstract currency of perception, such a theory must incorporate the theory of information while extending the information concept to incorporate reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic (self-contained) description of reality. This extension is associated with a limiting formulation of model theory identifying mental and physical reality, resulting in a reflexively self-generating, self-modeling theory of reality identical to its universe on the syntactic level. By the nature of its derivation, this theory, the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, can be regarded as a supertautological reality-theoretic extension of logic. Uniting the theory of reality with an advanced form of computational language theory, the CTMU describes reality as a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL, a reflexive intrinsic language characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but full self-configuration and self-execution (reflexive read-write functionality). SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism consisting of infocognition, self-transducing information residing in self-recognizing SCSPL elements called syntactic operators. The CTMU identifies itself with the structure of these operators and thus with the distributive syntax of its self-modeling SCSPL universe, including the reflexive grammar by which the universe refines itself from unbound telesis or UBT, a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint. Under the guidance of a limiting (intrinsic) form of anthropic principle called the Telic Principle, SCSPL evolves by telic recursion, jointly configuring syntax and state while maximizing a generalized self-selection parameter and adjusting on the fly to freely-changing internal conditions. SCSPL relates space, time and object by means of conspansive duality and conspansion, an SCSPL-grammatical process featuring an alternation between dual phases of existence associated with design and actualization and related to the familiar wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics. By distributing the design phase of reality over the actualization phase, conspansive spacetime also provides a distributed mechanism for Intelligent Design, adjoining to the restrictive principle of natural selection a basic means of generating information and complexity. Addressing physical evolution on not only the biological but cosmic level, the CTMU addresses the most evident deficiencies and paradoxes associated with conventional discrete and continuum models of reality, including temporal directionality and accelerating cosmic expansion, while preserving virtually all of the major benefits of current scientific and mathematical paradigms.

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

Teleology is implicated therein. Reality is dual. Reality is self-contained. Reality is self-distributed.

 

Yes, that's how I think about it also. Probably why some hasn't considered consciousness as being the foundation for existence, as human consciousness through our filters can be very flawed (while consciousness in and of itself is always perfect - perfect existence)

 

So rocks are conscious?
Or do rocks not exist?
Or would they not exist in a universe devoid of life?
Do you see a difference between being non-existent and being unknowable?
By that I mean that if a rock is in a part of the universe such that it would and could never interact with any other object (i.e. is unknowable) then would you say the rock does not exist?
Personally I see a difference between the two: the first is an absolute statement of the property of existence, while the latter is a matter of what is practical to consider as existing.
To me a universe devoid of life still exists even if there is nothing conscious within it.

The implication from your statements is that you believe the universe is conscious of itself, and has always been conscious, since the Big Bang onward (possibly before?).
Otherwise you would have the scenario of a universe only existing when consciousness within it brought it about.
Which is a rather solipsist view, is it not?
Not that this would make it wrong, just an observation.

Why?
We have a reasonable first glimpse into what self awareness may be the result of (complex feedback loops, neural networks etc), and we are aware of objects which do not exhibit such abilities or have the means to achieve it.
Why, then, must we think that such inanimate objects require a level of awareness in order to exist?
Unless you think that the objects we see, touch, taste etc do not exist until we observe them in some way?

And so you come to the meaningless conclusions of either we are the only thing that exists (solipsism), or that the universe is conscious and thus allows everything within it to exist.
The latter is just an equating of the term existence and consciousness without adding anything to our understanding of either: "everything in the universe exists because the universe exists" type of argument.

If you believe the two terms are the same thing, then try changing all your uses of one word for the other and see how circular it reads without actually saying much than that initial equating.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...lf-Contained&p=3198073&viewfull=1#post3198073

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...lf-Contained&p=3200674&viewfull=1#post3200674
See, I can do that as well.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

that link i posted should help you understand with your rock nonsense,along with your whole post
which appears to me, to be nothing more than a setup to ridicule..
if you do not understand, the best option is NOT to resort to ridiculing.

yzarc.

 

I am not ridiculing, but your obvious eagerness to see ridicule is telling.

That link I posted should help you understand that I have certain questions I am asking, which are not nonsense.
If you do not understand that, and instead resort to not answering anything or not explaining anything, in a manner that those asking questions can understand, the best option is NOT to post at all.

 

umm, ok,
again,
that link i posted should help you understand all the so called questions on your post i quoted.
that's exactly why i posted it.

