Continuing my quest for a description of existence, I have taken a look at the very basics and attempted to formalize some conclusions – as usual in the form of a WOIM list:
Potential
Realization
[1,x] Existence
Cause
Consideration
Effect
Influence
#Existence
Common reality = Intersection of existences
Consensus reality = Co-considered effect
[2,n] Cause
Consideration
Co-considered effect
Influence
#'Consensus reality'
In even plainer English, this means: There is a potential which realized becomes existence. Existence is comprised of Cause which through consideration creates an effect which in turn influences the Existence. From this we get the fractal nature of the universe.
Common reality is simply two existences overlapping (intersecting), while a Consensus reality is an agreed-upon existence, or more precisely “co-considered” effect, again with the fractal nature of the effect influencing back at the Consensus reality.
This WOIM list condenses the essence of my article “On Will“. It is very far from a formalized description of the basics of existence, but it may serve as a starting point.
I would appreciate feedback (but please read the above referenced article first); Is the list correct, and what are the next steps in making it more complete?
Geir Isene - uncut 
Bear with me, this is not a formulation, rather just freewheeling ideation. So, lets say we start with a “clean” slate. Now, with a “clean slate,” what do we have? Have. Have not. Have? Not. There’s no have without have not. What means “clean?” Is this potential?
I would argue that a clean slate is not “have” and not “not have”, it’s pure potential.
I guess by clean slate I mean nothing happening. i.e. break up the work nothing to “no thing” happening. May explain a free needle?
With a “clean” slate we have several things:
(1) “clean”
(2) slate
(3) something
(4) manifestation (knowable)
(5) awareness
(6) viewpoint
(7) consideration of havingness
(8) consideration of consideration
(9) beginning
(10) etc.
🙂
So I am drilling the steps. So far:
Pervading. No ideas. Considering ideas. (not?)
Interval?
Positioning idea. Idea. Realization?
Interval?
What? No comments yet?
Well, Geir, you stumped me as well. I had to spend some time understanding the WOIM List. I think I have a pretty good understanding of what you are saying here. A proper response would be to provide you with my own WOIM list. I am going to make it right at the spot here, so it is going to be a bit sketchy and incomplete.
NIRVANA
..Cycle
….Beginning
……End
……..Change
…Consideration #Cycle
….Something
……Nothing
….Knowable
……Unknowable
….Beingness
……Awareness
..Time #Cycle
….Space #Beginning
……Energy #Change
……..Matter #Something
….Identity #Beingness
……Viewpoint #Awareness
[To be continued…]
.
Now we’re talking!
A WOIM list to influence my viewpoint… awesome.
I will chew on this. I also want to go ahead and tackle the formation of physics. This was cursorily attempted by Hubbard in the Factors, but nowhere near complete. There need to be a complete bridge between what we argue here and the actual formation of space, time and energy and the makeup, interaction and propagation of these, the actual makeup of the 4 forces and the reason for the bosons and fermions etc. When a complete theory is laid out, it needs to make some actual, testable predictions.
For starters, I want to approach such a theory that includes a “will” (or “cause” if you will) in the universe from the angle of the universe being discrete. This would imply that the universe actually has a smallest unit of energy, a smallest unit of space and a smallest unit of time – and that the universe does actually tick through distinct states as a motion picture if you slow it down. This seems reasonable and in line with Loop Quantum Gravity.
I am ready to look at physics too. I have ordered the following book: http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/061891868X/
.
Modification:
….Beingness #Something
……Awareness #Knowable
.
The moment of manifestation is the moment that existence appears.
Existence has to do with being. The two are synonymous.
Beingness is the fact of existence. It has nothing to do with form.
The moment any form is assigned to beingness, it becomes an identity.
And it has individuality only if that form does not repeat.
Individuality cannot exist without identity.
That is where Hubbard made an error.
He thought individuality is the opposite of identity.
But individuality cannot be without uniqueness.
And uniqueness is a form.
If you think of individuality as opposite of identity.
It ends up in a strange status mania.
