Including this one?
Reality is...
- Thread starter Spellbound
- Start date
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Including this one?
Likely so.
The inference of a "cosmic process governed by eternal or immutable principles" -- which falls out of our commonsense perception of a changing universe -- isn't an automatic fact or the only possibility. In the case of a block-universe or block-multiverse, you wouldn't need a process regulated by rules outputting substantive states of the universe moment by moment. The complete structure of the block (whether hypersolid, field, etc) would sport the repeated patterns of organization that the limited "time-flow illusion" of animal cognition compelled humans to generalize as laws.
The "immaterial" characteristic of the potent global principles of such a process (that is, those generalizations not being realized as empirical, particular things apart from powerless descriptive symbols representing them) would no longer be applicable or necessary in the rival block view. "Lawfulness" there acquires the materiality (if one wants to call it that) of just being part of the extra-dimensional spatial form. Much as the complete shape of a chair carries or just is its own internal governance. As opposed to the chair being outputted slice by slice in a pattern-ful way so that the slices would seem to be "obeying abstract rules" rather the just be-ing an overall structural integration of those slices.
The problem with block models, however, is that IF the framework of time is construed to be infinite in both "directions" (so-called past and future), then it becomes a contradiction. An infinite stretch treated as a non-looping, completed ontological condition rather than a perpetually uncompleted process of "adding or dividing more", actually warrants classification as finite, no matter how large the fixed quantity or measurement is that is submitted. While the Big Bang would typically be posited as the starting point of a block-universe, there are hypotheses that offer existential affairs prior to BB. While some hypotheses contend that "time" or this cosmos will expire in the incredibly distant future, others contend a Big Bounce or new universes sprouting from it. And by not being a process, a static block can't remedy an inconsistent claim of being infinite by switching to being a process of adding or dividing more (or rather, it can't do such without surrendering its identity of being an immutable block).
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
"In the very weird world of quantum mechanics, which describes action on a subatomic scale, random fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness. And this can lead to very big things indeed, researchers say.
"Quantum mechanical fluctuations can produce the cosmos," said panelist Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the non-profit Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence(SETI) Institute. "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it."============http://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html
Yazata,
Reality reveals that there is an essence in us. Which, once found, enlightenment follows. It is described as supreme, timeless and spaceless. Having no particular form and neither residing as a thing that can be seen, touched or felt (externally). Hence neither exists nor non-exists (since existence and non-existence are one. Think Taoism where the opposites unite without ceasing to be themselves). In mystical literature, enlightened beings refer to it as "That", being beyond all space, time and form. The absolute or God if you will. For more information see: http://planksandnails.hubpages.com/hub/Is-True-Reality-the-Immaterial-Influencing-the-Material and http://sciforums.com/threads/reality-as-wonder.142200/.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Is that standard protocol now? Merging threads that have the same word in their titles?
Last edited:
"It might be objected that the CTMU, being based by definition on the human cognitive syntax, already resides in each of our minds and thus represents no informational gain. But this syntax is not so easily formulated within itself, and equating metaphysical reality to it is neither obvious nor simple. As explained above, a net informational gain comes from freeing information once "locked up" (artificially isolated) within U*-pseudotautologies and the scientific and mathematical theories implicitly based on them.
Now that we have the essential picture, let's try for some detail. Let Ui, be that part of a generalized universe U* to which we refer as the physical universe, or the set of all things directly observable by Ui-observers. This is a recursive definition in which Ui is defined on Ui-observers and vice versa, and varies with choice of subscript. Subscripts correspond to cognitive equivalency classes within U*, or sets of observers sharing the same information-transductive syntax. Ui consists of that part of U* specifically decidable to Ui-observers, and is mathematically equivalent to the cognitive class itself. Assume that the class Ui is human.
(...)
Aristotelian metaphysics is universal, containing in principle all Ui-relevant information (Ui-potential) U*. A theory of metaphysics M is an open inferential system which, because necessarily universal, reduces to a Ui-recognizable tautology T on U* heritable in M via generalized rules of inference (where "generalized inference" is just logical substitution). As specific information equates inductively to ancestral generalisms, and U* is both unique and Ui-indiscernible from T, the identification M = T = U* is practically unconditional. Now suppose that there exist two Ui-distinguishable true metaphysical theories M and M’; i.e., two Ui-distinguishable Ui-tautologies T and T’. These can only be Ui-distinguishable by virtue of a nonempty Ui-informationa1 disjunction: i.e., disjoint information d = (T ∪ T’) - (T ∩ T’) > ∅ recognizable in/by Ui (where the information in T or T’ equals the scope (image) of its univer sal quantifier, and ∅ is the null set). This information d, being the distinction between two Ui-perceptible truths, exists in Ui and thus U*. But as it is disjoint information, one member of the pair (T, T’) does not contain it. So this member does not cover U*, is not a U* tautology, and thus is not a theory of metaphysics. On the other hand, M = Uj = 1, 2... Mj, where the jointly U*-exhaustive Mj are all "true", Ui-distinct, and M-nonexluded, does and is.
