| Challenge the Philosophy - Dispute 9 (16-18) |
"1) A system of thought is merely a way in which observable reality grows in state space until limits are reached. The conceptual evolution that selects any particular system ie.( the notion of the passage of time, or the animist projections of tribal societys) is driven by:
A) The discontinuity or mutual exclusion of spacio/temporally adjacent systems.
B) The degree of reflection, that is the degree of (self / not self) collapse.
2) A Priori caregories represent the limits of causal rationalism. Although "a priori" is just a word, it represents a useful concept for the exploration of mind from mind. Jungs contribution was to build a bridge between the limits of rationalism and evolutionary psychology.
In terms of human understanding, awareness, now a property of system self organization, becomes itself a variable, no longer relegated to an a priori category and no longer restricted to human cognition. "Who we are" is undefined in terms of causality. The state of being having the property of acausal symmetry, is therefore only resolvable by superposition.
What the model seems to show is that Being and Awareness are the result of the symmetry breaking of Existence. This is consistant with cosmology. The dichotomy between Being and Awareness is an illusion of causality. In answer to the challenge at the end of response 15, "always show kindness".
3) I am not expanding prediction and repeatability to the relm of "absolute truth", quite the reverse, truth becomes a test of self consistancy. This unfortunately strips the ethical foundation from truth, but it is my belief that ethical meaning is "our" problem. Within the relm of subjectivism the notion of truth becomes relegated to an a priori assertion. A rationalist approach could have truth equaling mathematical consistancy. In the superposition model, truth serves the more pragmatic function of opening doors to new possibilities. Although mathematical and physical laws do indeed display self consistancy, truth is found where we search. It would be reasonabe to infer that (truth / not truth) result from the symmetry breaking of awareness.
4) I do not hold the opinion that reason is contingent on meaning. It is my opinion that reason and meaning each illuminate the universe in a different way. Reason, by way of assertions and proofs and Meaning by way of intuition and understanding. A sort of (left brain / right brain) perspective, if you will.
5) "Who we are existing through something empty of it equates with the absorption of who we are into emptiness." It would seem that we're not too far apart in our analysis of the dynamic. It might be said that , "emptiness defines us" or that "absorption is the reflection of growth". Either way, the existence of a dynamic is implied.
6) To know anything, we (our being), must become connected to it, through collapse of (self / not self)." Ken Bell January 18 2000
It seems that your whole position on the dynamic between being and knowledge comes down to the questions:
Is what we know part of who we are, and does what we don't know have the potential to be part of who we are? In other words, what is the basis of knowledge and non-knowledge themselves? To answer this question, our views come close regarding the notion of who we are being absorbed into emptiness, or "emptiness defining who we are". Though our positions are not the same. We show which is the more reasonable position, through soundness of rational explanation:
1. The "non-truth" around us could become part of us through a "symmetry breaking of awareness" process, whereby we are absorbed into the non-truth, and we are left with the growth of truth as part of us. The problem with this position is that the notion of truth and non-truth is questionable, since the basis of all knowledge is unknown, and it appears that all knowledge is invented arbitrarily by us, the inventors. Moreover, "meaning", the dynamic behind reason appears to have been derived by an unconscious assertion by us without prior knowledge or assumption, so the origin of knowledge or "truth" does not conform to the notion of truth in the symmetry breaking of awareness process. If the origin of knowledge does not conform to that process, it does not follow that the rest of knowledge would conform to it either. Another problem is that the superposition, which although on the surface clears up the problem of knowing who we are while being who we are, it cannot add being itself into its model. For example, the superposition equation, ((b)itself in (k)itself) = (b)itself is false, because the answer must be a third variable, and yet it appears there can't be any other variable representing who we are beyond being itself. One way around this is to claim that the dichotomy between being and awareness is an "illusion of causality". Even still, the problem with the superposition model still stands, and in fact, if the dichotomy is an illusion, we would be left with (b)itself being absorbed into "non-truth", and become it so that (b) = (k) and (k) = (b), which would eliminate the need for the superposition model. The problem with this is that it can't resolve how we can know who we are while being who we are, except by merely labelling it a causal illusion. So we return to the superposition and its problem.
