Best Possible World: Gateway to the Millennium and Eschaton



Download 4.74 Mb.
Page32/90
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size4.74 Mb.
1   ...   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   ...   90
There was nothing clear and distinct about atoms until we came along. Now we know the limits of distinction. There are phenomenal regularities that seem to require atomic action. No, we did not invent the atom, but someone conceived it. We partake and amplify that conception in a crucial way. We are a cog in the wheel. We internalize the wheel. The petrified jungle grows in our dreams. We and it are the essence of the Creator. The graininess of the beach, the atomicity of the ocean are equally essential.

[1/12]
Organic teleology is limited by individuality. Does that individuality require atoms, or can it be subsumed under the dialectic? Persons are more than combinations.



[1/13]
We have here a reprise of the Newton incident. What happens when the apple falls from the tree? Yes, gravity, but what else? Can we make the teleology seamless? How do we survive so well on our pseudo distinctions? From whence do they come? Even the symmetry breaking must have a telos. At what point does the apple detach from the telos of the tree to become a statistic, and what does that mean?
What kind of phenomenology is this? How does it differ from that of Husserl and Heidegger? Theirs is a species of psychology. This is cosmology. The emphasis is on the system.
Perhaps the first phenomenologist was:
OETINGER, FRIEDRICH CHRISTOPH (1702-1782), German divine and theosophist, was born at Goppingen on the 6th of May 1702. He studied theology at Tubingen (1722-1728), and was much impressed by the works of Jakob Böhme. On the completion of his university course, Oetinger spent some years in travel. In 1730 he visited Count Zinzendorf at Herrnhut, remaining there some months as teacher of Hebrew and Greek. During his travels, in his eager search for knowledge, he made the acquaintance of mystics and separatists, Christians and learned Jews, theologians and physicians alike. At Halle he studied medicine. After some delay he was ordained to the ministry, and held several pastorates. While pastor (from 1746) at Waldorf near Berlin, he studied alchemy and made many experiments, his idea being to use his knowledge for symbolic purposes. These practices exposed him to the attacks of persons who misunderstood him. " My religion," he once said, '' is the parallelism of Nature and Grace."
Fred was a student of the 'divine system of relations'. I couldn't have put it any better.
What is the phenomenology of death, be it of you, me, apple or mountain? Plato's ideas are eternal. That is the burden of distinct ideas. Ours are purely relational and nodal, always dynamic, and nothing if not. Can numbers die? Where do they go when they fall out of use? No wonder that mathematicians are Platonists to the core. No wonder that I fear the Monster! The mountain goes down to the beach, but the beach goes back to Shell Mountain, all in the eternal divine system of relations. Sand is the spawn of mountains. Binary digits and neural pulses are the spawn of meaning. All things are one at the atomic level and in the Telos. Plato could never tolerate shells on his mountains, nor craters on his moon.
Deadly and Yet Necessary, Quakes Renew the Planet, By WILLIAM J. BROAD, January 11, 2005:
But despite such staggering losses of life, said Robert S. Detrick Jr., a geophysicist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, "there's no question that plate tectonics rejuvenates the planet."
Moreover, geologists say, it demonstrates the earth's uniqueness. In the decades after the discovery of plate tectonics, space probes among the 70 or so planets and moons that make up the solar system found that the process existed only on earth - as revealed by its unique mountain ranges.
In the book "Rare Earth" (Copernicus, 2000), which explored the likelihood that advanced civilizations dot the cosmos, Dr. Peter D. Ward and Dr. Donald Brownlee of the University of Washington argued in a long chapter on plate tectonics that the slow recycling of planetary crust was uncommon in the universe yet essential for the evolution of complex life.
"It maintains not just habitability but high habitability," said Dr. Ward, a paleontologist. (Dr. Brownlee is an astronomer.) Most geologists believe that the process yielded the earth's primordial ocean and atmosphere, as volcanoes spewed vast amounts of water vapor, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and other gases. Plants eventually added oxygen. Meanwhile, many biologists say, the earth's first organisms probably arose in the deep sea, along the volcanic gashes.
"On balance, it's possible that life on earth would not have originated without plate tectonics, or the atmosphere, or the oceans," said Dr. Frank Press, the lead author of "Understanding Earth" (Freeman, 2004) and a past president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away, but who can take back the MG?
We are God going to seed. Our Creation is her recreation. We are God's spawn. Atoms are a necessary part of the recombinatoric ouroboric circuit. In some essential way, God must be both mortal and immortal, and so must we. No individual tree is immortal. A given tree does not have an individual soul, the Wye Oak being a possible exception. Souls are not Democritian atoms. They, like everything else, have only a relative existence.
And will the Monster be restored to God? I have little doubt that it can be unraveled into the fabric of love, into the synaesthesia of God. What we know of it now is a pale shadow, a merest skeleton. It will be subsumed into the cosmic system in a far more robust manner than we could presently imagine. A world without the Monster and without the Wye would be flawed. The only possible and the best possible are not the same here. They came through a sacrifice that we also cannot imagine. It was not the only possible sacrifice. That datum is about a sure as any can be. It is like asking if I am the only possible Dan Smith. That question takes us well beyond our depth. Possible worlds exist only to the degree necessary, keeping in mind that necessity is nobody's mother. We think of the MG as something fixed. Only in God will it come to life. We are seeing a projection of it: a shadow on the wall. Its apparent fixture is another measure of our ignorance. We could say the same of the petrified forest. It comes to life not in the eon, but in the Aion. Don't be confused. We don't trifle with the cosmic semantics.

[1/15]
In the divine system of relations, what is the relation of the atom to the Monster, and how do they both relate to us and God?


Permit me to explore a cellular analog of the matrix. In this analog the microtubular cytoskeleton, along with the genetic material, plays the role of mathematical logic. We must understand that the role of math may be changed between the Alpha and Omega. We might also wonder about the structuring of our ideas that leads to coherence. Are ideas transported the way organelles are, on tubular networks.

[1/16]
Coherence is something rooted in biology and teleology. The cytoskeletal matrix that supports biological coherence, generally remains out of sight. I wonder what supports coherence in the psyche. The neural net may point to something more metaphysical. Certainly logic and symmetry are part of the skeleton. If logic is the hardware, then ideas and feelings are the software, and ultimately this distinction is transcended. There are atoms in the phonemes, sense data and letters, but these are not generally attended to. It is the functionality that counts, and functions are strictly relational. The data bits aid in the communicative metabolism of thoughts. Atoms exist no more definitely than do sense data, and the latter have fallen out of favor. Neural pulses and atoms may not be the bedrock of reality. Analysis does not come naturally. It is something that we impose on the world. Something that comes with its own costs and benefits. There is a logic of atoms. Those two constructs are mutually supportive. They cannot be separated, as the quantum demonstrates. It is less clear how atoms are necessary for logic. It might have to do with reversibility and other symmetries.

