The Endless Mystery of Existence Itself

[Natus Videre]

From Peterson's 12 Rules For Life:

First, it is easy to assume that “nature” is something with a nature—something static. But it’s not: at least not in any simple sense. It’s static and dynamic, at the same time. The environment—the nature that selects—itself transforms. The famous yin and yang symbols of the Taoists capture this beautifully. Being, for the Taoists—reality itself—is composed of two opposing principles, often translated as feminine and masculine, or even more narrowly as female and male. However, yin and yang are more accurately understood as chaos and order. The Taoist symbol is a circle enclosing twin serpents,
head to tail. The black serpent, chaos, has a white dot in its head. The white serpent, order, has a black dot in its head. This is because chaos and order are interchangeable, as well as eternally juxtaposed. There is nothing so certain that it cannot vary. Even the sun itself has its cycles of instability. Likewise, there is nothing so mutable that it cannot be fixed. Every revolution produces a new order. Every death is, simultaneously, a metamorphosis.

Q: [laughter] (Perceval) We don't have the symbols and stuff. (Pierre) We need a special board for that!
A: There really is no such thing as "pure" randomness.

Q: (Ark) They are reading my book. [laughter]
A: How could there be when all is information? If something exists at all in your realm, it derives from a "higher" realm of information. How then could it be "random"? Sets.

Q: (Ark) Sets? (Perceval) Mathematical sets. That's the answer. (Pierre) Sets of what? (Ark) Seth! (L) S-E-T-S. (Ark) Seth. You don't remember about probabilities and Seth? (L) No, they said, "sets". (Ark) I know... [laughter] (Andromeda) Seth Speaks!
A: Your realm, that is 3D and time, are a "set".

Q: (Ark) A set.
A: A set is defined.

Q: (Ark) What? (Perceval) "A set is defined."
A: Delimited.

Even when an arrangement is deemed "chaotic", glimpses of order appear.

 

[Ricardo]

This raises the question that many silly theologians like ibn rushd , pondered , ( aka averroes ,in spanish , in his destruction of destruction book ) , that there's , no space in between divinity and itself , else , there'd be no unity , thus in a literal sense , no chaos , but consciousness in infinite facets. ( but rules nonetheless )

 

[Sol Logos]

I've been working on some ideas that I sort of mentioned earlier on this thread. I've put it all together on a separate site. Its basically a relationship framework that could be applied to almost anything - hence: meta-framework of everything. The site is still very much in draft, but I thought this write-up might be of interest and I'm interested in feedback too. You might notice that while I've got this idea of a time and space "Medium", time is more so a implied as a principle of order. As has been covered somewhat in this thread. But I need to develop that too. Here's what I've got so far...

A Relational Approach to Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness​

Abstract​

The Meta-Framework of Everything (MFoE) presents a novel theoretical framework aimed at unifying quantum mechanics and consciousness studies. It proposes a relational geometry with four interconnected vertices: latent potential (Void: 0), awareness (Observer: 1), information exchanges (Subjects & Objects: 2), and spacetime context (Medium: 3), all orchestrated by a central harmonizing principle, the Blueprint (∞).

This framework offers a potential resolution to quantum paradoxes such as wavefunction collapse and non-locality, while suggesting that consciousness may be a fundamental aspect of reality, rather than merely an emergent phenomenon. Although speculative, the MFoE encourages interdisciplinary investigations across physics, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence, with the potential to stimulate new avenues of research and experimentation.

​

Introduction​

The duality of consciousness and matter presents one of the most enduring challenges in science and philosophy. Is reality deterministic, as Einstein envisioned, or probabilistic, as Bohr argued? Does consciousness emerge from physical processes, or is it a fundamental aspect of the universe?

The nature of reality still remains a contentious question. Quantum phenomena like wavefunction collapse and non-locality challenge classical interpretations of reality and highlight the seemingly active role of the observer. Simultaneously, the nature of consciousness itself remains elusive, with no definitive explanation emerging from purely materialistic frameworks. The MFoE aims to bridge this gap by proposing a unified relational model that incorporates both quantum mechanics and consciousness.

​

MFoE Elements​

The MFoE is structured around a relational geometry with the following key elements:

• Latent potential (Void: 0): Represents the state of nothingness, the absence of differentiation or manifestation. It symbolizes pure potentiality, the field of all possibilities before any actualization occurs. Mathematically, zero is the additive identity, reflecting how the Void is the starting point from which all else emerges.
• Awareness (Observer: 1): Symbolizes unity and singularity. The Observer represents the individual conscious agent, the point of focused awareness that interacts with and collapses the potentiality of the Void. In mathematics, one is the multiplicative identity, signifying how the Observer brings unity and definiteness to the undefined potential.
• Information exchanges (Subjects & Objects: 2): Represents duality and relationship. This vertex signifies the emergence of interactions and information exchange between distinct entities. The number two reflects the fundamental duality inherent in any interaction – the subject and the object, the observer and the observed.
• Context (Medium: 3): Symbolizes structure and manifestation. This vertex represents the spacetime framework, the three-dimensional space plus time, within which physical events occur. The number three reflects the dimensionality of space, providing the context for the manifestation of observed phenomena.
• Harmonizing Principle (Blueprint: ∞): Represents totality and interconnectedness. The Blueprint symbolizes the underlying principle that harmonizes and integrates all the vertices. Infinity signifies the boundless and all-encompassing nature of this principle, which transcends any finite limitations.

The progression from 0 to 3 reflects the unfolding of reality from potentiality to manifestation, from the undifferentiated Void to the structured spacetime context. The Blueprint (∞) oversees this process, ensuring coherence and balance. This symbolic framework suggests a deeper underlying order to the universe, where consciousness plays an active role in shaping reality through its interaction with the field of potentiality.