or
2. The basis of knowledge appears to be derived from the invention of language, and ultimately from an unconscious assertion by us, without prior knowledge or assumption, that meaning exists. So the origin of
knowledge appears to be not from a "symmetry breaking of existence", but from a blind assertion by who we are. It follows that knowledge itself, or "truth" appears to be an invention with an existence because we have
given it one. In other words, knowledge itself only exists as mere form of existence through our invention of it. Added to this, the dynamic of acquiring more knowledge or "truth" appears to come from both the invention of knowledge through
who we are, unconscious sensory, and previous knowledge, whereby we give invented meaning to what itself does not have, and thereby we ourselves are absorbed into the emptiness of our "truth". This can be shown by our unconscious
assertion, in which we give existence to the notion of conscious meaning through who we are; and since we can't create who we are because that is who we are, it follows that our "truth" is empty of who we are, and yet it has a form
of existence through our self-supported illusion that conscious meaning really exists. So in contrast to theory 1., which we are being absorbed into non-truth through the symmetry breaking of awareness process, we ourselves are being absorbed into
the emptiness of our invented truth. In other words, the difference between theory 1. and theory 2. is that in the latter, there is only invented truth (ie. knowledge), and itself is empty of who we are; whereas, the former takes the opposite position,
truth is not invented, and we become part of non-truth through the breaking process of acquiring more truth.
To prove the dichotomy between who we are and awareness, theory 2. turns to the proposition that we cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time. It shows that what we know itself is empty of who we are. Further, since we can't know anything without being external to who we are, it follows that what we know must be empty of who we are. Moreover, when who we are, and similar thoughts, and all other thoughts are broken down in terms of their meaning, we again expose the dichotomy: inexpressible and unknown.
Is this dichotomy an "illusion of causality" as theory 1. claims, or is it really a property of our existence?
Theory 1. claims that the process of symmetry breaking of existence shows this illusion, but this process does not explain, or show, how non-truth, when absorbed by us, somehow becomes part of who we are. (Also, it is a concern, why theory 1. does not claim that non-truth when absorbed becomes not just part of who we are, but actually becomes who we are in the form of truth. It appears to make this latter claim, eliminates the theory 1.'s use of superposition). It appears the more plausible explanation is that the process of non-truth into truth is from the invention of truth in relation to existing truth, so the symmetry breaking process in this scenario appears to be conforming to an existing system of thought, and thereby adding growth to it or subtracting growth from it. We could turn to superposition as a way out, but it cannot deal with being itself and knowledge itself. So we are left with the challenge axiom that we can't know who we are. Is this an illusion of causality? Since theory 1. cannot stand to reason (ie. problems with the superposition and notion of truth, and we cannot overcome the challenge axiom without contradicting reason, we must conclude that theory 2, as far we know now, is the more reasonable theory of consciousness.
In short, for theory 1. to challenge theory 2., it must:
1. overcome the inconsistency of superposition regarding being itself (ie.[[((b)itself in (k)itself) = (b)itself] = false].
2. provide a reasonable, alternative theory of knowledge, which incorporates idea of the invention of language, and thereby the invention of knowledge, and answers the problem of distinguishing between non-truth, truth, and appearances that are neither of them (ie. such as a truth accepted and then later rejected like the idea that the earth is flat).
"1) Truth will never contain "who we are" because of the necessary implication of it's opposite. In terms of causality Absolute Truth and Absolute Untruth end up as mirror image infinities, bounded only by our definition of Absolute. In terms of acausality, awareness(self / not self collapse) results in a new being. Truth becomes the reflection of the initial superposition, since this reflection is nothing more than awareness of other (previous) self states, untruth becomes the necessary mirror image of (not self) states. As can be seen truth does not require any extrinsic functions ie. (absolute) to exist. Truth becomes a self creating process whereby the acausal collapse of (self / not self) ie. reflection, necessitates the awareness that other paths exist as a set of uncollapsed superpositions. A simple way to put this would be to say when we make a choice we exclude all other possibilities. Or to quote Robert Frost from his poem "The Road Not Taken", " I took the one less travelled by, And that has made all the difference".
a) Reflection is defined as the property of a system in which the collapsed state is superimposed with all other contiguous .uncollapsed states, thereby necessitating the acausal connection prerequisite for any memory model.