[1/17]
Space, time and atoms are mutually dependent. Numbers are not conceivable without space and time. Numbers and atoms are equally dependent upon the concepts of space and time, and this puts them into a logical proximity. Atoms, number, space and time play a major role in the coherence of the world. The idealist will want to turn this dependency around so that the former emerge form the latter. Should this direction of emergence be problematic? I would think not. Causality, entropy and evolution can emerge in a very similar fashion out of the primal coherence. This is to say then that the Zodiac is numerically indefinite outside of this support. Z may be the nexus of the emergence. The dialectic is instrumental here.
The Matrix may be supposed to harbor a primal state of virtual coherence from whence the world is realized, under the guidance and instigation of a Creative intelligence. Our dreams may be the stuff of which the world is made. Our dreaming may constitute the making of it. The world emerges as our collective dream. The source of the real world is the dream world. That realm is the connecting link between us and the Matrix, between the real and the virtual.
The main strategy for the creation was to foster a self-sustaining process, i.e. biological reproduction, and various other cycles. Coherence is translated into networks of mutual dependency.

[1/18]
It is not clear whether the phenomenology of bodies should be taken as logically prior to the existence of atoms. The relations between atoms and bodies is likely to be complex. Consider the phase changes between ice, water and vapor. This phenomenon could well be regulative of the properties of atoms. What is the metaphysics of ice? Ice, per se, has a diminishing climactic role. Life can get on without it, but not without the related peculiarities of water, such as its high surface tension, boiling point and heat capacity, and its role in the many organic hydrates and biological solutions, etc. Water is the basis and mediator of all biological systems. Bodies and atoms are mutually stabilizing, as in the manner of homeostasis. Biological bodies/systems necessarily maintain a state of dynamic (non-)equilibrium, e.g. see Ilya Prigogine and his 'dissipative structures'.


There is the mutual exclusion of solid bodies to explain. Is this necessarily mediated at an atomic level? It is an electro/quantum force, based on atomic rigidity. That same rigidity must give way to chemical reactions and recombination. Atoms are the sole carriers of properties, determining the genus of each physical substance.
There is no unalterable physical substance. This distinguishes the physical and abstract realms, and does promote a dualist metaphysics. But atoms have mainly abstract properties, that are open to recombination. The same may be said of our ideas. Atoms are the logical link between the two realms. Mental and physical substance find a common ground in the atom, as they must, despite the fact that atoms are not directly perceivable. Or it could even be because of their imperceptibility!
Then we have to deal with the corruptibility of the flesh, and the incorruptibility of the spirit. I can only refer back to the atom. This is part of our genetic immortality. That leaves the eschaton unaccounted for.
The atom mediates between the physio- and teleo- logics. As the physics presumably drops out in the restitutional phase, where does that leave the atom? We might suppose the observational effects to increase, without modifying the relative value of q. It may be a case of out of sight and out of mind, and we do not wish to disrupt the physio- or techno- logics prematurely or at all. It is no mean feat to arrange for the physics to quietly fade away. The ending of metabolism can hardly be painless. 'Woe be unto them that is with child'? This is where I have felt the need for a 'stargate' or 'portal' (see 7/16ff) style of 'transmigration'. That was an attempt to localize the dislocations. 'Alien abduction' is a case in point, and so may be lucid dreaming. The question is narrowed to the mechanics of in- and out-of-body effects. The body becomes something of a phantom limb that we drag along for the ride. It is peculiar, however, that the abduction accounts often contain instances of perceived physical trauma. What's a body to do? We are then left to offer a rational account of 'survival'. What will full restitution look like, if, indeed, it will look like anything. Where is Dante Alighieri when we need him? Our guidance in this area is singularly lacking, but not for no good reason, we have to presume. The rationale for our ignorance might be as good a place to start as any.
Yes, we remain on a need to know basis. The need in this case is to simply argue in favor of the logical possibility of an alternate reality, which can stand beyond our historical reality, and, yet, remain an integral part of the BPW. For this purpose, we do not need clairvoyance, but simply an imaginative use of logic. A major challenge is to incorporate a non-linear time scheme. At least as important is the future of the ego. The dependence of the ego on linear time will certainly relate these two issues. Clairvoyance concerning the eschaton would be tantamount to an eschatological event in itself. It might not be inducive to the gradualism espoused for the BPW. Clairvoyance is not something that should be dropped upon us. It is something for us to work up to in an organic fashion.
Allow me to note that the demands of the BPW may easily overdetermine the physics. How far can the rules of physics be bent to accommodate the telos? The bending of the rules is expected to be greatest in the proximity of the Alpha and Omega.
When we go to the other side we are reverting to the conditions of the pokatok court and Jurassic Parc. These are simplified realities where that status of atoms is less relevant. That world is the lucid dream of the Zodiac. I don't recall if there was a scenario for bootstrapping metabolism. How do we ensure that our Xcaret becomes a self-sustaining dream world? What is the big attraction. How much do the zodiacal angel investors have to put up for 'seed money', before we can go to the IPO?

[1/19]
The virtual 'Xcaret culture' does not become historical, in the sense of acquiring a linear time scale, until it goes megalithic and global. That would be c. 4-2,000 BC.


I may have hinted at it before, but let me say more explicitly that our metabolic bodies could be very effective homeostats for the properties and logic of atoms. This is a variation on our already reversed anthropic principle in which our proactive consciousness rides herd on reality. The feedback from our consciousness is a primary element in the bootstrapping and maintenance of the world. After all, the world is our folie a deux. Now our bodies may be added into that loop. Catching a cold may also serve for debugging the universe. The makers of antibiotics are a partial addition to that loop, as are scientists and engineers in general, as well as we consumers thereof. The white knuckled airline passenger is holding up more than just the airplane. Much of our homeostatic exertions somehow become vested in the atomic logos. Where better to be vested? As such, we also become the usually unwitting conduits of the Telos. This is the atomic suspension bridge holding up history. As we approach the distant shore, the atomic logos gives up the ghost. Our autopilot is turned off. Reality becomes more fluid and lucid. All of these effects will be greatly magnified in the vicinity of portals, up until the Omega, at which point the entire world becomes our portal.
Consider our investment in language, and then the influence that language has on our world, particularly on our social reality. The focused attention of the alchemists shaped our eventual chemical reality. Note the explicitly spiritual telos in much of their opus.
Direct perception and direct realism (also 1, 2, 3, etc.) have not been considered for some time. These ideas are tied up with the notions of presence (see 2/12/04) and gnosis (1/12/04). We perceive things directly in terms of their functionality, i.e. the Telos supports all of our perceptions. With misperceptions there is always a reason, as per the PSR. With an autoimmune disease there is a biological misperception.

