Atom, cell and brain/mind are each likely to be reflective of the primordial zodiac/pantheon. Each is a microcosm for a different aspect of the cosmos. This would give Z a greater role in Creation, along with X. The pantheon becomes us. It does so by projecting itself through the structure of the atom, cell, brain, and perhaps even the MG itself.
Yes, I think we may need to ascribe a greater role to the pantheon/Z. This is in line with allowing the christos/X/pi to be more of a coordinator, leading up to the X-event. Z must project itself through the eye of the needle, which is Pi. That is how the Anthropic Principle comes into play, along with the UEM, unreasonable effectiveness of math. In that process the circular symmetry is broken in the fashion of the elliptical functions, which distill the Monstrous Moonshine (800 hits). That is what is happening with Pokatok. In that game the object is to pass the ball/Sun through the circular hoop in ecliptic/elliptic fashion. Ceremonial death and fertility are the result. Is there a Lamarckian fine-tuning on the playing fields of Xcaret/J-Parc? The trajectory of the ball is elliptical with a focus conformally projected to infinity. Astronomers later use this errant focus to bring down the heavens in the fashion of Chicken Little, thereby deconstructing the Rube Goldberg materialist cosmos with their dark energy, in a reprise of Copernicus who was oblivious to our postmodern moonshine.
Pi is the pinhole of the magic lantern that produces our anthropocentric world. There is a projective geometry at work. There is also a seeding. Pi is pinhole & seed. Golgotha somehow encompassed both. That must have been the eye of the cosmic needle. It was the sacrificial symmetry breaker and the rebirthing via Freya. Multiplicity comes via the trinitarian e^i*pi, MDX -> R/Z. The atom is the pi-vot. Golgotha is the Omphalos. The event breaks the precessional symmetry of Hamlet's Mill. This is done in conjunction the multiplicative DNA crystallization. There may be something here of the aperiodic pentagonal (Penrose) tiling, bringing phi into the picture. Somehow there is a crystallization of the Matrix, in the manner of a fractal. There is now the Aqua Regia of the spirit that dissolves the crystal leading to apokatastasis. I should point out that language is another kind of crystal. The zodiacal pantheon is the first crystal. In three dimensions we would have the five Platonic solids. In order to ensure three spatial dimensions we might need the equivalent of a Penrose spin network, but I don't see a source. We might also wonder how space-time emerges from an infinite dimensional Hilbert space. It has to do with the projection or measurement operators. Ecological networking in more than 3+1D may just be infeasible.
Presently I am reading Hyper-science (F & L Hatem, 1994). It is partly relevant to the BPW, but for the most part it manages to be exasperating. What can I say? It is all too French. It is Being and Nothingness on steroids. It is more Buddhist than Buddha. It is more Taoist than the Tao. It is the reductio ad absurdum of the principal alternatives to the BPW. If 1 = 0 then everything is true and untrue, but don't take my word for it. (BTW, I notice that the BPW is first on the new MSN search, while it has fallen to 16 on Google. What does that mean?)
A problem to be considered is the introduction of size scales. In the Matrix proper there are none such. There is only zodiacal coherence shading off to incoherence. We may suppose that quantity emerges before dimension. Quantity implies a single dimension. The problem is to obtain the second. A network analysis of relations could produce multiple dimensions, but these would be ad hoc. There ought to be a step or two before J-Parc. Sizes, however, are only relative. What could be the standards? How do philosophers manage to avoid these foundational issues? Mathematicians and physicists avoid them as well. We might ask how we manage dimensions in the mind. Our neurons do not have much problem. There is probably a proprioceptive basis for mental dimensioning, which is a throwback to cell function. The idea of containment might be prior to space. Can the gods sequester their thoughts? This is related to perception. What is the basis of privacy and possession? This goes back to identity. Immaterial identity is a problem.
