It is generally supposed that mathematics is devoid of causation. This is certainly the view of the formalists and constructivists. But what is the Pythagorean view? Does not mathematical physics tell us that there is no way to compartmentalize causation. Formal causes are necessarily extant and inseparable from efficient causes.
The image of the 'society of mind' and of the efficacy of the unconscious also speak to upward causation. Does mathematical genius not imply a passive or observational role for the mind. Why would self-organization not apply to mathematical objects? The notion of numerical coincidences, numerology, and the organicity of math, does demand a self-organizational capacity.
I am suggesting that biological organization is similarly realized. Thus do our archetypes of Q, R & P participate in Creation. Atoms and numbers cooperate in attaining biological coherence. Cooperation is too mild a term. Atoms and numbers are ontologically indistinct.
Is this atomism? It is not, because atoms, like numbers, are not mind independent. They are phantasmagoric, but only to a limited, contextual or relational degree, as is everything else. The quantum speaks to this issue. But there is no quantum for numbers. Well, not unless we consider Diophantine equations and other rational constructions. Perhaps it is the quantum of math which will finally allow us to square the circle. It is the quantum of math which allows mathematical physics to instantiate the Anthropic Principle, which is another form of circle squaring, or, perhaps, circle/circuit closing.
It is the task of the archetypes to distribute intelligence optimally regarding the telos of the BPW. The telos of mind over matter must be constrained until the eschaton is materialized. Q, P & R serve that end. It is then that the nexus of causation will shift from Atom to Anthropos. It is time for us to consider this eventuality.
My latest atomic gambit remains tentative. I am trying to get a metaphysical grip on the little suckers, without their dragging me back into atomism, perish the thought. They do have more in common with numbers than we generally suspect, but they also have their own modus operandi.
They do, of course, have a much more intimate, dependency relation with space. But, by the same token, quantum entanglement gives lie to the absolutist pretensions of space. The quantum also manages to drag the numbers into the spatial arena. This occurrence is mediated by the linear and circular versions of e^i*pi.
Atoms exist at the behest of cells, and cells at the behest of organisms. Functionality is the key. We should expect there to be a semiotics of atoms. Atoms provide the link between the organic and inorganic worlds, between the biosphere and the geo-sphere.
We easily forget how great was the surprise when Ernest Rutherford, in 1911, discovered the nucleus. Until then, it had been supposed that atoms were something substantial. The nucleus was easily compared to a fly in a cathedral, but, unfortunately, this cathedral had no walls. How could those newly liberated electrons possibly support Westminster Abbey? Well, there has certainly been a lot of earnest hand waving ever since, but permit me to suggest that we still don't know the answer.
Whenever someone sits in a chair, every electron in the chair has to reposition its orbit in order to support the added weight. It seems like a lot of busy-work. And recall that the weight of the person sitting in the chair is partially the result of the individual virtual gravitons emanating from each electron of a hypothetical person residing in the Coma Cluster of galaxies. How many virtual gravitons can dance on the head of a pin? The infrared catastrophe remains catastrophic, but, nonetheless, this is how my erstwhile physics colleagues attempt to save the phenomenon of chair sitting. I'm just a tad skeptical. What is really going on here?
Too many angels and too many gravitons spoil our phenomenal soup. Ten billion is enough angels for me. We do the heavy phenomenal lifting, and all those other angels and gravitons simply have cameo roles. Yes, I'm just an occasionalist when it comes to physics. And ditto for mathematics. Finding an atomic nucleus is a bit like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. The rabbit is real, alright, but it is mainly there for the show. Who does the trick and why do they do it?
It is sometimes said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Well, our minds must be really small, because there is a heck of a lot of consistency out there. Or is it in here? This is just the coherence theory of truth. This is just the BPW. Rabbits don't just materialize: they have to participate in the metabolic game like the rest of us. We're just trying to see how the game works, which is about the same as understanding why it is the best possible game for here and now. This is about gravitonic presence, or, more to the point, absence.