So the assumption fails, and there can be only one correct theory of metaphysics at the tautological level. This, by definition, is the CTMU. I.e., the CTMU takes this existential proof of metaphysical uniqueness and uses the implied system as the identity of a transductive algebra meeting the conditions for human cognition by its homomorphic relationship to the human cognitive syntax. So for the human cognitive equivalency-class, the universe is generalistically identical to the CTMU tautology."
http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Supertautological_Adjointness
Reality (existence, or Sattva, etc.) corresponds to one class of metaphysical tautologies. The CTMU is this class. As I have already stated, reality is One. This class of metaphysical tautologies correspond to one class of the human cognitive syntax or information transducers. This proves that any idea of God must be the realistic or correct One.
Now that we have the essential picture, let's try for some detail. Let Ui, be that part of a generalized universe U* to which we refer as the physical universe, or the set of all things directly observable by Ui-observers. This is a recursive definition in which Ui is defined on Ui-observers and vice versa, and varies with choice of subscript. Subscripts correspond to cognitive equivalency classes within U*, or sets of observers sharing the same information-transductive syntax. Ui consists of that part of U* specifically decidable to Ui-observers, and is mathematically equivalent to the cognitive class itself. Assume that the class Ui is human.
(...)
Aristotelian metaphysics is universal, containing in principle all Ui-relevant information (Ui-potential) U*. A theory of metaphysics M is an open inferential system which, because necessarily universal, reduces to a Ui-recognizable tautology T on U* heritable in M via generalized rules of inference (where "generalized inference" is just logical substitution). As specific information equates inductively to ancestral generalisms, and U* is both unique and Ui-indiscernible from T, the identification M = T = U* is practically unconditional. Now suppose that there exist two Ui-distinguishable true metaphysical theories M and M’; i.e., two Ui-distinguishable Ui-tautologies T and T’. These can only be Ui-distinguishable by virtue of a nonempty Ui-informationa1 disjunction: i.e., disjoint information d = (T ∪ T’) - (T ∩ T’) > ∅ recognizable in/by Ui (where the information in T or T’ equals the scope (image) of its univer sal quantifier, and ∅ is the null set). This information d, being the distinction between two Ui-perceptible truths, exists in Ui and thus U*. But as it is disjoint information, one member of the pair (T, T’) does not contain it. So this member does not cover U*, is not a U* tautology, and thus is not a theory of metaphysics. On the other hand, M = Uj = 1, 2... Mj, where the jointly U*-exhaustive Mj are all "true", Ui-distinct, and M-nonexluded, does and is.
So the assumption fails, and there can be only one correct theory of metaphysics at the tautological level. This, by definition, is the CTMU. I.e., the CTMU takes this existential proof of metaphysical uniqueness and uses the implied system as the identity of a transductive algebra meeting the conditions for human cognition by its homomorphic relationship to the human cognitive syntax. So for the human cognitive equivalency-class, the universe is generalistically identical to the CTMU tautology."
http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Supertautological_Adjointness
Reality (existence, or Sattva, etc.) corresponds to one class of metaphysical tautologies. The CTMU is this class. As I have already stated, reality is One. This class of metaphysical tautologies correspond to one class of the human cognitive syntax or information transducers. This proves that any idea of God must be the realistic or correct One.
Failure to refute. Reported.
There are still a few who are living with the false belief that there is no God. It feels great. And is real. It is a reality that is difficult to penetrate and that is why I do whatever I can to make insights into reality and the CTMU. That written proof of metaphysical uniqueness by Langan proves that reality corresponds to one class of metaphysical tautologies. It makes me feel disappointed to see how the moderators treat my reality threads like a crime. It's plain obvious that reality is the holy grail of Philosophy. Understanding it is very important.
I have a question to the moderators about reality threads.
If I limit and don't go crazy with reality threads will I be free again to talk about it?
Reality is a specialty of mine and it can lead to breakthroughs in untraversed areas.
If I limit and don't go crazy with reality threads will I be free again to talk about it?
Reality is a specialty of mine and it can lead to breakthroughs in untraversed areas.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Ask the Mods then, via PM.
Personally, I sincerely hope you will NOT be given any more latitude whatsoever. You are free to talk about it now: nobody is restricting you. But, thankfully, in a special place where the rest of us are not obliged to have it clutter up the serious subject categories on the forum, as we are all thoroughly fed up with your boring and meaningless monomania on the subject.
I wouldn't call it monomania since, for example, "Ants", obsessively talked about, does not provide anything new as "Reality" is far more insightful and important Philosophically than "Ants", no?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
It's monomania alright. You are a cracked record. Didn't you tell us at one point you were undergoing psychiatric treatment? Well, it shows.
Thank you for showing how qualified you are on the mental state of someone who lives 600 or more miles away from you and only converses with you over the internet. Anyway, no. What talking about reality shows is quite the opposite. A kind of "super-sanity".