Similar problems arise in trying to make sense of direct perception: visual experience may not be abstracted from total experience. May we say that size is an abstraction? Perception is based on functionality. Then we need a non-biological source of function. It is interaction between selves, plus internal actions or exercise of the will. There is the issue of externality as with dreams and visions. It is not clear if there is originally only one self. I suspect so. The primal self may be without awareness, which comes only in a social context. It seems likely that infants dream. If one self emerges, why not two? But how would they find each other? We could designate X to be the primal self. The Matrix must include X. But what is experience without time or coherence? Do the blind have visual dreams? msn: blind-people dreams? I'm not satisfied with the standard answers, which assume indirect perception.
We have yet to embrace direct perception. It then becomes a challenge to explain our apparent faculties of indirect perception, e.g. representational artifacts, and communications. Truth comes natural, everything else has to be rationalized, e.g. when I shut my eyes, the world disappears.
Indirect perception has to do with perspective. It is the price we pay for the realization of space and time, for the cloning of God and the outsourcing of Creation. This tells us that space and time begin with the dialectic and the zodiac.
The Matrix then must be our proto-self, dialectically striving for coherence. That striving is outsourced to the zodiac, and the rest is history. Realization is a social enterprise. Is it surprising that we forget our roots? X maintains a special tie to the Matrix: apron strings. The Mater blows a smoke ring: Z. Omniscience is compartmentalized and condenses into matter. Symmetry is broken. A concentric set of Platonic solids are formed. This is our spin net.
We might wonder what happens at apokatastasis. Are we back to scratch? I doubt it. Now we have to embrace eternity.
Omniscience is something to be avoided. Attention is to be focused, or there can be no action. Omniscience is the disease of direct perception. Barriers to the mind are made to be broken. The unobstructed universe is omnipresent. What are we to make of imagination? When do unicorns become real?
At another extreme we could take the the Matrix to be an omniscient being. This would be closer to canonical theism. What prevents this view? There still needs to be a source. Could God not have an subconscious? Can God have attention and imagination? How can mind come to be limited or segmented? This has to do with the function of the dialectic.
Perhaps a self is simply a center of ignorance. It is a hole in the mind field. Where does the BPW begin and the matrix leave off? There is a filtering process. This brings us back to time and memory. This is also the problem of the microcosm: presentation without representation. Omniscience and self-hood may be contradictory. Where is the river Lethe, and what is it? We can consider the problem of an eidetic memory. This would conflict with a coherent memory which would be more teleologically oriented.
We need a science of nescience. Dialectics may provide a starting point. There could be logical barriers to knowledge. It is a contest of coherences.
Direct perception must take into account the relational nature of knowledge. The episteme and the ontos must both be weighted toward the relational. The selves are seeds for the relational crystallization of the Matrix. This is preparation for the aqua regia of apokatastasis. This logistic is a bit like the game of free-cell.
Materialism and sectarianism are two sub-optimal forms of coherence. They are about to be overtaken by something larger. There is the apparent conflict and orthogonality of systems that is a barrier to the larger knowledge.
Perception is filtered by coherence. Most of the coherence is presently absent to us, it is subconscious. Coherence is ordered by functionality and teleology.
There is then the issue of emergence. The selves must be able to draw new things out of the Matrix. Things do not arise from the matrix unbidden. There is no true chaos. The imagination is our portal to the matrix. Artifacts are our fishing tackle. From whence did the self emerge, if not from the matrix? It is the only thing that could bootstrap itself out of the matrix. It has a logical priority. Its imagination is not distinct from perception. Does that first self know everything? No, because multiple selves may spontaneously emerge. They will emerge more easily if they are related to other selves. How might they become so? Would there not be innumerable selves? Is there no filter on this? Atoms may derive from these. That may be correct. Then what about the UEM? That speaks to the relationality and rationality of atoms. This also speaks to the construct of numbers and the MG. Did I not get any of this before? This is a restatement of personalism.
