| Challenge the Philosophy - Dispute 9 (19) |
Set Theory Model from slightly different angle
"f(n) -> a positive function of (n)
P(n)-> The probability of (n) occuring
(b) -> the set of things that exist
U -> the set of unknowable things
K -> the set of knowable things
C -> the boundry set of K which is indeterminate
H(n)-> the distribution of a systems enthalpy
1/S(n) -> the distribution of a systems entropy
tau -> the transition time from E to E0(a less stable to a more stable state)
errata: P(k)=Sigma{Hn+1/Sn+[Sqr(Hn/Sn)*cos(n)]*2}n=1 to n=(2Pi)// this function is a is a better approximation
Try to imagine a system as another state of matter. Like the other four states it can respond to macroscopic fluctuations in a fairly predictable manner. Normal matter is closely packed in time so that the distributions of energys(E-E0) remain fairly consistant within e^-((E-E0))/(kT)). In a system however the distributions of energy widen in inverse proportion to the mass and time(tau being an interval) so that the state of the entire system is at any instant indeterminate. This means that a system can be defined roughly as a macroscopic object with quantum characteristics
let [1/Sn, Hn] be a point or node with energy distributed between E and E0
The minimum indeterminacy of Energy between (E-E0) ~= h/(2Pi*tau)
If we hold that U-f(b)>0 "A set of knowable things exist" the individual members of (b) that hold the relation f(b)=K+C have a state space range proportional to P(k)=K/(b)
The boundry set C holds the relation P(C)=P(k) - P(U) thus generating a fuzzy set K bounded by f(K)=1/tau
Since N=1/P The number of possible states equals the inverse of the propability of a state We use the following relation to determine the minimum number of energy superpositions
U/(b)=1-K/(b) -> U/(b)+K/(b) = 1
then (b)/U + (b)/K = (b)^2/(U*K)
in the example of U=K we have { (K,U), (U,K), (K,K), (U,U) },
four possible Energy states
so at U=K , C=4
Lower limit=(b)^2/(U*K) :Upper limit (b)
As members of set K converge on a smaller area of state space {Delta E(system)->0 } the state space position indeterminacy of [1/Sn, Hn] increases to a limit of K=C. That is, the set K is contiguous with it's boundry C. This allows for K -> K0 or (self / self) superpositions to exist in tau." Ken Bell January 28 2000
"1) An objects essence is nothing more than a contextual description of the object. Lets look at the example of color. The essence(s) of color are:
A) Light -> Photons -> Energy -> ...
B)Perception -> Memory -> Consciousness-> ...
So according to these little lists color reduces to a) Energy in terms of Consciousness
b) Consciousness in terms of Energy
A context dependent dichotomy arises when we first separate (self), Perception
from, (not self), Light. In fact a complete description of color must include
both (a) and (b), not as seperate added entities, or causally determined
instances, but as a complete superposition. In this way we can dispose of thought
forms at the moment of awareness and rely on more conventional descriptions of
phenomenon and interconnectedness. Plato = Cave
2) The notion of tranference(non Jungian) of "who we are" is a causally restricted concept and leads to paradox. As demonstrated in the second set of equations it is possible for a set to exist as one of it's members as the distributions of some function of it's members converges on the distribution of the same function of the set itself, this makes the set fractal. Simply put, it's possible for us to know who we are, but to do so requires focused awareness. What I find interesting is the parallel between the conclusions of set theory and superposition, and aspects of Buddhist philosophy.
3) Knowledge and language are two different, but interrelated classes. It appears, that the connection between knowledge and language is iterative so that a causal dependency between the two classes becomes an illusion of perspective. To get beyond the "chicken and egg" view, knowledge and language need to be conceived in terms of one another and not their intrinsic relationship(s). With this we can eliminate the need for a first thought or a first word in the phylogenic sense.