[1/20]
It seems that all we directly see are surfaces, but vision and perception need not be the same thing. Vision is optical, and it is hardly the end of perception. Also we do not ordinarily read minds, but we do make inferences. Inferences are corrigible and are frequently modified. It is a cumulative kind of perception. Inferences have duration and durability. They are highly functional.


Vision is essential to our spatial orientation, but we tend to overrate its epistemological significance. Our perception of facial expressions is almost entirely inferential or intuitive. The autistic person does not generally have this ability, despite perfect vision. Directness has to do with presence, which is something more profound than temporal immediacy. Intuitions tend to be immediate and direct.
Our retinal images, if taken by themselves, present only a chaotic jumble of colors. The stability and functionality of our world 'image' is what points to our real powers of direct perception. This perception may well include metaphysical dimensions, although we need not always be conscious of them. Our ocular kaleidoscope is simply some frosting on the cake. We idealists need hardly begrudge it.
Next we take up the perception of atoms. We directly perceive the logic of atoms, the way that Srinivasa perceives the logic of numbers. The Greeks and other natural philosophers had an intuition for atoms, long before science came on the scene. The logic was there all along, whether or not we chose to consciously recognize it. I would now say the same for the logic of God and the BPW. We will kick ourselves afterwards for not having recognized it sooner. On the surface we are social/political animals. Deeper down we are gnostics, one and all. We keep our gnosis on a short leash.
So much for the epistemology, what about the ontology? That is if we are able to make the distinction. What I seem to be getting at here is a variation on the notion that to be is to relate. Our conscious knowledge covers mostly the periphery of the network of being. This is where knowledge seems more indirect. As we probe deeper in the ground and potency of being, we come into a more direct contact with the Ontos. It is as if Srinivasa were personally acquainted with the living organism that is vital substance that is know to the rest of us only by its shadows. This sounds like an Aristotelian coloring of Plato.
We used to have a more collective and functional or pragmatic understanding of the ontos, before we became individuated to the degree we are now. Now we can look forward to achieving a more consciously or deliberately integrated gnosis. Thus do we take on a more cosmic perspective. We thusly transcend our primordial street smarts.

[1/21]
The core of being remains beyond the reach of our ego consciousness. That is a stretch that we will be taking sooner rather than later. The ground or core of being is the cosmic self. In that case our factual or analytic knowledge resides at the base of a pyramid, with the cosmic 'I' at its peak. Our modern materialist picture of the world is about to undergo an inversion. Is the atom then a mini me? I would have to say it is a reflection of the cosmic self, reflected in the base of the pyramid, giving the impression of an inverted pyramid resting on the atom. This is the scientific view. Their confusion is understandable, and must be a major factor in the plan of history. The atom is God as reflected on the wall of our material cave. It is time for us to look and move toward the source. Mathematical physics is actually leading us part way back to God. The MG is God's skeleton. Srinivasa's muse was able to put some flesh on those bones. As God's resurrection, it is up to us to breath life back into that body. We shall be doing so in a nonce, with some help from our heavenly host. It remains to provide a better rationale for this ontological scheme. The scheme needs to be related particularly to the circumstances of the Alpha and Omega. The plane of reflection needs to be better specified. That mirror could be human consciousness itself. Which are the active and passive elements? Where does the math come in? And while we're at it, what does the sky reflect? And what about the Zodiac? How does this relate to JPc, or to biological cells? The notion of the microcosm is crucial, but it has not been developed. Can anyone imagine a world without atoms, i.e. one based solely on phenomenal cycles? What we strive for is atomic logic without physical atoms. The 'cloning' of God into egos, does not stop at that level.

[1/23]
I wonder if there might be someway to apply the above notion of metaphysical 'cloning' to a non-biological system such as atoms? Does the reproductive cycle of a cell make it any more or less real than an atom? Organisms participate in ecological systems. Their metabolic regimen ensures this outcome. This is their network of being. I am attempting to construct a network for atoms, without benefit of metabolism. But can we not just subsume the ontology of atoms into the existing metabolic framework. Maybe I'm making this problem too difficult. Metabolism makes no sense without them. Were physics and biology conceived of separately, or were they all of a piece? How do we avoid over-temporalizing this conceptual/creative process?

[1/26]
It is at about this point in my thinking that I have become stuck on previous occasions. It feels as though there is a particular idea that I am not quite able to grasp. Permit me to take a slight detour and come at this 'problem' from a different angle. I put 'problem' in quotes because I have not yet even been able to specify upon what it is that I become stuck, but whatever else it is, it feels like it is close to the heart of the matter.


My detour is to Peter van Inwagen and his book, Material Beings (1990 Cornell). Here is a review. He admits that the philosophy he presents is a strange one. I gather that he is some kind of materialist. He takes persons seriously, but only as living systems, so he takes bacteria just as seriously. What he dismisses is the objectivity of all non-living objects, apart from atoms (actually he specifies quarks and electrons). His thesis is that only simples exist, and the only simples, i.e. irreducibles, are either (living) beings or atoms. Only in retrospect does he take up the problem of relative identity, that is the view that (two?) things can be both the same and distinct, depending on one's perspective.
I am sympathetic with Peter, to a certain extent. His systemic view of existence goes only as far as his materialism allows. I push his systemics well beyond that point. We are both left with an atomic residue.
Atoms stick in my throat. They are hard to swallow, and harder to spit out.
I am intrigued with Van Inwagen and the Possibility of Gunk (Theodore Sider). Where do I stand on 'gunk'? In some sense, the BPW is an irreducible hunk of gunk. That is especially true of the Matrix. The partitioning of the BPW/Matrix is a very functional illusion. Atoms are the logical bedrock of that illusion. Necessity is the mother of all things atomic. Atoms are the tail-end of the network of being. We just don't want that tail to wag this dog.
Atoms conform to the Monster Group (MG), and the MG conforms to the BPW. More directly, atoms conform to vitalism. Atoms are pliable to the optimal degree. Atoms exist only to the necessary degree. Otherwise they are out of sight and out of (the cosmic) mind. It is the master phenomenological cycles that count. Atoms are merely their virtual counters or logical tokens. This goes back to my organic view of math. Numbers exist because of the telic property of the MG. The MG is not an accident of numbers. Numbers are the logical detritus, the tokens of the MG. I believe the the Riemann Hypothesis will have more to say about this. We could play poker without the chips, but who wants to bother? Atomic being devolves from our laziness. Scientists suppose that the atoms have mutinied, that they have turned anarchic and nihilistic.
But we should not look down our noses at the atoms, for we too are the mere tokens of God. It is all smoke and mirrors, but, by that same token, it is the only show in town. Did God have to conjure the atoms? Did she have to conjure us? When it comes to Creation, God is the 'chairman of the board', and we are all the vice presidents. She was not stingy with the vice.
Is this the heart of the matter? The point seems to be that the BPW is not a slam dunk. It will grow on us as we have grown on it. However, from a more popular perspective, there will come the straw that breaks the back of materialism and dualism, and all their ilk. I can only hope to live to see that day.
What stands in our way are all the absolutes to which we feel compelled to cling. The foremost amongst these is our own absolute identity. We have trouble discerning God in the briar patch of relativity. Rather than follow Brer' Rabbit, we sit on our log and get tarred.