b) Self consistency of observable phenomenon becomes a reduction of the of (self / not self) collapse along any particular enthalpic path. The exclusion of relevant untruth necessitates decreased awareness. It is possible that this could be the basis of relative ethics.
c) Knowledge becomes the detectable change of state of a system(s) in which contiguous systems' energy states undergo (self / not self) collapse into a new state, thereby generating new sets of fractal enthalpic paths. In this way knowledge is not system specific but exists in conjunction with, and as represented by, us and everything we touch.. The obvious conclusion is that knowledge is not restricted to humanity. Also the notion of containment disappears thus freeing knowledge space to exist outside of awareness. This can lead to the false conclusion of directedness, or determinism which equates local knowledge space as absolute.
2) We create who we are from moment to moment generating awareness from the collapse of (not self) states into a new (self) state. Our knowledge becomes inseperable from our being. The truth of who we are is only validated by who we are not, due to truths spacio/temporal locality. Self, to be objectified within the relm of knowledge must become differentiated and alienated via negation to necessitate (self / not self) collapse, hence awareness. Therefore one cannot, in any arbitrary moment, look inside and say, "here I am", or look into a mirror and say "there I am" and expect any degree of accuracy. The truest assertion that can be made would be "I am" a statement of being through awareness. The awareness of this assertion however is not contained within language as such, since language's causal restrictions deconstruct awareness by removing a dimension. Therefore the statement "I am" to be fully realized by a person with use of functions other than language, becomes an awareness of daily functioning. Every thought, every act, every interaction becomes a moment, not of scrutiny, but of simple awareness. The third variable that you seek is the superposition product of (k) and (b)." Ken Bell January 20 2000
Since you concede that truth and non-truth are not absolute, and you agreed earlier that knowledge consists of invented labels with invented meanings (ie. Reply 12, regarding "I" as label), our theories of knowledge are similar, if not the same, assuming you agree that the basis of our first thought, and the birth of knowledge, is an unconscious assertion by us without prior knowledge or assumption. Yet, whether you agree with our conception of the basis of knowledge or not, the concept of "symmetry breaking of existence" must give way to the concept of symmetry breaking of imagination and in relation to our corresponding system(s) of thoughts. We are left with who we are, our knowledge, and the dichotomy between them (ie. we can't know who we are) or the oneness of them (ie. superposition). For there to be no dichotomy, during the birth of knowledge we must have somehow transferred who we are, through our assertion, into the sphere of knowledge itself. This transfer appears impossible because we can't transfer who we are into something we invent. It would mean that our inexpressible, soul, or spirit, is in thoughts themselves through our transfer of it. And since we are behind the transfer, it follows that we can't transfer who we are, otherwise there would be no basis to the transfer. To get around this, we turn to superposition, and claim that we only transfer a limited subset of (b), through our assertion, to (k). (Though since we invented knowledge, the transfer of a limited subset of (b) must be part of the invention process. In other words, in our assertion of the existence of "meaning", we transfer who we are). However, we still face the problem of how we can transfer, all or part of who we are, since we are the ones behind the transfer. Though it is clear that some energy is being transfered through our assertion, otherwise we would have no knowledge, not even as appearance.
To test the soundness of superposition, we turn to equations:
1. ((b)itself in (k)itself) = (c)itself (unknown variable)
(b)itself does not equal (c)itself, but (b)itself exists in (c)itself (superposition)
(b)itself in all of (k)itself (ie. (k) is all of us ourselves and something else).
2. (b)itself (ie. who we are) + ((b) in (k)) (ie. consciousness)
((b) in (k)) equates to ((b)itself in (k)itself)
The first equation leads to an unreasonable conclusion that all of who we are and then something else is transferred to (c)itself. This result suggests that not only do we transfer who we are to (k), but that (k) is already existing. However, since we invented (k) through our unconscious assertion, or whatever else, (k) cannot already be existing. Also, we can't transfer who we are to (k), because who we are is behind the transfer. In other words, there would be nothing to transfer.
The second equation leads back to the first equation, and the problems associated with it. To claim that the (b), in (k) is a limited subset of (b), again either leads us back to the first equation, or introduces the notion of the limited subset of (b) being empty of (b)itself in the limited subset of (b)'s representative conscious form, the label "I".