Atoms are just the logical pump primers of our metabolic reality. A given atom exists more or less like the number 3749263. It's there when we need it. When God is not watching the tree on the Quad, the tree does not pick itself up by its roots and walk away. The tree and the number are functionally related to very many other things going on around the Quad, and in the mathematics building. If the tree or number disappeared, we would have no choice but to fill in for it as we fill in for our blind spot. Mathematicians and physicists happen to work overtime at that sort of thing, much to the entertainment and entrainment of the rest of us. Let's face it, they each have their own charism. It can be downright mesmerizing.
Am I giving short shrift to the plight of the eighty thousand souls [4/19 - upwards of 400,000 including Nagasaki and the aftermath] who were caught short at the wrong end of E = MC^2? How 'bout them angels? Whose game is this, anyway? And, for crying out loud, what is the point?
The way that I often push the envelope of immaterialism is to talk myself into a corner and then see if I can talk my way out again. Each instance affords a learning experience. This is my first foray, on this site, into thermonucleonics. This raises several issues. Did God have to create U235, and to what end? In the BPW, should we not have avoided U235? And speaking of thermonucleonics: is it physics or metaphysics, as asked by an occasional physicist?
It could be instructive to compare a thermonuclear event with Krakatoa, from a phenomenological, immaterialist perspective. These are events that fall well outside of anything that could be construed as cyclical. Only the phenomenology of the Sun could come close.
With Krakatoa, I believe that we are compelled to take a Gaian perspective. It is part of a natural cyclical process for Earth. In our distribution of spirit or intelligence, the Earth, along with atoms, is due her share. That the phenomenology of Gaia should dwarf that of humans is a given. We see it everytime there is severe weather. Krakatoa should fit into that mold. And by the way, volcanoes are the logical/natural result of U235's subterranean presence.
Do we then blame Eniwetok on Gaia? Yes, in part. It was a joint operation of Sol, Gaia, and Anthropos. The alchemy of mixing intelligences is a risky business. It is a business that we will have to master. It is exactly the business of eschatology. Hiroshima was a premature piece of the eschaton puzzle dropped on our heads for instructional purposes. We are still struggling with its catechism. Pakistan's nuclear entrepreneur, Abdul Khan, is just our latest reprise.
Even these 400,000 souls were a small fraction of the holocaust that was World War II. The suffering of that World War is very likely going to be dwarfed by the fall-out of the single AIDS virus. Our molecular threat overwhelms the atomic threat. U235 + HIV is a chemical cocktail made in Hell. And let us not forget that seemingly innocuous CO2. The integrity and coherence of our world are being sorely challenged by these forms of atomism that appear to have run amok.
If there is an atomic intelligence, it certainly has its dark side. And so does all intelligence, all spirit. The deepest shadows point to the brightest light. I just don't think that pantheism can account for the depth of the shadows obviously present in the world. The presence of superhuman evil is forcing us to realize our superhuman potential. But are we so benighted that we can only be instructed by holocausts? Whose creatures are we, anyway?
We are the seeds placed in the Gaian soil. God's plow furrows deeply. The magnitude and quality of the harvest is thereby determined. Who are we to second guess God's green thumb? Besides being the harvest, we are also God's ultimate plowshares. God has done the heavy lifting, it is time now for us to begin to pay attention to detail, to pick up every lost soul.
Yes, our blood is on God's hands. It is also on our own hands.
It is at the X2 event that the reins are finally handed over to us. And, ready or not, here it comes.
What I am struggling to say is that although a particular chair may be wooden, it is not accurate to say that the same chair is composed of wood. I'm just cribbing from Aristotle. The given chair is the product of material, efficient and final causes. It is not simply a physical object, and ultimately we cannot separate these causes. Chairs, like everything else, can exist only in the most robust possible relational context. The final context can be nothing less the the BPW. No other context is coherent. No other context coheres.