[1/27]
The quantum paradoxes should be weaning us away from our compulsive absolutism. They have, but only to a barely perceptible degree.


Yes, we are trapped in our own language games. Our verbally dominated, left hemispheric brains, are much too susceptible to artificial categorization. Words, we can't live with them, nor without them. They are our stepladder to the higher reality. At some point we will have to transform or transcend them. That is a feat almost impossible for us to imagine. We can use words to point to, but not to grasp, a larger reality.
What remains problematic is our ability to recruit our virtual atoms to do our own heavy lifting when it comes to maintaining the natural order. There is still much to be explained or rationalized.
It could be said that the atoms are not doing any work. Their work has been done in logically coordinating the initialization of the phenomenological cycles, which then proceed on their own mimetic inertia. This same rationale could be applied to the artifactual cycles introduced through technology. Again, I have in mind the MG. The numbers had to do their work only once, but not at any definite time. It is our own, mostly subconscious, monitoring of the phenomenology that keeps the world on track. The scientific enterprise has extended the range of the phenomenology to which we attend. But this extension does not differ in kind from the continuing discoveries of mathematicians. I suspect that the we are, in this eschatological epoch, reaching the end of the discoverable mathematical and physical phenomena. As the novelty of math and physics wanes, our attention will inevitably turn toward the metaphysics. That is certainly what happened in my case. I had the available resources to strike out on my own. My less fortunate colleagues will have to contend with the political inertia that will continue to keep them on a shorter intellectual leash, until such time as comes the final straw.
The atomic logic helps to ensure that the vital, telic force acts as a very widely distributed intelligence. Sufficiently so as to remain off of our analytic radar screens. Our experience of it is only subjective. Subtle are the ways of God, and that subtlety in ensured by the atomic logic. No matter how closely we inspect the atoms, we will not see a living cell. No matter how closely we inspect the individual numbers, we will not see the MG. The MG is pulled out of our mathematical intuition, rather like Athena from the head of Zeus, and its demonstration comes then through deduction, not induction. This is the trick the we must perform with God. We must allow her to spring from our forehead. She will not do so unless properly courted. That is all I can attempt here. A cattle prod will not suffice.
Another problem to consider is the interaction between the cycles. Materialists suppose that these interactions are all mediated at the atomic level, thus producing the observed unlimited variability of the resulting phenomena. One alternative is to make liberal use of fractal structures as a simulation of atomic chaos.
Considerable progress has been made in the use of meteorological models on a global scale. Adding a fractal dynamics at the fine scale could go a long way in verisimilitude. However, I do not want to advance the notion that we are living inside a cosmic computer. That would in no way ameliorate the problems of materialism. It does suggest that we do not need to rely on atoms in order to produce weather on an ongoing basis. The hydrological processes therein can simply be reproduced from the combination of medium grained cycles. We can operate on a purely phenomenological level.
Another place to distribute intelligence would be to the phenomena, on the generic level, but then we need a scheme to apply the generic intelligence to the specific cyclic interactions. This need not be a great problem if we consider the relative simplicity of the effective models now in use. They work well on a coarse grained three dimensional grid, each node with its specific set of rules and nearest neighbor interactions. This would not account, however, for the phenomena of specific clouds. I am tempted to treat clouds and storms as organisms. This tack runs afoul of the work of Peter van I. Next we would have to account for the babbling brook.
Perhaps there is not such a need to distribute the intelligence. Is that not acceding too much ascendancy to the space-time manifold? Here is an opportunity to apply direct realism. What Peter doesn't quite get is that the world behaves as a super-organism. Behind the phenomena there is an ecos. Our dialog with the ecos unfolds it into a global ecology within history. The intelligence only appears to be distributed. It is all a reflection of the one Telos. The Ecos is one part of the Telos and it is our job to unfold it in a seamless manner. The seamlessness is not fortuitous, however. It reflects the monism of the Matrix. The intelligence then resides in the dialectic between us and the Matrix. Thus must the final restitution occur through us. May we not suppose that the intersubjective consistency of our experience also owes itself to the monism?

[12/28]
With the Zodiac in mind we can think of the world as a folie a douze. The Zodiac is a dialectical reflection of the one intelligence. With the Matrix, unity is more natural than plurality. There is an effort to maintain a degree of separation. That effort is aided by the conception of space, along with its concomitant time. Unity remains in the overarching Presence/present, but they and we become mesmerized by the kaleidoscopic possibilities, which we pursue with abandon. We become ensnared in our own collective illusion and mind games.


Metabolism and the concomitant atoms seal the lid on our self-imposed cage. It keeps us off the cosmic streets and out of worse trouble while we pursue our individual and collective lessons. The atoms is the seal affixed to our box. We cannot break that seal without deconstructing the atom. That is what I have been attempting here. Our atom smashers have been of assistance in this regard. They have led us to the Monster Group which casts its shadow on the super-strings and M-branes. To expedite its deconstruction, I attempt here to recapitulate the construction of the atom.
The atom is primarily a logical construct. The exigencies of any spatial combinatorics and even a rudimentary anthropics, gives rise to it. Atoms do seem to come to us with their own paleological pedigree, i.e. an astrophysics complete with a starry sky, wherein there also resides the shadow of the Zodiac. We might think of the sky as something like an x-ray diffraction pattern of the primal zodiac.
In immaterialism, rationale replaces mechanism. This is difficult to get used to. We forever attempt to rationalize our lives and the world. Our failures in this regard are not an indictment of the world, rather they result from the incompleteness of our understanding. Atoms derive simply from the coherence of mind. They are its most significant manifestation. From whence derives coherence? That may not be answerable. What are its limits? Does the BPW represent that limit?
This is a relatively simplistic explanation of atoms. We must see how it will stand up.
Coherence becomes the most powerful force in the world. It plays the role of Atlas in holding up the world. God is its source. Hers is the face that is upon it.