In short, theory 1. has failed to overcome the problems with superposition, and now faces the problem of showing how we (ie. who we are) can transfer who we are, and something else, to thoughts themselves.
Other issues:
We believe the truest assertion that can be made is "I am not" (ie. I can't know who I am), and in contrast to "I am" which only implies that something behind "I" exists, whatever it is.
Your theory of the "collapse of (self and not self) in contiguous systems' energy states, and the resulting new states, and through the new states, the generation of new sets of fractal enthalpic paths" does not appear applicable to the unconscious unfolding of nature. Wild animals, as far as we know, do not perceive through intellect, thereby have no identity of themselves as self and not self. So wild animals appear beyond the concept of knowledge, whereby they are in one with each other and their environment. Perhaps, this is where we get the concept of "unconscious unfolding", because essence of knowledge, so to speak, appears to be behind the unfolding. In contrast, we exist partly through our invented knowledge, thereby disrupting this unfolding, and connection to who we are.
"I believe that we have a misunderstanding regarding my view of knowledge.
From Reply 12
"Since "I" is only a label or an abstraction of ones being it serves merely as a
pointer."
From Reply 8
"4. Knowledge is not an illusion. Our sensory input,
processed by our reason, coupled with matter produces new
realities which are just as valid as those preceding. "
From Reply 10
"In the communication of this knowledge we do indeed invent labels and derive
meaning from those labels. "
I make a clear distinction between Knowledge and Labels. It is clear that Knowledge does not require labels to exist. Labels appear as a necessary function of communication (language), or reason (recursive language). In a systemic context, information becomes a catalytic agent which can induce a change of a systems path in state space. Since complexity emerges as subsystems, information exists as a carrier of potential Energy(P) or potential anitEnergy(-P). This facilitates an averaging of entropy within a network of subsystems, thus creating a homogeneity or convergence in state space. The convergence seems to be a necessary precondition of increasing complexity and subsequent diversification. This is an extension of the "zeroth law of thermodynamics".
Idealistically:
According to a set theory model we divide (b) into two subsets K,
knowable and U, unknowable so that
K + U = (b) and The intersection of K and U are members of K
If "who we are" is Knowable then ; all K=(b)
if "who we are" is Unknowable then ; f(b)=K + C or f(b)=U
if U - f(b) = 0 then U=K+C ; (b) - K=K+C ; (b)=2(K) +C // The case of
unconsciousness
if U - f(b) > 0 then U=K -C ; (b) - K=K -C ; (b)=2(K) - C // The case of
semiawareness
K=((b)+C)/2
In the instance of (b)=C; [2(K) - C]=[f(b) - K];
C=3K-f(b)
(b)=2(K)+C ; Your Proof
So according to this model, the point at which the knowable becomes unknowable is
itself unknowable.
Superposition takes the model further by assigning functions to all members of (b) and solving them in terms of an intrinsic paramater such as Energy. This at least provides an application basis.
A system is a macroscopic object in which matter organizes itself along a path that minimizes the decrease of potential energy over time.A system exists, not as a single object, but as a collection of nodes whose relative mass and energy are represented as distributions. The average mass of the system is equal to the average mass of the nodes. This introduces quantum noise at levels proportional to the degree of complexity .
The first thing to consider is that (b) is not a variable and that (k) is. Secondly (k) is a necessary subset of (b), that is, (k) exists and every member of (k) is a member of (b). All members of (b) are contiguously coupled by f[1/Sn, Hn]d(k) /*we have to include ourselves in the model*/.
since E-E0 >~h/(2*Pi*tau) boundarys such as 2C become probablistic within time tau
One can say that in time tau the probability that C=K
P(k) = (Sigma ([H1/S1*cos(n)]+[H2/S2*cos(n)]+[H3/S3* cos(n)]...Hn;n=(2Pi)))/2
where Hn and Sn are probability distributions of enthalpy and entropy. Since each node has an energy distribution which includes the system energy distribution P(B)=P(k)+P(U)
since B - U > 0 //Some of the system is knowable
and (k) in (b)=f(B) //The knowable portion is a part of the system
That which is knowable cannot become unknowable (the method by which the knowable became unknowable must itself be knowable) within the limits of the system
P(k)+P(B)=1-P(U) // in time tau ; My proof
This shows that the boundary between the knowable and unknowable is fuzzy at best. At low energy differentials nonlocal events become increasingly probable, including state-state superpositions.