In a similar vein, it is not accurate to say that a block of wood is composed of atoms. The atoms actually disappear into the wood. The growing of the tree was a complex biological process which entailed atomic intelligence or logic. The atoms exist only as abstracted from that logic. There is no individuality to be ascribed to them, or to be had by them. The wood is strictly a herd phenomenon, and in this case the herd has ontological priority over the animals that are supposed to comprise it.
We, too, comprise a herd, of sorts. Although we may value our individual identity above all else, that identity is primarily an abstraction, like the identity of the atoms in the piece of wood. In our analytic passion we have come to fear our loss of individual identity above all else. It is with this very same passion and fear that we cling to the alleged reality of atoms, as tokens of our own reality. It is just this misguided passion that you and I must begin to overcome.
Am I simply suggesting a 'quantum' theory of society? Am I not then inflating the quantum beyond all reasonable bounds? Rather I am suggesting that the quantum of physics is the reductio ad absurdum of the coherence of the world. It is not the coherence that is absurd, but rather our reduction of it. Obviously I have some explaining to do.
It is not fair to say that the quantum is absurd. It does, however, remain a metaphysical enigma. Most scientists and philosophers are content to live with this enigma. Quantum physics is responsible for much of our modern technology. Others of us suspect that the quantum enigma is symptomatic of a deeper problem with scientific materialism. You'll just have to bear with me. The struggle continues.
Atoms per se are relatively unreal. What is more real is an atomic intelligence that is invoked mainly in metabolic processes. One might also think of it as a form of instinct. This instinct or intelligence goes well beyond the limits of physics in as much as it is robustly contextual, functional and teleological. It is a conspiracy between our Q, R & P archetypes, each of which are intelligences in their own right. What is difficult to comprehend is that this atomic intelligence does not reside in the atoms, rather the atoms reside in it. The same is true of us with respect to the Creative Intelligence. Intelligence is not bounded by space and time. With regard to true intelligence, the universe is Unobstructed. That the quantum easily defies spatio-temporal restrictions is a reflection of the derivative nature of space and time. Locality is just a figment of the Metanarrative. Non-locality rules. The eschaton is the breakdown of the illusory obstruction of space and time. Atoms disappear into the wood. We disappear into the high road of Creative Intelligence. From then on, our reappearances, like those of atoms, are strictly optional.
From the perspective of immaterialism, upward causation is not localizable. It is strongly contextual. Out of that context, it is possible to abstract or extract atoms, but only on a strongly ad hoc basis. Individual Xenon atoms may be cut out of the herd for an 'IBM' photo-op, but understand that this is all by way of contrivance. It is merely tautologous to say that technology is a contrivance. But I am saying more than that. I am saying that atomic ontology is derived from that contrivance. What is more natural is the atomic intelligence which provides the logic of metabolism. We must look at the world as a network of being and phenomena. My acquaintance with computer programming motivates me too see an analogy here with object-oriented programming. Lower level functions are derived from and more specialized than the more general or inclusive levels of abstraction. Atomic intelligence is an off-shoot of biological intelligence, which is a spin-off of cosmic intelligence.
What the Pythagorean physicists have brought to this table is their 'Theory of Everything'. There is a functional unity that ties together the atomic intelligences. This is the intelligence that we label as Q and P. In a similar and related manner, there is a creative cosmic unity which ties together the various species' intelligences. That the anthropic mind plays a special, or even central, role in this regard is a possibility that is not to be ignored. The unity at the bottom strongly suggests a unity at the top, and this is a suggestion with which pantheism is inherently unable to cope. The only thing saving pantheism at this point is the view that mathematics is something inorganic and mind independent, i.e. Platonism without the Goodness factor.