[1/29]
Coherence is another expression of relationalism. Relationalism is a necessary property of mind. Relationalism expresses the necessary subjectivity of mind. By that I simply mean that there can be no experience without an experiencer, no thought without a thinker, no feeling without a feeler. This grounding of the mind is so pervasive and profound that we sometimes find ourselves overlooking it. Materialism provides numerous excuses for overlooking what ought to be excruciatingly obvious. Mystics are also intent upon the path of denial. This comes well after they deny the existence of atoms. My point is that atoms are not entirely optional or dispensable. The self is dispensable only vis a vis its grounding in the Matrix. The Matrix, however, is not the nirvana of the mystics. It is, rather, pure potency, something very different.


Atoms are indispensable to the coherence of life, and so to Creation and the BPW. Be very clear that what we need of atoms is not their objectivity, but rather their anthropic logic, particularly their manifestation of the MG. The MG and the RH may represent the limits of coherence as alluded to above. Am I placing a limit on the intelligence of God? No, this is a self-imposed limit, it is the best of all possible limits. By the same token it becomes virtually necessary. I am also saying that it is not possible for numbers to be hiding a complexity that is beyond the limit of comprehension. There cannot exist unobservable complexity. That is a basic aspect of relational existence, of which numbers constitute the purest example. This statement might be construed as implying the existence of a largest prime number, contrary to the 'plain facts'. But hold on. Beyond a point, primes become probabilistic, while their density decreases. Their existence becomes increasingly virtual. As individuals, they loose relationality. The become hypothetical tokens of the Riemann hypothesis. Their complexity is purely quantitative rather than qualitative as with the MG and RH. These are subtle points that need fleshing out.
Prime numbers provide another model to aid our understanding of the virtual, relational existence of atoms and distant stars. Primality becomes increasingly abstract and subjective, once we stop to think about it and are willing to set aside our Platonic compulsions. When I take a Bayer aspirin to alleviate my headache, it is not a gesture toward the objectivity of atoms, but a gesture toward their subjective relationality, as is ultimately the nature of the headache itself. Should we be good Christian Scientists and dispense with medical treatment? Like other potentially good ideas, it should be employed in moderation and with a firm grip on the pragmatic side of cosmology and eschatology. Is that a quibble? I say that we can celebrate the coherence of atomicity without idolizing atoms. The celebration will ultimately obviate the idolatry. I am suggesting that we are simply in the protracted process of thinking our way through materialism. We thought our way into it, we can think our way out of it. We need only allow ourselves to aspire to coherence. It is there for the asking. There is plenty to go around.
It is not so difficult to understand forests, or treeness, from an immaterial perspective, but how do we explain unique peculiarities of every individual tree, without resorting of objectivity? There are random internal processes which can be covered by generic fractal models. Otherwise there are systemic interactions, i.e. interactions between individual systems. Those interactions necessarily have specificity as between predator and prey. The fox eats a specific rabbit, the caterpillar a specific leaf. As with an individual organism or system, there are variable patterns of interaction. We get into the issue of cause and effect and the PSR. The creation of the pattern need not differ from the creations of a painting, representational or otherwise. Each stroke is accounted for, and once applied, need not be actively sustained.
Cause and effect and the PSR need not and should not be associated with materialism. In a dream state these principles are loosened considerably, if they weren't it wouldn't be a dream. In our social waking state, the principles become tighter. Is the relative tightness a warrant for materialism? I suggest it is simply a warrant for coherence.
Creation is the way of maximizing coherence up to the optimal point of the BPW. Coherence is finite, and our world defines that limit. It is our job to push that envelope. Let us hold in abeyance the issue of an eschatological realm. There may be a tendency for us to overestimate its role in the cosmic scheme. It might be more of a vestigial organ: a safe house for us creatures.

[1/30]
In the formation phase, coherence acts something like gravity. The greater the relational charge the stronger the attraction. The cosmic self takes center stage. The total 'mass' increases up to the limit as the potentialities are realized and integrated into the expanding network of being. As the limit is approached, there occurs an eschatological phase change. This might be something like the formation of a black hole. The sky falls as the space-time manifold is finally dissolved or deconstructed. Elsewhere I have spoken of the space-time manifold as our cocoon, and then the eschaton is a metamorphosis. It has been some time since I have examined this latter model. It was never brought under the larger rubric of coherence. The separation of the stages does not lend itself immediately to the relationalist perspective. Our egos represent the individual cells as they redistribute themselves in the chrysalis. The primal Zodiac is our larval (tribal?) stage. Linear history is the crystal/chrysalis/pupal stage. This is where atoms and biology predominate. It is a time of seeming anarchy and chaos. We have to integrate this seeming discontinuity into the cosmic coherence. How much weight can we give to the biological metaphor? Why do we have to endure this stage of cosmic decoherence.


The old explanation for the decoherence, which may have dated back to my first website, envisioned a more chaotic style of matrix, more like a quantum potential. I spoke of human consciousness as like a seine net cast upon those waters. That may not be in keeping with my more organic, or self-centered matrix.

[1/31]
I may be overdue for a reevaluation of my ouroboric/metamorphic/microcosmic model of cosmology. If there does exist a transcendental realm beyond space and time, why do we need to take this detour through materialism? Can we not short-circuit or bypass the present stage? What is the point of stages, if the temporal dimension is only an artifact in the first place? Is it from here to eternity? Then let's skip the 'here' part. If the measure of all things is coherence, why mess around with all the decoherence implied by the space-time manifold?