And, therefore, in ego.
But, intelligent people can make errors too.
When they mess with ego.
Ego is a very slippery slope.
So, there I am…
😉
.
I am so glad you and Maria is here to play ball with me on these matters. I need an evening to explore your responses.
Maria is a formidable opponent!
🙂
Clarification to my last comment.
😉 = “Laughing at myself.”
.
Ah Vinaire, no opponent at all. Fellow explorer would be much more accurate. And back at you… I am sooooo…. happy to be able to explore this with you and Geir.
I’ve been exploring in my own way.
Seems to me that there is some kind of step here to do with sense, sensation. For fun I went and looked at the etymology of sense:
c.1400, “faculty of perception,” also “meaning or interpretation” (esp. of Holy Scripture), from O.Fr. sens, from L. sensus “perception, feeling, undertaking, meaning,” from sentire “perceive, feel, know,” probably a figurative use of a lit. meaning “to find one’s way,” from PIE base *sent- “to go” (cf. O.H.G. sinnan “to go, travel, strive after, have in mind, perceive,” Ger. Sinn “sense, mind,” O.E. sið “way, journey,” O.Ir. set, Welsh hynt “way”). Application to any one of the external or outward senses (touch, sight, hearing, etc.) first recorded 1520s.
Hornkostel cites a Negro tribe that has a separate word for seeing, but employs a common term for hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching. [A.G. Engstrom, “Philological Quarterly,” XXV, 1946]
The verb meaning “to perceive by the senses” is recorded from 1590s. Senses “mental faculties, sanity” is attested from 1560s.
When I assume the state of “not” by which I mean completely detached or uninvolved, then I have no connection to anything. Rephrase: any “thing.”
I am at liberty to ideate, postulate, position, etc. to my heart’s content and view whatever I am ideating — could just be a concept, maybe some kind of pervasion — it doesn’t really work with the English language.
To become involved, I have to “sense” something I didn’t create or did I create it?
There is some kind of involvement decision, agreement to participate, some kind of sensation of something that is actually or apparently external to me, something “not” mine. But as soon as I “sense” this “not” it is no longer “not” because I have to ideate to experience this “not.”
Sorry guys, I am much more wordy that you are mainly because I am drilling the steps as I look/experience this WOIM and I am having a hard time with language deficiencies.
Perhaps involving is a step:
Etymology of the English word involve
— the English word involve derived from the Latin word involvere (wrap , cover, envelop) using the Latin prefix in- (suffix for no)
derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *ne (not)
— derived from the Classical Latin word volvere (to roll; envelop, wrap up; unroll; roll along, forward; move sinuously; roll, cause to roll; travel in circle)
— derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *wel-
and…
Proto-Indo-European root *wel-
derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *wel-
Derivations in other languages
English walk, English wallow, English willow, English whelk, Greek elutron, Greek Helene, Greek helices, Greek helix, Greek helmins, Greek eilein, Greek helmis, High German walzan, Latin valles, Latin valva, Latin volvere, Latin volva, Latin vulva, North French *walet
Note: helix
Pic of a helix: http://technetz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/helix-wifi-antenna.GIF
Weirdly, the pic is of a wi-fi antenna booster that you can make.
And here’s a pic of a spiral: http://dailybiz.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/371_downward_spiral.jpg
Just musings…
But you know, it has to do with involvement. Involving.
I don’t know that it is necessarily anything to do with things. I think its fluid, rather than particles — i.e. its continuous processing. A process, not a thing and the things are the apparency kind of like a freeze frame or focused attention on an element of the process.
Maria, I have been looking at CONSIDERATION. It seems to me more and more like the machine-language (ASSEMBLY) of the mind at its lowest level. It responds to stimulus that comes to the mind. It then responds to that stimulus by giving that stimulus its form.
This is how we seem to see a chair, a table, etc. Where does the form of a chair come from? All that is arriving at the brain is some electrical impulses. Are those electrical impulses coded in some way? Do we decode those impulses when we consider what they are? Then we see what we consider, don’t we?