Another way to grapple with atomic ontology is to compare atoms with photons. A distinction is sometimes made between real and virtual photons. This, however, is purely a semantic distinction. I simply point out that the only real photon is a 'dead' photon, i.e. one that has been observed or absorbed and, so, no longer exists. Extant or 'live' photons, are, by definition, just virtual or potential beings. The same ontology may be applied to the reification of atoms in a cell. The atoms of a cell are pinned down only in the process of 'fixing' the cell, i.e. killing it. Yes, chemical processes may be studied in vivo, but that concerns only the functionality of the process. The teleological aspect and even identity of such processes is inescapable.
The same ontology can be applied to the cells in an organism, and then to organisms in an ecosystem, etc. 'But wait,' you say, 'aren't I real?' All knowledge is based on the Cogito: I think, therefore I am. But I am not the only one who begs to differ with Rene Descartes on this crucial point. Show me the aboriginal mind that has ever entertained such a thought, and I will show you a heavily redacted modern contrivance. I am not being an eliminativist when I point to the essential social dimension of mind. My response to Rene is to point to the frame problem. My claim is simply that any frame less comprehensive than the Metanarrative will ultimately prove incoherent. Language is ineluctably cosmological. In as much as cosmologies differ, communication breaks down. Just read the headlines of the morning paper. To believe in a coherent cosmology is tantamount to believing in our own survival. That the only coherent cosmology is eschatological, is ironic only in a superficial sense.
Next up is to give some account of the genesis of atomic intelligence. I don't expect there to be any single or simple answer. Atoms are part of the network of being, and so their existence and function will be determined by various aspects of the larger context. On the one hand, there are metabolic considerations, on the other hand there are logical and mathematical considerations. The relevant archetypes are Q, R & P. We may presume that the genesis of atoms is closely related to our own genesis. Without completely solving either problem, we may still progress in our understanding by letting one problem shed light on the other. Any aspect of the cosmic network that can be discerned will help in a holographic fashion with all the other aspects. We have to mind the whole picture while we investigate any part of it.
Permit me now to shift focus from atomic to species intelligence. In doing so, I revisit Jurassic Parc. Remind me to get a season pass. Admittedly, this ersatz Garden of Eden is a weak link in the cosmogonic scheme of the BPW. I would prefer a less ad hoc stratagem, and I will certainly be on the look out for one, but in the meantime JPc serves as a convenient half-way station for some still half-baked ideas. Hopefully the final Metanarrative will not have to resort to such clumsy devices.
Jurassic Parc is the playground or think-tank of the cosmic intelligences. This is especially true for the species intelligences. It is in this virtual world that the plant and animal intelligences thrash out and optimize their ecological strategies. It is our device for short-circuiting biological and geological evolution. It is a price that immaterialists should be more than willing to pay in order to forego Darwin and the Big Bang.
Atomic intelligence plays a crucial role in the optimizing of the various metabolic strategies. It is here that the reproductive strategies must be fine tuned. Darwin may be short-circuited, but Darwinism is very useful when it comes to maintaining biological coherence. The time dimension, however, is much more elastic than it is in our experience. In some sense we are dealing with a four-dimensional playing field. The genetic codings and linkages are worked out on-the-fly. The metabolic, cellular and organismic evolutions may be run in parallel fashion, facilitated with strong doses of teleology. The anthropic intelligence is crucial in this latter regard.
The point is that ecological and metabolic coherence can be achieved in a very efficient manner by exploiting the distributed intelligence and final causation that is naturally associated with the Matrix and the BPW schemes. The original zoomorphic/zodiacal network of intelligences is greatly ramified and differentiated in this virtual evolutionary process. This differentiation of the cosmic intelligence may usefully be compared with the embryonic cellular differentiation studied in developmental biology. In this context the Matrix acts as the stem cell. There is then a gradual process of differentiation mediated by the Telos or the X factor. This is then the blueprint of Creation. This map becomes the territory as it is stretched to its optimal limit which entails the greatest coherent phenomenological diversity.
Both theism and pantheism were developed back in the 'good ol' days' when life was nasty, brutish and short. There was plenty of blame to go around. The universal mythos was of a once pristinely bucolic world that had suffered mishaps as it had aged. Not unlike you and I. Besides, there were quarrels and treachery on Mt. Olympus, and, down below, human wickedness did nothing to improve the situation.