I have spoken often of the microcosm, without having bothered to justify it in the BPW scheme. An appeal to the microcosm seems to be an appeal to quantity over quality. Why bother with all the replication when we can go for the gold? If the Matrix is self-organizing, why does it need our help? Why does it need to mess with all this combinatorics, when it has all the potency? If we take mere diversity and sheer quantity as ends in themselves, does that not compromise the BPW rationale? Why do we need all these mean streets, why not just masterpiece theater? Recognize that another reason for this excursus is to develop a rationale for heaven, if such there be.
I'm inclined to simply point out that when it comes to heaven, half the fun is getting there, especially if the Telos is a 'do it ourselves' proposition. However, if there were not such an expansive Creation, we would not be around to have any preferences.
It is hard to imagine a creation without a material/physical aspect at all. Would that not be impoverished from almost any perspective? The only reasonable complaint concerns the quality and/or quantity of that aspect. Is it not possible that quality was sacrificed for quantity? But is this not an egregious case of Monday morning quarterbacking? Well, not if it is the very fact of Creation that is ultimately up for grabs.
If materiality is supposed to be so important, why then should so many of our fellow creatures be materially impoverished? If all this is just meant to impress upon us the relative merits of matter vs. spirit, then are we not entitled to say, 'Alright, already!'? There must be something more fundamental at stake, and I suspect that it does have to do with coherence. It is our perspective that is lacking.
What is being suggested here is that the BPW might more plausibly have consisted of a spiritual paradise with a more modest material appendage. When it came to creating the Earth, maybe God carried a good idea a bit too far. Or was it our fault? All 10^10 of us were just dying to get in here, and God didn't have the heart to turn us away, as if God had no control over the length of the queue. Is there some qualitative aspect of 10^10 that we don't appreciate? Perhaps 10^10 is the limit of coherence. Coherence may not be fully realized if its limits are not tested, but is that not contrary to the notion of optimality, which rather suggests a golden mean? The human situation now has the aspect of extremity. Birth pangs may be essential to metamorphosis. God is not one for half measures. It is of its essence that Creation be an all out affair. If we, altogether, only go around once, we go with gusto, and this is one gutsy world. No one will deny that. What it lacks in creature comforts, it more than makes up for in many other ways, drama being a major component.
I think we may well suppose that there cannot be coherence without incoherence. There must be an optimal balance. If that is the case, then every bit of seeming incoherence that we experience here is a portent for the coherence that lies beyond space and time.

[2/1]
Yes, I am Chicken Little, but it is not often that I get to play the part, so here goes: the sky is falling! I even have a picture for you. There is a heliocentric anomaly in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). I am not aware of any more cosmologically deconstructive piece of evidence since Copernicus deconstructed the Ptolemaic cosmology. Is it time to head for the hills? I doubt it. Materialism will be a tough nut to crack. We may not hear more about the CMB until another WMAP is launched, but don't let anyone tell you that the hand is not writing on the wall.


And while we're at it, how about them birdbrains? Does the discovery of avian intelligence(/consciousness?) put a hole in our anthropocentrism? Is it no skin off our backs? It helps to underscore the universality of mind, and the ability of mind to find accommodations in many different forms. When will we realize that the brain is just a docking station, not to give it too dualistic a slant? There is more than enough mind to go around. It is not a zero sum game. The eschaton remains our baby.
I keep wanting to think of the microcosm, e.g. the human self, as a test-bed for cosmology, but that is detracting from the overarching potency of the Matrix. The BPW has an eternal potency within the Matrix. It could be, though, that it is the role of the microcosm to serve as and manifest the potency of the Matrix. Creation and the Matrix may be two sides of the same coin, but don't ask me what that coin is. OK, then, the Matrix is to Creation somewhat as Creation is to the microcosm. One relation is the inversion of the other. This ought to help explain the Ouroboros, but don't ask me how. Only when we realign our microcosms will the Matrix be rejoined, and only then can Creation be unraveled. Until then it is unrivaled. In such fashion does Creation dissolve back into the Matrix. The Matrix has turned itself inside out via the microcosm, and don't ask what that is good for, but it must be an aspect of the cosmic coherence. At that point we may revert to the zodiacal state, or to a kind of Adam Kadmon. The circle is unbroken. And will we not come this way again? Will we not revisit Creation? That may not be the right question to pose to the Matrix. Creation can at once be both temporal and eternal, without actually repeating itself. Dimensionality is not something that our egos may readily transcend. Eternity is with us always in the shining present/Presence.
I'd like to know what will happen to the 10^10 of us when we revert back to the 'twelve'. Such numbers can live on in the MG. There is coherence in the many scales of 10^10, such as the number of neurons in our brains. It is hard to know what to make of this circumstance. It likely has something to do with an optimal complexity. Given a finite world, it is very important to know how far to push the finitude. The MG probably has something to do with that, but otherwise it may be a rather subjective matter. There are likely to be functional considerations that would apply mainly to the eschatological regime, which would be very difficult for us to fathom.
If one were going to err with this crucial number, would one aim high or low? Would there be anything like right to life considerations? To what degree might we be willing to compromise on quality here in deference to quality there? We should suppose that there are many conflicting demands and constraints to be placed on this master quantity. The AIDS epidemic ought to tell us something about this issue, or at least about its complexity. That epidemic argues to the point that God is motivated by considerations other than political correctness concerning the meaning of human life. Does this imply a devaluation of life, human or otherwise? I hardly think so. It rather implies a cosmic perspective, which is not likely to correspond with our more parochial views.

[2/2]
Presently I am reading Apology for the proof of the Riemann hypothesis by Louis de Branges de Bourcia (6/10/2004), a paper which I found through the archives of Science Daily, a source I commend to you. The proof is supposed to be contained in the companion paper: Riemann zeta functions, but I have not found any discussion as to the merits of this 'proof'', beyond the skepticism generated by his initial claim. [2/3 - Here is a prior critical comment on Louis' method of proof. Louis fails to mention this critique in his recent publications. See also here. Refer to an earlier page concerning the possible significance of the RH.]