The self is just a crystallized matrix, and so is the atom. What is a number? How do they relate to selves and atoms? Is there a society of mind? Numbers and atoms fill in our blind spots. They are an extension of our collective memory, and a functional extension, at that. An MG out of numbers is as likely as a living cell out of atoms. There must be a telos in both cases. The same one? The teloi of atoms and numbers are inextricable, viz. e^i*pi. How do the other coincidences come into play?
But then we come back to the problem of not having any definite number of atoms. How do we get the oceans to evaporate? Is there a Jurassic Parc for atoms? Gaia and the matrix may be similar. Which came first, numbers or the MG?
A review of Mandelbrot Mystery may be in order. The Mandelbrot appears as a selfless, impersonal link into the Matrix, seemingly contradicting my statement three paragraphs above. It resides on the boundary between coherence and incoherence.
(I just got a new toy: Google's desktop search function. It will help to facilitate the internal linking, over using site-search on all of comcast.net. In the process of using it, I realize that the primordial dialectic and the zim-zum are very similar.)
Zim-zum (and here):
A term from Lurianic Kabbalah meaning the contraction of the Ain Sof to form a "space" into which all of creation would manifest. God still fills this space, like the fragrance of a rose lingers after it leaves the room. This is the first appearance of the "separation" between God and the Universe necessary for manifestation. In order for anything to become distinct and visible, something else must become invisible. A foreground is not visible unless there is a background. This is the first appearance of the Abyss and also of Knowledge (Daath). By the very act of separation God imposes ignorance or latency on Himself in order to create. This ignorance is simultaneously the birth of Knowledge.
Perhaps this is what F & L Hatem are referring to above in their Hyper-science.
The Abyss is filled with numbers and atoms, etc. The Mandelbrot is a model for the filling that becomes Creation. We have come a long way from the pokatok court, and I wonder how we will get back to it. With the Mandelbrot, there are no atoms, unless we arbitrarily limit the resolution. If we switch models from math to language, we have letters, words and grammar in the place of organic chemistry.
We need to arrange for atoms to be present when we need them for the physics, but otherwise we don't want them to get in the way of the phenomenology or the teleology. I don't want the atoms to take on an independent, objective, material existence. The same is true for the stars and numbers. Selves and atoms cannot exist apart from a telos. Their function is to reify the virtual telos. How many hydrogens and how many threes do we need to maintain the world? One of each may be enough for the formalities. How many Monster Groups does it take to run the world? Its influence is as widespread as the particles it guides. Must the MG be attached, as we often suppose our minds are, to a material substrate to be effective?
How does a substance maintain its identity without the benefit of objective atoms? Can we ask the same of pi or the MG? For an emergent entity, the whole transcends its parts, rendering it less dependent on its atomic constituents. The parts are there for our analysis.
It has finally occurred to me that the immaterialists should turn the tables on the materialists, relative to emergence. It is atoms, numbers, words, etc., that are the emergent entities. This thought stems from the zim-zum and the thunderwords of James Joyce. The operative concept is articulation/distinction. Language is the articulation of the logos. Individual/ego consciousness is the articulation of tribal consciousness. 'Developing' societies continue to struggle with this articulation. Their egos evaporate to emigrate to the developed countries wherein they recondense into our articulated socioeconomic structures. (BTW, art-, ars derive from 'arm' of Sanskrit origin.)
This thought has been dormant for some time. It has been a struggle to articulate it. I wonder where it has been previously articulated, beyond the crib notes I used for Finnegan. Atoms are latent in matter until we articulate them with quantum measurement. I have always figured that the spontaneous quantum collapses of the statisticians was just an artifact or a fudge to avoid the obvious teleology.
This is truly about the deconstruction of atoms, again and, hopefully, finally. The Matrix is the cosmic white hole, Ain Soph, Brahman, and the primordial selves are the prismatic articulators of it. The X factor is the archeonic Coherentor. Its dialectic co-focus is the Analyzer. This is the engine of creation and we are the micro-engines. This is the primal duality conspiring in creation. Are we needing a name for the Y factor? The christos incarnates a bit of the latter. Y2X may have more of the Y. I'm not sure how that works in the Z phase. And where is the Pokatok? The ball/sun is the precursor of the atom. It is articulated by the team to place it through the ecliptic hoop.