We could deal with this problem either individually or collectively, depending on how we viewed the nature of the problem. If the sorry state of the world was mainly the natural result of senescence, there was little to be done except to wait for its natural rebirth, or, more permanently, to simply remove ourselves back to the cosmic womb, the Matrix or nirvana.
On the other hand, if it was evil that was responsible for the degradation of the world, then there was the possibility of a collective intervention. The idea was to participate with the divine force of goodness in vanquishing the forces of evil.
Once the concept of good and evil comes to the fore, monotheism becomes logically inevitable. If not, pantheism is the result. The BPW follows neither path. Rather we follow Leibniz in his positing of metaphysical evil: evil is a necessary part of the best possible world. Evil is not natural as in pantheism, but it is logical and rationalizable. Evil is something to be overcome in the eschatological context. We become the primary instruments in the vanquishing of both moral and natural evil. It is this end that justifies our full participation in Creation. This is the hope that logically attaches to theism. Perhaps it is the moral dualism of monotheism that leads to the metaphysical dualism between the Creator and Creation.
On the pantheist view of the natural senescence of the world, there is no intrinsic value to our participation in that inevitable decline. We are part of the problem. There is no solution other than our opting out.
If we may presume the operation of a (downward) dialectic within the Matrix, then we may expect to see the natural differentiation and symmetry breaking of the primordial psyche or intelligence. To maintain coherence, there must be a Telos for this process. X, with help from Q & P, provides the Telos. The elements provide for the completion of the ouroboric circuit. Agape, or X factor, is the upward dialectic or synthesis of Creation. The resurrected X is the great attractor in the sky. It is the object of the Hierogamos.
Q & P both relate to the completion of the cosmic/anthropic circuit. There is the quantum projective logic on the one hand, and the elliptical 'squaring' or rationalization of the circle facilitated by pi and its attendant monster group. This completes the self-organizing, self-excited circuit that is our metanarrative.
The monster group is the limit of the possible symmetry breaking. It defines the structure of the micro and macro-cosms. It provides the grand unified theory of physics. Atoms are the phenomenal manifestation of the MG. What is still missing is the metanarrational biography of Q & P. As it stands, these archetypes drop out of the sky, fully formed. Their role is not unlike that of the genetic material of a stem cell, but there must be some logical precursor that connects them back to MDZXR, otherwise there will be a glaring gap in our story. The other intelligences have to mind their P's&Q's if they are to properly communicate on the microcosmic level. On the other hand, it is likely that Pi relates to the megalithic culture with its archeo-astronomical and geodesic inclinations.
Several times here Pi has been related to the logos, while Q may be related to the dialectic, yielding a variant on the trinity of MPQ. It may not be too great a stretch to say that we may end up having to derive atoms from the trinity. Certainly atoms have a lot to do with incarnation, i.e. the fleshing out of Pi, and that has to do with rationalizing the circle: removing it from the apeiron.
It would be nice to be able to pin atoms on the dia-logos. That need not be such a terribly big stretch. The MD-L trinity may be represented mathematically, as previously noted, by the ouroboric style coincidence of e^i*pi = -1. This coincidence is just the basis for quantum wave mechanics. We then have two cycles delimiting Creation: the zodiacal and atomic cycles. All the metabolic cycles operate between these limits. Also the analytical thrust of the dia-logos has to have a logical limit. That is just the traditional conception of the role of the atom. That limit must also serve as the medium of exchange for all the various metabolic processes.
When considering the provenance of atoms, it is assumed that a space-time background already exists. Such an assumption is highly problematic for the quantum gravity theorists who have come up with various schemes for implementing a 'pre-geometry'. From our more phenomenological perspective, there is much less need for such mathematical niceties. The space-time background for our metanarrative is just a concomitant of its basic phenomenology. What is of greater concern is the introduction of physics into that phenomenology.