[2/3]
With regard to the network of being, there cannot be a major divide between the mundane and supra-mundane. There can be no unobserved phenomena. But what does that mean? There also can be no isolated observations. Our eidetic memories must be eternally stored, and not just passively. They must be coherently incorporated into the cosmic self or zodiac or whatever. That is the whole point of the network. Our notion of private experience is something oxymoronic.
Undoubtedly our personal memories contain much overlapping and redundant material, so that what is eternal is not just the sum of mundane experience. It is, at once, both more and less than that. It may be more like the interference pattern from all the individual experiences. As with a hologram, the individual experiences can be reconstructed from the whole pattern. We might then suppose that some lives are virtually redundant. I can only imagine that such a view implies a limitation of our mundane perspective.
These considerations must also speak to the source and being of atoms. There surely is a redundancy in our materialist perspective of them. We appeal to the higher powers to minimize that redundancy. There is finally one world and one self. The self is grounded in the world, and the world in the self. It is all in service to the Dialectic, MDX/Z.
I can observe a unique pattern of cracks in the pavement. Must this pattern be registered for all eternity? What is the source of the pattern? Would it not be simplest just to blame it on the atoms. Can the atoms not just keep track of their own processes? All they have to do is act naturally. But things get more complicated when we introduce the quantum. Then we have a non-local accounting system to attend to. The non-locality includes the effects of countless virtual gravitons from the most distant galaxies. Can we not just make approximations? We can, but the whole point of materialism is that atoms don't approximate. With them, reality is all or nothing.
With immaterialism, I am an observer in a functional loop of interacting processes, all of which have a timeless aspect. The combinatorics will have unique instances. I have a memory of that pattern which seems to be eidetic, but if I were to attempt to reproduce it, I doubt that it would be accurate. Or I could have taken a picture of the pattern and posted it to this website.
I am observing aging and an increasing entropy from the telic origin of the road as it reverts back to a chaotic state. This is another form of metabolism. But then suppose we are talking about the crack in the Liberty bell. The crack itself becomes the icon. It loses any semblance of being a generic property.
Processes that do not contribute to the coherence do not get recorded in the cosmic or akashic memory. The road will continue to crack and break up until it is repaved. That process has no reason to violate the PSR. Non-violation of the PSR is simply one aspect of the Telos. The anti-teleology of deconstruction is an essential part of a metabolic system. Still the road has to decide when and where to crack, without direct input from individual atoms. This is not a problem if the anti-telos is implicit in the telos. My own aging is equally essential to the larger scheme. A related issue is that of fire that was discussed on the previous page on 11/30/04 &f.

[1/4]
Progress here continues. It is a question of tying up the loose ends, and tightening up the arguments. It will be necessary to indicate how this progress may be continued in a systemic fashion, without the prospect of encountering insurmountable obstacles.


When one line of thought is temporarily exhausted, I pick up what seems to be the next loosest end and pursue that. What comes to mind now is photosynthesis. This phenomenon may be treated under several rubrics, e.g. cycles, metabolism, heliotropism, symmetry and atomism. Permit me to start over in attempting to locate the foundational issue. I will take a tack that may, in part, go back to the previous incarnation of this website.
A likely point of departure is Ilya Prigogine, but keep in mind some skepticism. He speaks of irreversible processes and dissipative structures far from equilibrium. This is what metabolism is about. What then is the role of energy conservation and dissipation?
But let us take a step back and have a look at metabolism. It is about the metamorphosis of matter and energy. This is just where immaterialism is likely to encounter its most serious challenge. Metabolism provides the basis of the interactions that make up ecosystems. Its processes determine the rules of the 'game' of life.
Why rules? Rules provide for coherence. The interactions become intelligible. Cycles can be maintained. Over on the other side, it is supposed that rules are less prevalent and rigid. They are more likely to be merely conventional. Coherence comes about more by consensus. There are fewer independent actors.
Down here we creatures are self-reproducing. Our interactions tend not to be morally constrained. Other constraints are required that will be conducive to cooperative behavior.
Given the natural symmetries of space and time, energy will be a conserved quantity that is a measure of matter in motion. There will then be ergonomics. There will be sources and sinks of energy. As in any economic system, sources tend to be monopolized to the extent possible. One way to restrain monopolistic behavior is to arrange for a remote source of energy. The sun fits that role quite nicely, thank you. Many ecological niches are made available for heliotropes, herbivores and carnivores. The possibility of visual optics creates more opportunities. Empty space becomes the ultimate sink for the solar energy.
The point here is to provide a rationale for the given phenomenology. The next step it to minimize our reliance on the physics. I would just as soon have photosynthesis without the photons, as we have striven for matter without atoms. The atoms are there, but only in a virtual and logical sense.
I am partial to the logic of photons, but reluctant to commit to the mechanics of it, and thus become mired in dualism or materialism. The idea with atoms is to have atomic phenomenology available as needed.
It is not immediately apparent how we can maintain the rules without the mechanics. I appeal to logic, math, PSR, cycles, memory, habits, socialization, teleology, etc.

[2/5]
It might seem that the objective particularity of atoms and photons would be essential to the conservation of matter and energy. The classical theory of electromagnetic fields, however, does not require photons in order to conserve energy. Photons were invented only in order to account for the phenomenology of 'black-body' radiation. But what then of chemistry? How can we ensure the conservation of matter undergoing chemical transformations, without resorting to the objectivity of atoms? I appeal mainly to the metabolic cycles. The chemicals are recycled indefinitely without sources or sinks. The overall conservation need only be appropriate to the phenomenological situation, keeping in mind the PSR. Matter and its elemental constituents will not appear or disappear without sufficient reason. Atoms are the phenomenal tokens of the necessary logic of metabolism. Metabolism rests on the phenomenal continuity of its cycles. It is discontinuity that demands special circumstances and explanations.


