For Gustav - Metaphysics of Consciousness and Universe

[Reiku]

Grant

I suppose what i am saying, is that on terms of ''fixed events'' there is no such thing. The big bang is hardly a fixed event, if there is some future event which determines exactly how it should have been played out.

Can we go back for a moment to greens set of pathologies:

1. Results from past actions.
2. Present narrative of past actions.
3. Memory of the narrative of actions at the time in the past.
4. Present narrative of present actions.
5. Present narative of future actions.
6. Results from present actions.

This is a study of consciousness as well: But what was really good about this set of narratives, was that it tied so deeply into understanding two concepts i created to understand what I call ''The Linear Nature of Knowledge.'' Use Greens proposals to help you make through your way in these next two concepts of ''Certainty'' and ''Expectancy.''

The Laws of Certainty and Expectancy of the Psyche

These laws of mine state that there where three main principles, that worked differential roles against the flow of time. It highlights possible relations with the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics in a whole, and explains why nothing at the subatomic level can be applied to mere cause and effect. In these principle(s), it explains why we have the knowledge we have… the qualia of existence… the fountain of matter and energy, and even the ethereal mixture of consciousness. If we exist in the present time, the only ever real time, then the past, according to both the expectancy and certainty role, combined with uncertainty, says that the past is:

1. The past is ruled by certain and UNCERTAIN rules.

This means that we can be certain about past events, but we can also be uncertain, as a past event could and does hold incomplete knowledge from time-to-time. During the present, we don’t tend to ‘’expect’’ anything from the past, so it doesn’t play a role.
The rules in the present are all functional:

2. We can be certain, UNCERTAIN, and expect outcomes during the present time.

Here, we can see that we can be certain of the present, and also be uncertain of it. So many examples could be said to how we could be uncertain during the present time: It might occur very frequent in your life… and we expect more during the present… If mind is time, and time is mind, then we always expect more… a future, this is what we always expect.
Then the future has aligned for it:

3. We can be UNCERTAIN about the future and we can be Expectant of it.

It seems that axiom no.3 is the only principled axiom that cannot allow any certainty. Uncertainty forbids this… which is strange, because the past is not effected by such a conduct. There, certainty and uncertainty arise side-by-side, and this is caused by Entropy of knowledge, which I called in my works over the years as ‘’linear knowledge,’’ meaning that knowledge has a linear realization to the human being. It presents itself, and unfolds its memory to us as the arrow of times shows us a directionality to that unfolding. In fact, since there is no arrow representing this, instead of some interpretations of the ‘Psychological Arrow of Time’, I shall call the ‘Informational Arrow of Time,’ to represent the linear nature of human knowledge. It’s more specific.
So here we have it. The rules of consciousness has just been displayed out according to the boundaries of living in the present.

This can all be linked to the Binding Principle of Neurophysics, since the mind is binding time together with knowledge. The Binding Problem can be answered for though. As I have explained, I think everything is predetermined. Because of this, space and time has a memory. We seem to ‘’seep’’ out of this memory, out of space and time, and it created this thing we call consciousness. No other configuration could perform this work, and has stunning probabilistic arguments for the Anthropic Principle of QM.

[greenberg]

Are you (also) saying that the past is a validly looked at in terms of possilibity as the future often is?

I would say yes - considering the nature of narratives and the problems inherent to them.

In other words are you (also) saying the past is not only indeterminate for us, but is actually indeterminate?

I wouldn't venture to answer a question like this, though.
I'm afraid we are trapped in narratives, and even that which we call "reality" is actually a narrative of ours - because narratives are the best we seem to be capable of when it comes to using words and concepts.

[Grantywanty]

I would say yes - considering the nature of narratives and the problems inherent to them.




I wouldn't venture to answer a question like this, though.
I'm afraid we are trapped in narratives, and even that which we call "reality" is actually a narrative of ours - because narratives are the best we seem to be capable of when it comes to using words and concepts.

I might have guessed you would say this. I was curious if he would. I don't really have a sense of his metaphysics, but if he is to some degree an objectivist, then I find it interesting he would go this far. Don't know where it would lead, but I got curious.

[greenberg]

It a nice overview of possible pathological regions.

Yes, they are possible pathological regions; I don't think they are pathological per se.
If there is a problem, it's because one or more narratives are misplaced/misaligned/wrong.

You help me with overviews sometimes and that is good.

[Reiku]

I think you did a fine job.

[Grantywanty]

Yes, they are possible pathological regions; I don't think they are pathological per se.

Agreed. And I narrate a lot, inwardly and as an art and by way of explanation and or socializing. What a horror is this were all bad per se. (heading out for the day).

[Reiku]

Shall we tackle the metaphysics of some superintelligence now? - Or should we continue with the debate of causality?

[Gustav]

latter
i want opinions/criticism on rand's shit....

(1) the Primacy of Existence,
(2) the Law of Identity ("A is A"), and
(3) the Axiom of Consciousness.