Knowledge is the state of being that reflects itself." Ken Bell January 23 2000
Your theory of knowledge behind theory 1. (conscious superposition) appears to be claiming that truth and non-truth are absolute in a non-causal way, while at the same time being empty of who we are (Reply 17). Yet, you concede that "a priori" is just a "word and useful concept" (Reply 16), and that knowledge is distinct from labels (ie. knowledge does not require labels to exist (Reply 18)). Hence, it appears that you are claiming that truth and non-truth are independent entities, and that they cannot be understand causally. In other words, we just must accept that truth and non-truth, which are mere labels, are what really is in terms of knowledge. There are several problems with this theory of knowledge:
1. Knowledge (ie. truth and non-truth) cannot exist independently, when it is dependent on who we are, unconscious sensory, and invented language for its existence.
2. Since we invent language, including its symbols and meanings, it follows that knowledge is also a product of invention.
3. Since in your theory, knowledge itself is beyond our comprehension, it follows that we would have no objective way to distinguish knowledge from illusion, or knowledge from knowledge.
Other issues:
Your application of the "zeroth law of thermodynamics" to consciousness is problematic because it does not explain what our decision making process has to do with the "averaging of entropy", nor does it explain what is behind energy itself.
The problem with your set theory model is that it is unrealistic. The model divides (b) into two substates K, knowable, and U, unknowable, thereby assuming that (k) is part of (b), and the intersection of K and U are members of (k). Also, the model cannot take into account the notion of essence. For example, all (k)itself = (b)itself = illusion or redundancy. Finally, the model is limited by the invented rules of mathematics.
In the superposition part of the model, it is not stated whether the nodes are independent of each other, or are inherently the same, thereby from a single object. Hence, it is possible that superposition is an imaginary concept, and that Newton was right about the concept of a single object, and now with different substates.
If knowledge is a state of being that reflects itself, as you claim, what is our being itself? Also, how can we reflect who we are through the label "I" and the rest of our invented language? How can knowledge be differentiated from language when, from our perspective, you can’t have one without the other?
More on the superposition’s redundancy and essence problems:
1. thoughts themselves = ((b)itself in (k)itself) = ((b)itself in ((b)itself in (k)itself)
(b)itself cancels out (b)itself.
Equation 1. displays redundancy. Also, we are left only with (k)itself, which corresponds to the claim that our thoughts themselves are empty of who we are.
In answer to the redundancy problem, perhaps (b)itself is constantly changing so equation 1. reflects that. Yet, that implies (b)itself does not equal the (b)itself in (k)itself, which means that we can’t know who we are. Though it does not make sense why (b)itself would have to refresh the (b), in (k), since they are ultimately the same. It takes us back to the redundancy problem. The solution is that (b)itself is not in (k)itself. Therefore:
thoughts themselves = (k)itself
(k)itself does not equal (b)itself
((b)itself in (k)itself) is an illusion.
Superposition is an illusion. It does not recognize that substates may all be from the same basis, so there may be no inherent difference between them.
The concept of superposition appears derived from narrow reasoning. (ie. just looking at different substates and assuming that they are independent of each other, rather than considering what may be behind them in relation to each other, like considering the different photons in light, and not what is behind the photons themselves). However, we agree with the concept of substates of state(s) with the same basis. Though the expression of it would be its basis. So the substates appear to be an illusion of superposition, when they are really the different substates of one object. In other words, when things are viewed in terms of their essence, the substates collapse.
It follows that in process of asserting (k), assuming (k) is from an unconscious assertion, we must transfer (b)itself and something else from (b)itself. It does not make sense. For instance, how can there be something else, when all we can be is who we are? How can we transfer who we are, when who we are is behind the transfer? To overcome these problems, (k) must be empty of who we are, so that there is no (b) that is transferred, and the existence of (k) is a product of our thought process and assertion.
Dispute 9 (13-15)
Dispute 9 (19)