Back to photosynthesis. Most plants are able to grow and reproduce by transforming solar energy into chemical processes. If the sunlight is removed, their metabolism will be interrupted, and they will eventually die. The same will occur if certain chemicals are depleted. Consider water. Cacti will hoard what little water they can get. That water is conserved with great biological assiduity. Otherwise we rely on a relatively constant sea level to provide our phenomenal determination of conservation.
Animals require food, air and water. A few minutes without oxygen and it is all over for us. Why does breathing have to be such a big deal for us? Why such a stringent chemical dependency? It is just an intrinsic part of metabolism. Oxidation is our source of energy, but oxygen is highly toxic to cells. Carbon is the primary food for plants. The habitat of plants would be greatly restricted if carbon, water (and sunlight) were not widely dispersible and available. Respiration and atmospherics is the simple solution to these metabolic constraints. Life is the phenomenal conservator of these materials: no conservation, no phenomena.
Instead of sunlight, we might imagine manna falling from heaven. Would not the resulting ecosystem be radically impoverished? I should think that this design would be a non-starter, but don't let me discourage anyone from ruminating on this possibility.
We often consider the constraints of metabolism to be a great hindrance. One of the big attractions of heaven has been the lack of such constraints, with death being high on that list. The science of ecology and the anthropic principle have given us a much greater appreciation for the many hidden virtues of metabolic systems, and impressed upon us the notion of Rare Earth. Now our biggest concern might well be that Rare Earth is going to be a hard act to follow. How rare will heaven be? What will be the systematics that will keep heaven running on an even keel? Eternity is a long time for contending with a design failure. Once you get past the golden gates and the seventy-two virgins, the literature on this subject is very short on specifics. Perhaps the Creator put all her energy into Creation. Heaven might be an afterthought. I spend a lot of time touting relationalism, but I hardly have a clue on the relation between heaven and earth. Am I in a state of avoidance?
My point on these many pages is that the cosmos can be self-organizing, and that mind is a more logical basis for that organization than is matter. Given a minimal starter system, on the order of the JPc, the remaining rules of Creation will naturally fall into place more on the basis of (teleo-) logic than mechanics. Mind provides an excellent feedback system for the maintenance of ecologic and metabolic order, better than atoms ever could, even as in the dreams of the materialists.
But so what, you are quick to ask. So, mind over matter. Yes, and then what? Then everything. There is something decidedly unnatural about the human mind. The same may be true for the minds of the other creatures, but we are not in as good a position to pass judgment. The upshot with humans is that we are increasingly, and mainly by choice, dependent upon unnatural environments. Most of us spend our time in places from which 'nature' is barely accessible. When we do venture into the wilderness, we are very well equipped. Very few of us aspire to the special skills of a John Muir. We humans are homo faber, the great fabricators. We are also the great imaginators. Put together these two primary traits, and see how unnatural it would be for us not to aspire to heaven. Heaven is the Telos of mind and spirit over matter. The natural goal of immaterialism is that telos. John Muir speaks of the eternal beauty of a nature undisturbed by homo faber. Yes, it will be a hard act to follow. Imagine a wilderness without mosquitoes.
Are we then the primary link between heaven and earth? We bring with us a pot-load of unrealized ideas. They should keep us occupied for the first few days of eternity. Let me hasten to add that eternity is meant to be a qualitative state rather that a quantitative one. If I had to choose one descriptor it would be gemeinschaft or community. One might think of something tribal or clannish, but both of these have metabolic foundations. Perhaps the closest historical model would be the communalism of the early christian church, but one in which the lion lies down with the lamb. The anti-metabolic aspect of that picture points to our challenge.
Here is a caveat concerning that model. It was a decidedly eschatological community. Its coherence was based on a set of shared expectations and aspirations concerning the eschaton. It was forward leaning. How might this translate into a post-eschaton aeon?

[2/7]
I'm wondering whether in the best possible world, this website would be blocked from searches. Within the last month or two, all but one page, the one titled 'Crisis', have been removed from the Google data base. Every page has been removed from the MSN data base. Alta Vista seems to have been unaffected, but how many people do we know who still use that search engine? Am I supposed to imagine that this is all for the best, or am I being goaded into intervention? How long do I wait before calling Ron on this? [not long at all.] I cannot imagine that any self-respecting intelligence organization would not retain a preemptive ability to arbitrarily block certain types of sensitive information. Now, I am not claiming that as the reason in this case, but I would be very naive not to wonder about it. In any case, that same department would surely know how to remedy this little problem. Back to our little stairway to heaven. Who ever may have been assigned to monitor these scribblings, please take note! I have been told that there are folks who do pay attention, believe it or not.


OK, I have spoken with another individual about this problem. Here is an innocent explanation, which once pertained to the organization for which she works: the Google web crawler happens to hit your server when it is down, maybe if that is only for a few minutes, then the site (server?) is dropped. She said that this happened to them, and it happened with more than one search engine at the same time. I am having some problem with this explanation. Comcast is one of the biggest servers in the world, people would immediately start screaming from all over, the oversight would be easily corrected within hours. Am I to believe that Google and Microsoft are using the same crawler? That would be a virtual collusion.
So let me try another search on the Comcast site. I try 'site:home.comcast.net money' and get 16,000 hits. Well, does that shoot down that theory, or does the (universal?) crawler look for different websites on the same server at different times? I have gone ahead and resubmitted my URL to Google. It may take them 6-8 weeks before they can schedule another crawl. In the meantime, am I not to be vouchsafed a modicum of paranoia?

[2/8]
Growing and building things is not much of a problem for the immaterialist. There is plenty of direct and indirect teleology at work. It's when things fall apart that there may be more difficulty. To some degree the thanatos (anti-telos) is built into the telos, but in general this latter stage seems much more arbitrary and mechanistic. Is the mechanistic devil in the details of the thanatos? I would much rather take on the burden of explaining incoherence than having to explain coherence. I would much rather have an immaterial cosmology based on the telos, than a material one based on thanatos.


The materialist would have us suppose that the entropic 'heat death' is the most natural state of affairs. It is the final equilibrium for any closed system. Life is an embarrassment to the materialist. Death is an embarrassment to the immaterialist. That is one reason for heaven. If this is not the heart of the matter, then I don't know what is. Death is supposed to be the transition from a state of low probability to a state of higher probability.
I want to fall back on the PSR, but I'm not seeing how to do that. It needs to be expanded. If I drop a glass on the floor, the PSR tells me that it will break, but does not provide any details. In principle, materialism could provide an analysis of the breakage, but that is seldom realized. Destruction is mainly a random process. That randomness is supposed to be traceable back to its basis in atomic chaos. We are not afforded that fallback.
Even within physics, however, there is a problem of providing a fundamental explanation for irreversible processes or for the directionality of time. Irreversibility is strictly a macroscopic phenomenon. No microscopic explanation exists. Once again we see the 'benefit of the doubt' being afforded to materialism, but not to immaterialism. It is partly my job to turn that table, and provide a more level playing field, at least for anyone who is seeking the truth of the matter.
Our best explanation for irreversibility may simply be that it is an essential part of any metabolic process, now with the sense of metabolism extended beyond the merely organic realm to include cyclical processes in general. That is our extension to the PSR. This puts us ahead of the physicists in terms of providing a fundamental explanation for thanatos.
This high level explanation still leaves me feeling uneasy about those cracks in the pavement. It is probably these gut feelings, more than any intellectual problem, that stand between us and immaterialism, and it is those feelings that are the most difficult to address.
Water pipes break. They do so where the pipe is the weakest and the stress is the greatest. Wherein resides that particular information, and how is it applied to the phenomenon? Here we seem to be talking about cause and effect. Once again we are dealing with a macroscopic concept which has no place in the terminology of modern physics. The concept of cause and effect is certainly amenable to the PSR. Causes and effects never ceased, they just went over to immaterialism.
The breakage must reside in the concept of the pipe and its support structure. These items are 'designed' and prepared to meet certain limiting criteria. If the design limits are exceeded, the pipe will fail. This is true for both organic and inorganic systems. Who watches the limits? No phenomenon is real unless observed. But what counts as an observation? It need not be direct, and there's the rub. Reality is a network of phenomena and observations, while not taking this distinction too seriously.
Are we dealing simply with planned obsolescence? That is a thought that could use some analysis, but hold on to it for now.

[2/9]

1   ...   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   ...   90


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page