There is gradually constructed an analytic infrastructure which is guaranteed to produce atoms when it is employed. This infrastructure is itself not necessarily analyzable. It is non-local. It consists of hardware and software, and it is cultural. Instances of it are like a quantum measurement. This does not quite tell us how the oceans evaporate. Can evaporation be subsumed under metabolism and heliotropism? The R of AZO/X/QRP brings a dialectical re/Creation into space-time via our newly appreciated atoms. It is about the culturing of our Gaian crystal/chrysalis, a pearl of great price. A seed is a microcosmic precursor of the atom. Pi is the seminal seed of e^i*pi.
It is not clear how we knew how much diversity we could wring from the atom before the fact of it. This has to do with the preordained atomic limits of the BPW, but that may be a moot point. These teleologically derived atoms can hardly stand in the way of the Telos. We could also ask about the telic priority of the MG vs. pi. I suspect that coincidences of pi are presaged in the complexity of the MG. This information is also encoded in the Riemann Zeta. The organicity of math and the world are written into carbon, as in a charcoal sketch. The BPW is not contingent upon carbon. It is vice versa. There would be no carbon and no nothing without the BPW. Even the Matrix is dependent upon us, in no small measure. The felicitous zodiac sat around the ol' fishing hole, and now see what the feline dragged home, still dripping. Are the atoms now tamed? Surely el Telos Taurus is cracking a bit closer to their ears. The properties of carbon are vastly overdetermined, but the quantum gap can more than accommodate all those analytic sins. Do we have to worry that the ouroboros will not be sufficiently long and supple to grab its own tail? Fear not! That's like worrying that the Centurions might have run out of nails. It's not the atoms that account for the stability of the world. It's the other way around. Nonetheless, the structure of all the atoms are accounted for with a very few parameters. The fudging does remain well concealed. There is a superficial simplicity.
Back to the MG. Was it pulled out of the ol' fishing hole fully formed? I doubt it. Like a pretzel, it had to be twisted into shape. There was a logical vacuum that needed filling. The relative simplicity of the atom is balanced by the complexity of the MG. But aren't the genealogies of the elementary particles gratuitous? Are they not just meant to keep the mathematical physicists off the streets for another few years? The neutrino is not needed outside of astrophysics. Why go to all the trouble just to save the celestial appearances? The intricacies of stellar dynamics are quite gratuitous to a pre-Copernican cosmos. Perhaps the MG has all the functionality of a gargoyle, not that that is to be underestimated. Perhaps the Sun, though, is not as gratuitous. Saving its appearance is more than academic. Cosmic rays help to save the appearance of genetic mutation, no small savings. And let us not forget the political significance of nuclear weapons in this age of culture clash. Still, we could have gotten by with a few exceptional groups, without having to go full-bore for the sporadics. It is our attempt to quantize gravity that puts us under the sporadic spell.
We might also attribute the MG to the organicity of math. This is no small matter, either. This organicity may indirectly reflect upon physics. The MG might also serve as a proxy for the organicity and complexity of the world. That has been my generally unstated assumption. I need to work out the significance of proxy-hood in this context. It may just go with relationalism. Math, like most things, exists as a microcosm. It 'represents' the extremity of articulation in an organic world. Complexity substitutes for organicity. Numerical coincidences, however, point to the organic. If human understanding is part of the teleology, and we have now discovered the most complex mathematical object, then this fact may have eschatological portent. Only the Riemann Zeta may still stand between us and the Omega.