From a structuralist approach, language is a way to extend our senses beyond their normal range: (Hearing -> Speech), (Seeing/Temporal -> Written), and combinations like (Hearing/Temporal -> Music) Language is also an appendage that we use to modify our environment. We can, across time and space influence the transfer of energy with a mere word. Of course a word doesn't exist in a vaccum, a word is a functioning component of a context space which is Knowledge.
Viewed from a magnified prespective, language and knowledge form a sensory->motor response loop. The organ of language, being composed of neural networks has the ability to relocate itself in state space thus allowing different sensory/motor inputs and outputs to co-exist within a dynamic framework. When the state space coordinates as a function of the local context space, are close or matched, a change of entropy occurs. The space itself has collapsed between (self/not self). In terms of energy, our little pocket of the universe is an area where a growing portion of space is collapsing in upon itself.
Energy is constantly flowing in the same way that an object orbits a black hole. The orbits of energy however aren't ecllipitic, they're fractal. This allows combinations of energy (superpositions) to produce higher order orbits and thus cheat death once again.
Language and Knowledge form a sensory/motor complex which is distributed over a number of different elements. It's like an appendage that we all share.
So it would seem that we're not doomed after all (in the short term anyway 1,000,000,000,000 Years (10^12y)." Ken Bell January 29 2000
The essence of things can be viewed from two different angles: phenomenology and epistemology. In terms of your example of colour, we ask what do light and perception mean in terms of epistemology:
A) light -> photons -> energy -> unknown
B) perception -> memory -> conscious -> system of thought -> thought -> unknown
What do light and perception mean in terms of phenomenology:
A) light -> label -> word -> appearance -> unknown
B) perception -> label -> word -> appearance -> unknown
Hence, it appears that energy in terms of consciousness, or any other variable combination, is a fabrication. It follows that the "context dependent dichotomy" between [(self), perception] from, [(non-self), light] is a fabrication as well. The notion of fabricated consciousness is supported by our agreement that both self and non-self are labels with invented meanings. So the real dichotomy appears to lie outside of our minds (who we are) in relation to our minds (thought forms). This dichotomy works through the label "I" which creates an illusory distance between our fabricated identity and thought forms, when in fact they appear to be all fabrications with unknown meaning and essence. To rely on "more conventional descriptions of phenomena and interconnectedness", like the zeroth law of thermodynamics, is merely to rely on our fabricated system(s) of thoughts to describe our fabricated system(s) of thoughts, or to rely on our thoughts to describe our thoughts. Unlike the notion of energy, who we are gives us the ability to view our minds from the outside of them, or at least the conception of it, in terms of the apparent dichotomy between thought forms and who we are.
Just because who we are is a causal restricted concept and leads to paradox, it does not follow that the concept is illusory. (Please see the closing statement about "our little pocket of the universe").
Your set theory is limited by assuming that some things are knowable and unknowable. Since knowledge is not absolute, these assumptions are questionable. Also, the theory is a mental construct; so there is a possibility it does not really include the notion of (b)itself, even though it uses (b) as a variable. For these reasons, we think it is unreasonable to conclude based on your set theory that through focused awareness, we can know who we are.
From our understanding of Buddhist philosophy, the self is an empty label, an illusion, which confuses us into believing we are our fabricated identity. Attaching to our identity causes greed, violence, envy ect. The Buddhist philosophy is centered around overcoming the illusion of self, through meditation, study, routine, and ritual, thereby uniting ourselves with who we really are: our unconscious being, and getting us out of our "suffering" existence.
The bridge between knowledge and language is the concept of asserting conscious meaning without prior knowledge or assumption. Hence, to view language and knowledge solely in terms of one another is to ignore their dependency on the notion of conscious meaning, and the fact that there appears to be really no difference between language and knowledge, except for what we fabricate.
From an evolutionary and behavioral approach, language, and knowledge, appears to be a way to shield ourselves from unconscious nature. We left unconscious nature out of inner weakness and ironically through an unconscious assertion that meaning exists. In other words, we unknowingly created a shield between us and unconscious nature.
thinking -> conscious shield
writing -> conscious shield
speaking -> conscious shield
inventing -> material shield
using inventions -> material shield
As you stated, language, and knowledge, is an "appendage we use to modify our environment" and we would add, to shield us from the directness of nature. Instead of just existing unconsciously, we exist partly through our thoughts, and their material extensions. This creates an extra step (or shield) in relation to unconscious nature.