 

Being a scientist, with a PhD, and working underground for as many hours as you do, I'd have thought it obvious, for someone of your undoubted intellect, from the link I posted, that your post (linked or otherwise) does not help.
That's exactly why I posted the link I did.
Either make yourself understandable to those that ask questions or consider yourself guilty of the accusation of gibberish that you so dislike.

 

it doesn't help because of the mind processing it.
it's that simple.
what i posted in that link is very simple.
maybe the problem is you need a dictionary ?

" yes,
just like time/space, it's reality/physical state
time gives reality, space gives physical state.
this is where physics/mathematics(what's the difference?) and other sciences is supposed to occur.
individual consciousness(as you, your self)(or individuals in general,or all conscious living entities) gives a platform for all
this is where the wave function collapse, physics/mathematics(what's the difference?) and other sciences supposed to occur.
now, what would be the " god " consciousness is where metaphysics is supposed to occur. "

 

Q:
" So rocks are conscious?
Or do rocks not exist? ",

A:
individual consciousness(as you, your self)(or individuals in general,or all conscious living entities) gives a platform for all
this is where the wave function collapse, physics/mathematics(what's the difference?) and other sciences supposed to occur.

Q: " Do you see a difference between being non-existent and being unknowable?

A:
individual consciousness(as you, your self)(or individuals in general,or all conscious living entities) gives a platform for all
this is where the wave function collapse, physics/mathematics(what's the difference?) and other sciences supposed to occur.

Q: By that I mean that if a rock is in a part of the universe such that it would and could never interact with any other object (i.e. is unknowable) then would you say the rock does not exist?

A: individual consciousness(as you, your self)(or individuals in general,or all conscious living entities) gives a platform for all
this is where the wave function collapse, physics/mathematics(what's the difference?) and other sciences supposed to occur.

Q: Personally I see a difference between the two: the first is an absolute statement of the property of existence, while the latter is a matter of what is practical to consider as existing.

A: just like time/space, it's reality/physical state
time gives reality, space gives physical state.
this is where physics/mathematics(what's the difference?) and other sciences is supposed to occur.
individual consciousness(as you, your self)(or individuals in general,or all conscious living entities) gives a platform for all
this is where the wave function collapse, physics/mathematics(what's the difference?) and other sciences supposed to occur.
now, what would be the " god " consciousness is where metaphysics is supposed to occur. "

Q: To me a universe devoid of life still exists even if there is nothing conscious within it.
The implication from your statements is that you believe the universe is conscious of itself, and has always been conscious, since the Big Bang onward (possibly before?).

A: now, what would be the " god " consciousness is where metaphysics is supposed to occur. "

Q: Otherwise you would have the scenario of a universe only existing when consciousness within it brought it about.
Which is a rather solipsist view, is it not?
Not that this would make it wrong, just an observation.
Why?

A:now, what would be the " god " consciousness is where metaphysics is supposed to occur. "
individual consciousness(as you, your self)(or individuals in general,or all conscious living entities) gives a platform for all

Q:We have a reasonable first glimpse into what self awareness may be the result of (complex feedback loops, neural networks etc), and we are aware of objects which do not exhibit such abilities or have the means to achieve it.
Why, then, must we think that such inanimate objects require a level of awareness in order to exist?
Unless you think that the objects we see, touch, taste etc do not exist until we observe them in some way?

A: individual consciousness(as you, your self)(or individuals in general,or all conscious living entities) gives a platform for all
this is where the wave function collapse, physics/mathematics(what's the difference?) and other sciences supposed to occur.

Q: And so you come to the meaningless conclusions of either we are the only thing that exists (solipsism), or that the universe is conscious and thus allows everything within it to exist.

A: now, what would be the " god " consciousness is where metaphysics is supposed to occur. "
individual consciousness(as you, your self)(or individuals in general,or all conscious living entities) gives a platform for all
this is where the wave function collapse, physics/mathematics(what's the difference?) and other sciences supposed to occur.

IT'S THAT SIMPLE(shrugs)

 

And how does that answer any of the questions, let alone all of them?

Or maybe you need to realise that either your answer does not actually answer the questions posed, or at least does not do so in a comprehensible way.
Either way, your responses are currently as helpful as a chocolate teapot.
(As an aside, you should also learn to punctuate your responses coherently, as that will certainly aid comprehension.)

So explain, how does any of what you post answer any of the questions I have asked?
Note: merely repeating your post, when it is clear (and explicitly stated) that it did not help the last time you linked to it, would be futile.
So if that is all you intend, it would be better you don't bother so as not to waste both our time.