*The Primacy of Existence states that reality (the universe, that which is) exists independently of human consciousness.
*The Law of Identity states that anything that exists is qualitatively determinate, that is, has a fixed, finite nature.
*The Axiom of Consciousness is the proposition that consciousness is irreducible.

perhaps addressed
simple version this time

[Reiku]

*The Primacy of Existence states that reality (the universe, that which is) exists independently of human consciousness.

Well, I'd have to disagree with this axiom, based upon quantum mechanics, namely, the Copenhagen Interpretation.

(2) the Law of Identity ("A is A")

I would say this truely depends on the quality of the interpretation of axiom 1.

*The Axiom of Consciousness is the proposition that consciousness is irreducible.

I would agree that consciousness cannot be made simpler, or localized to any fundementability.

[Reiku]

In fact... instead of me resorting so hastily to science, i'll look at this in a more metaphysical sense.

To create a thing is to name or observe: Thergo, if every intelligent creature in the universe was suddenly removed, who would be there to say the universe existed? If no one is there to make that assurance, then the universe may as well not exist.

[Gustav]

..... namely, the Copenhagen Interpretation.

which is? standard def and perhaps a bunch of analogies?

[Reiku]

No, the collapse of the wave function through a human observation has been scientifically proven - varifying the Copenhagen Interpretation concerning the validity of an observer-dependant universe.

You can find a really good site on YouTube by Dr. Wolf... ''Double-Slit Experiment,'' - it's an animation, but it explains in excellent terms how we have the abillity to create reality.

[Gustav]

No, the collapse of the wave function through a human observation has been scientifically proven - varifying the Copenhagen Interpretation concerning the validity of an observer-dependant universe.

i am aware of that. i want you to explain it please. the process/methodology involved

[Gustav]

If no one is there to make that assurance, then the universe may as well not exist.

shit, then the primacy of existence should be junked.

[Gustav]

but we are here so............we cannot validly postulate otherwise

[Reiku]

Other than saying we know the universe exists now, since we are here.

[Gustav]

i am aware of that. i want you to explain it please. the process/methodology involved

please?

[wesmorris]

I find it in err to presume "intentionality" as a property of the universe, as the term is not applicable to something universal. The universe has to be anthropomorphized for that property to apply.

[wesmorris]

Sorry Gus... But i need to involve quantum mechanics when talking about the delicate nature of the universe. It turns out that consciousness and the world we see is the only reality at large.

As much as i find this a philosophical/metaphysical interpretation, (possibly even an anthropic based assumption ), i find also that these things should not be tackled without a scientific/physical veiw... Without science, it holds no real truth.

?

So your faith is science? That's where you find truth? Does that mean that's where it is, undoubtedly?

Why did the universe begin?

That question begs context. The problem seems to me is as follow: you only have terms that are contained within the universe to explore the question of "why" it began. More seriously, "why" implies a purpose, which reeks of anthropomorphization, which I note you pepper throughout your post. So as to minimize repeating myself, I'll just say the why's you're using in the next two have the same problem.

What if the question simply doesn't suffice to describe the actuality of the event? I'd agree the universe began, because that describes an observation of a common medium which I'd agree with. I just don't know if there's a "why" in the sense you seem to imply. "how" seems more pertienent and impartial to me. Is that what you actually intend to address, or was "why" really what you were shooting for?

Perhaps if you're asking "why", you've already missed the answer. Perhaps there is only function, from our limited perspective in time (and thought).

Why did the universe chose the conditions we see today?

Why do you presume it "chooses"? Again, it would seem likely to me that "chose" simply lacks pertinence to the actuality of the event.

And to attempt the answer: the conditions present today are a result of the processes that led up to today.

Why did the universe create life?

That life came to be does not imply it was created. I think life is actually a force in abstract space that is analagous to an opposite of entropy. I think abstract space is tangent to space time, or on its surface or something. Often I consider it in a compactificated dimension, but like I'd really know for sure.

These three questions cover exactly one empiracle veiwpoint concerning the origins of matter. At this moment, i will not talk of a God... Let these workings be due to the mysterious ether (for now).

By anthropomophizing this ether as you have, you've invoked god and denied it a name. I think this only confuses things.

Why did the universe begin?

Current favorite theory is the collsion of multi-d branes.

1. Because the universe had nothing better to do?
Or
2. So that life could exist?

Why do you limite the list and treat "the universe" as if it were one of your bored friends on saturday night? As if?

Bah I think I'll just stop here.

[wesmorris]

There is more.

Those who understand God, are those who understand how to resort to live life accordingly without the aid of science. It is unforunate sobs like me who need science also in their lives....


... It just gives me great pleasure to know, that even my Father In Heaven is a scientist too.

gah this drives me freakin nuts.

everyone thinks they are teh fuckers who know what REALLY is. YOU DON'T FUCKING KNOW. You're just talking the bullshit that makes sense to you like the rest of us. Your "father in heaven" is a conceptual relationship in your mind that focuses your perception in a manner that gives you peace in the "knowledge". The unfortunate repurcussion of this, is that you have to be a prick and proclaim this is "how it is". An unfortunate side-effect of my own bullshit comprehension is that upon reading yours, I had to be a prick and tell you how it seems to me.