What is external to us, or what is internal to us, I can only guess. Where do these concepts, such as, “internal” or “external” come from? What is thinking?
So, for me it all boils down to looking at this machine-language, which I am referring to as “Consideration” for the lack of a better word. You seem to be on the right track by examining the words “sense” and “perception.” They are examples of “involvement” at a very basic level, it seems.
Please continue.
.
There is no internal or external.
There is no spoon that is bending (ref: “Matrix”)
.
What if the discreteness or separateness itself is an apparency? We have been taught to think in terms of gazillions of tiny and discrete particles forming into shifiting aggregates separated by space, however infinitesimal. The assumption is that there is nothing in the spaces in between. But certain behaviors at the quantum level deny that. We also have this idea that a discrete particle continues existence until it ceases to exist. Again, at the quantum level, it appears that the “particles” are going in and out of existence on an “on – off” basis on what appears to be a continuous basis. There is nothing to say that the particle is the same particle when it reappears.
Let me restate this from another point of view. The human body apparently is made of a tremendous number of “discrete” particles, formed into “discrete forms,” which supposedly aggregate and form communication channels. Yet the human body is formed of a completely NEW set of cells over a period of approximatley 7 years. The old cells are replaced with new and it is a completely new body in terms of its discrete particles.
Apparently the human body is a discrete organism, yet this cannot be for as much as it is renewed over time, so is every single element surrounding it. We have this notion that it lives in this discrete environment. But is it?
We also have this idea that there is a future, which we cannot participate in yet. And a past that is gone. And a present that we perceive. But, is that really so? If you think in terms of discrete particles, then it must be so, and memory must serve the past. But what if memory is nothing more than focus? And focus is the element, by filtering processes, that produces the concept of current existence?
Interesting.
It makes for the old, old question: “What is time?”
However, I think “What is space?” is perhaps more difficult to answer. If space is discrete, then expansion of space would mean that more space units are produced. How?
The truth seems to be the Unknowable. From that viewpoint anything manifested is an apparency, because what is manifested can also be dissolved. The Unknowable is neither manifested nor can it be dissolved. So, I would say that discreteness or separateness is an apparency. The consideration of Its opposite would be an apparency too.
But the point is, all this apparency better be consistent with each other to form a universe. When we are able to observe that consistencey maybe it all would just simplify and dissolve. That would be fun! But the awareness of that consistency may also be used to make a more awesome apparency. The immediate goal of science seem to be to make all knowledge unified (become aware of the consistency hidden in this universe).
I just got that book “Trouble with Physics” recommended to me by Geir. It goes through the milestones of discoveries in Physics and one of those milestones is the Field Theory. We may consider an electric field around an electric potential, or a magnetic field around a magnetic pole. You mentioned something about space. Space is not empty. I am tinkering with the idea of that space being some sort of a field. It could be a field of awareness, but then I would need a better definition of awareness to apply in this case.
If space can be looked upon as a field then a disturbance of that field may be linked to propagation of energy (think electromagnetic wave). A condensation of that energy may be linked to formation of fundamental particles. This all could be very dynamic, which may explain the disappearnce and appearance of particles.Anyway, this all is not even conjecture. It is blatant fantasizing at the moment.
Any obect is discrete. The discreteness is characterized by the boundary of that object. Ultimately, it is characterized by the boundary of a particle where the gradient of change is very steep. Beyond that boundary is space. I would love to know the nature of that boundary.
Time depends on succession of manifestations. Present would be the location of the viewpoint from which these manifestations are being observed. The idea of dificulty in participating in future manifestation seems to depend on (1) fixidity of one’s viewpoint, and (2) assigning other-determinism to future manifestations. The idea of past being fixed and unchangeable also seems to depend on (1) fixidity of one’s viewpoint, and (2) assigning other-determinism to past manifestations. I don’t think I am saying anything different from what you have already expressed. Thank you for your very interesting ideas.
.
We are in sync here.
Keep posting comments as you go through that book, btw.