You assert that a word is a "functioning component of a context space which is knowledge." What is this knowledge you are referring to? How can knowledge, a mere word itself, be a functioning component of a context space, and at the same time be the context space? How can context space, a mere word, be a functioning component of a context space and at the same time be the context space it is a functioning component of?
Is there really a dichotomy between (self / non-self), or is the dichotomy a causal illusion from the concept of superposition? If we break down self and non-self in terms of their essence, we get:
self -> label -> word -> appearance -> unknown
non-self -> label -> word -> appearance -> unknown
In terms of their meanings, we get:
self -> fabricated identity of who we are
non-self -> fabricated identity of not who we are
So the dichotomy appears to be a product of the differences in our fabricated meanings of self and non-self.
In terms of superposition’s essence, we get:
superposition -> label -> word -> appearance -> unknown
In terms of its meaning, we get:
superposition -> substates within state(s)
Superposition in terms of its meaning, does not deal with things in terms of their essence. So it is possible that superposition is an illusion, stemming from the limits of what we can really know. To support this position, superposition has never been identified using instruments of detection. It is just a theory based on the observation of substates in state(s) in things like light and wave, without knowing the intrinsic value of these substates and state(s).
In terms of our consciousness, there appears to be different substates (thought forms) in relation to the state(s) (our system(s) of thoughts). So in one sense, there appears to be superposition in our consciousness, except when we consider the intrinsic value of thought forms and the system(s) of them, there may not be, especially when the notion of true knowledge is in question. Further, the view that who we are ((b)itself) is in our thoughts does not make sense because our thoughts, and system(s) of them, show no sign of life, except that they appear to have form of existence. Moreover, it is unclear why who we are has to be in our thoughts, when language and knowledge appear the product of assertion and fabrication. How can we transfer who we are to something else, when we ourselves are the ones behind the transfer? There would be nothing to transfer. Also, it does not follow why who we are has to be in our thoughts for them to have form of existence. Added to this, it does not follow how who we are can be in our thoughts, because we need to be outside of something to know it even in a fabricated sense.
We agree with your view of "our little pocket of the universe", whereby a "growing portion of space is collapsing in upon itself". We express this dynamic in terms of notion that one being must exist through another, and since there are finite beings, we are caught in a self-destructive scenario. Though we take your view further and assert that our existence through thoughts, and their material extensions, are speeding up the portion of space collapsing in upon itself, or the number of beings being existed through. And further still, we assert that our consciousness is our "black hole", whereby through its emptiness, we are disrupting the balance between life and death, or the non-collapse and collapse. We ourselves are increasingly being absorbed into our consciousness, or black hole, through our use of it, and at the same time, we are using it to absorb all other life-forms into its emptiness.
Also, we agree with your assertion that we are not doomed in the short-term, but we appear to be in the long-term. We believe this because the growing portion of space collapsing in upon itself (or beings being existed through) appears not only unstoppable, but will only increase. In other words, we are caught in a degenerate recursion loop, which we can’t get out of. There appears to be four factors behind the degenerate loop:
1. the uncertainty of our existence
2. collapse / non-collapse (one being through another) reality
3. acceleration of factor 2. through our use of thoughts and their material extensions
4. fragmentation of the world into competing groups, and the competition between ourselves and unconscious nature
These four factors combine to create a scenario whereby we are caught in a loop of increasing destruction, or collapse, while at the same what we are destroying, or collapsing, appears to be finite. To slow down our destruction, our use of thoughts and material extensions could be reduced, but only through all the competing human groups doing likewise. The obvious solution is to unite the world in our common struggle, and perhaps take it further and unite ourselves with unconscious nature by gradually giving up our use of thoughts and their material extensions.
Dispute 9 (16-18)
Dispute 9 (20-21)