An outstanding problem for the BPW is the the placement of the Alpha. Most idealist philosophies are simply acosmic and atemporal. The BPW was born out of a theistic and eschatological concern. It is unabashedly cosmological, and is necessarily theo/anthropocentric. Linear, historical time is commensurate with human consciousness. The primary departure of human from animal consciousness came with the development of language, which I speculate was contemporaneous with the appearance of eidetic memory, some fifty thousand years ago. Prior to that time, there will be a marked divergence between materialist and idealist conceptions of the phenomenal world. Materialists suppose that we can extrapolate the present phenomenology of linear time back to the big-bang, long before observation or memory. Idealists may not be so casual in their extrapolations. The Alpha is the point at which the biological creatures become the primary custodians of Creation. I seem now to be contradicting the Pokatok scenario that has been useful up to this point. Permit me to bracket that for the time being. Since we cannot rely on atoms and physics prior to Alpha, we must remain circumspect in our use of them afterwards.
There is a 'cheat' at this point. To complement the use of 'physics' after Alpha, we can substitute physicists to fill in the record that appears to antedate Alpha. This is admittedly a heavy reliance on creaturely mediated teleology. But this epochal contrast is overstated. What I mean to say is that memory and the historical record coincide in the latter but not the former epoch. This too is misstated. I do not appeal to memory, but to direct perception. This is the case for the historical epoch. What happens before is a matter of projection rather than perception. In its turn, this duality between projection and perception is also being overstated. It is true that language is very often a force for analytic rather than holistic thought. The struggle for holism is an uphill battle with the conventions of language. This fact points up the difficulty of this pedagogy.
With idealism there need not be a clear distinction between interpolation and extrapolation, or between foreground and background. It all originates with the same vision of the BPW. I do need, however, to revamp my understanding of nature. What I have so far is mainly just an excuse for nature. This is a negative explanation. I need a positive explanation. Previously I have attempted to outsource nature to Jurassic Parc. That is simply a restatement of the problem. Can we incorporate the appearance of nature into a rational process or creation? Can we have nature without naturalism? Can we get by with an ersatz big-bang, or do we have to go all the way? We have made some progress with the emergence of ersatz atoms. Cannot the big-bang emerge in a similar fashion, and then we can ditch the Parc?
A big-bang would be the only 'natural' source of atoms. The two are logically co-dependent, along with evolution. What is the cost of all this 'naturalness'? Need it be more costly than an ad hoc Creation? One may be sorely tempted at this point just to posit an actual big-bang, but this leaves us with a very tricky exit strategy, plus an excessive degree of ad hoc intervention along the way.
When we go digging, go stargazing, go microbe hunting, go atom smashing, we are going to have to find something. We cannot just fall off the edge of reality. Phenomenology, just like nature, abhors a vacuum. All blind spots are filled. I suggest that the 'natural' filling in may be the path of least psychic resistance. This is the path of greatest coherence and of the least cognitive dissonance. It may seem that God has allowed the phenomenology to go too far in this direction, making it harder to extricate ourselves from the path of materialism. If there were more dissonance, my life would be easier. That's alright. I do my job, and God does her job.
The big-bang and evolution provide a 'false summit' of sub-coherence. As soon as we reach that summit, the true summit will loom into view. It will look a lot like an eschaton. The false summit is the scientific telos, or the unified theory of everything. That unification of phenomena is the path of least action for the Creator. We seem only to figure out the scheme of unification after the fact. But, from the perspective of cosmic intelligence, facts are always theory laden. It is the condition of relational existence. From the bias of temporal existence we discover the theory after the facts, but that bias is just our illusion.
We 'discover' the Earth to be round, after failing to fall off the edge. We suppose the Earth to be objectively round. But if the Earth were flat, someone would have to shape an ad hoc set of edge effects. Lacking that special someone, the Earth cannot fail to be round. The world is that much simpler. Bill Occam is glad. The same goes for evolution. Without that principle of coherence, biological phenomena would have to be jerry-rigged. The phenomenal pieces would all be gratuitous. The whole point of phenomenology is that it abhors a vacuum, and that entails that there can be no rough edges. This should tell us something about the eschaton. It is not an edge for us to fall off of. It is rather an apokatastasis, a restitution.
May we revisit the Monster Group? What would Bill think about it?