What is the nature of this stimulus that makes us consider, and hence, create!
.
I am currently unsure if that is a stimuli…
Let me play the devil’s advocate here. There may be “free will,” but what triggers that “free will” into creating?
Our perception is an interpretation of the “input traveling through sense channels.” In other words, the perception is triggered by some unknown input.
All there is… is the unknowable “Nothingness.” Could the fact of “unknowness” be the trigger. We seem to have some sort of self-generating trigger. It may start out as something infinitesimal that becomes a juggernaut.
Somehow it reminds of some effect similar to two mirrors facing each other.
.
A colleague of mine was arguing along the same lines yesterday…
Unknowable is unknowable
To itself too, and
It doesn’t like it.
So, it dreams up
Things to know.
The trigger to creation may be
The state of Unknowable
Creating the desire to explore
What could be there.
What are we?
Explorer’s?
Then welcome back
The the basic beingness.
.
I think at the bottom there is really nothing to know. We basically explore our own considerations. After a while it becomes “creating to know what we are creating.” What a joke on us! And we are the jokers. 🙂
However, the area where some considerations are worth inspecting is the beginning of Physics. How does a fixed structure come about? What keeps it fixed? Why is such a wonderful order there? What is this Matrix?
It is pure LOOKING that is needed here. THINKING is useful only to determine where to LOOK. Beyond that function, thinking cannot help. It is looking that would uncover what we have forgotten. We are in a territory where exists a good reason to forget because we do not want to unravel it all and lose it all. Maybe we think that it took a long time to build this matrix and we don’t want to go through that effort again.
But… is that consideration worth holding on to? If we know how we built this matrix, even when it took a long time, we should be able to build it again in an instant the second time because it won’t be trial and error the second time.
.
In this investigation MATHEMATICS seems to play the role of thinking; and PHYSICS seems to play the role of looking.
The concept of irrational numbers in mathematics makes me think that there is no smallest particle of matter; there is no smallest packet of energy; there is no smallest distance in space; and there is no smallest interval of time. The “particle” of matter, energy, space, and time is just what we consider it to be; just like the “unit” in mathematics. A “unit” in mathematics is just what we consider it to be. Take a look.
.
I will soon forward a logic breakdown of why it is more plausible that the universe is indeed discrete.
Of course, the universe is discrete just like numbers in mathematics are discrete. But it seems to me that there is no smallest particle of matter; there is no smallest packet of energy; there is no smallest distance in space; and there is no smallest interval of time. Well I have to find that out for sure.
.
The physical meaning of a “discrete universe” is a universe with a smallest amount of the basic properties.
“There are two mistakes one can make along the road to truth…
not starting, and not going all the way.”
The Buddha
Beautiful!
.
Time separates END from BEGINNING. That separation may be sliced into smaller and smaller separations of time.
.
It may very well still be a smallest unit of time.
This is good. The next step could be presenting it with something like this http://www.envf.port.ac.uk/illustration/IMAGES/vlsh/mallow1.htm
Isene said, “The physical meaning of a ‘discrete universe’ is a universe with a smallest amount of the basic properties.”
I have a different take on it. The universe appears to be discrete because it is manifested that way. Anything that is manifested is discrete because considerations are discrete. Is there any inherent limit to what can and what cannot be manifested? Is there any inherent limit to size – how small or big? Is there an inherent limit to what can be considered?
The answer to the last question appears to be YES, because any subsequent considerations must also take into account the previous considerations that are still existing. However, the first consideration would have no such limitation. This may explain why two things cannot occupy the same space.
.
Then we may agree, let’s see:
There is no limit to the original potential or the original possibilities for consideration. Considerations themselves are discrete, and the original considerations defines limits for further considerations along those lines. Hence the rules of the consensus reality are discrete – for it to remain a game, the universe would be built on discrete building blocks.
Gravity may depend on two things not occupying the same space. I have to look into this further.
.
Here is another step in formalizing the description of Existence… getting a better idea of what God is:
Essay #3: KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE
.