N.B. These symbolic interpretations are open to further exploration and refinement. As the MFoE framework develops, these symbolic values may acquire deeper meaning and reveal further insights into the nature of reality and consciousness.

​

Theoretical Foundations​

1. Information as Reality’s Substrate
The MFoE adopts an information-theoretic perspective, proposing that information is the fundamental building block of reality. This means that reality is not merely composed of matter and energy, but also of the relationships and patterns that constitute information. Quantum mechanics provides a compelling example: the probabilistic nature of quantum systems, represented by wavefunctions, collapses into definite states upon measurement. This collapse can be interpreted as an acquisition of information, where the Observer (1) gains knowledge about the system and influences its state. This highlights the active role of information in shaping physical reality.

The Blueprint (∞) plays a crucial role in this process. It acts as a guiding principle, orchestrating the flow of information between the vertices and ensuring consistency and coherence across all levels of organization. In the case of wavefunction collapse, the Blueprint mediates the interaction between the Observer (1) and the latent potential (Void: 0), facilitating the transition from a probabilistic superposition to a definite state. More broadly, the Blueprintguides the transformation of latent potential into the structured reality we observe, much like a conductor coordinating the various sections of an orchestra to create a harmonious symphony.

2. Relational Ontology
The MFoE proposes a relational ontology, where meaning and structure emerge from the interactions between entities, rather than being intrinsic properties. Existence is defined by relationships, not by isolated entities. Awareness (Observer: 1) plays a crucial role in this relational framework. It bridges the gap between the probabilistic nature of latent potential (Void: 0), where possibilities abound, and the deterministic constraints of the spacetime context (Medium: 3), where events unfold within a defined structure. This interaction gives rise to observable information exchanges (Subjects & Objects: 2) that constitute the fabric of reality. The Blueprint (∞) acts as the underlying principle governing these interactions, ensuring harmonious integration and coherence within the system.


3. Wavefunction Collapse
Within the MFoE framework, wavefunction collapse is not solely attributed to the act of measurement by an external observer. Instead, it is reinterpreted as a relational event arising from the interaction between awareness (Observer: 1) and the latent potential (Void: 0) within a specific spacetime context (Medium: 3). This interaction involves an exchange of information, where the Observer gains knowledge about the system, and the system is influenced by the Observer's awareness. This exchange leads to the selection of a definite state from the superposition of possibilities, manifested as an information exchange (Subjects & Objects: 2) and guided by the Blueprint (∞).


4. Non-Locality and Entanglement
Non-local correlations, often considered a puzzling aspect of quantum mechanics, arise naturally within the MFoE framework. They are a consequence of the deep interconnectedness between the Void (0) and the Medium (3), facilitated by the Blueprint (∞). This interconnectedness transcends the limitations of spacetime locality. The MFoE envisions the Void (0) as a realm of pure potentiality existing 'outside' of spacetime, while the Medium (3) represents the manifested spacetime structure. The Blueprint (∞) establishes 'bridges' or 'channels' between these two vertices, allowing information to flow instantaneously between them. This information transfer, while non-local, does not violate causality because it occurs outside the constraints of spacetime as we perceive it. The Blueprint (∞) ensures a consistent temporal ordering of events, even those that appear simultaneous within our spacetime framework. Experimental tests, such as carefully designed Bell inequality tests that incorporate the MFoE's principles, are needed to validate this perspective.

5. Wave-Particle Duality
The wave-particle duality, a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics, is explained within the MFoE as arising from the dynamic interplay between latent potential (Void: 0) and information exchanges (Subjects & Objects: 2), mediated by the Blueprint (∞). The Void represents the wave-like potential, a realm of possibilities, while the information exchanges represent the particle-like manifestation of those possibilities. The Blueprint orchestrates the transition between these two aspects, guiding the flow of information and determining the observed behavior. This framework emphasizes the dynamic and relational nature of quantum entities, highlighting the interconnectedness between potential and manifestation.

​

Possible Applications​

1. Quantum Mechanics
The MFoE provides a novel perspective on quantum phenomena, modeling superposition, entanglement, and duality as relational dynamics. This could potentially lead to new insights and predictions, particularly through the application of mathematical tools like tensor networks and graph theory to quantify these relationships.

2. Consciousness
By incorporating consciousness as an integral vertex in its relational geometry, the MFoE offers a framework for exploring the interplay between subjective experience and physical reality. This could potentially lead to a deeper understanding of consciousness and its role in the universe..


3. Artificial Intelligence
The principles of the MFoE, particularly the concept of relational loops and feedback mechanisms, could inspire the development of more sophisticated AI systems capable of context-aware processing and emergent intelligence.


4. Interdisciplinary Integration
The MFoE's emphasis on feedback loops and systemic coherence offers a unifying lens for understanding emergent phenomena across various disciplines, from cosmology and astrophysics to neuroscience and complex systems.

​

Challenges and Limitations​

1. Speculative Nature
The MFoE, while conceptually intriguing, remains largely speculative and requires rigorous empirical validation. Its claims regarding relational wavefunction collapse and systemic coherence necessitate experimental testing.

2. Mathematical Formalism
The relational geometry of the MFoE needs to be translated into a robust mathematical formalism to generate testable predictions and facilitate quantitative analysis.

3. Contentious Claims
The proposition that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality challenges prevailing scientific paradigms and requires compelling evidence to gain wider acceptance.

4. Interdisciplinary Gaps
The proposed applications of the MFoE across different disciplines require further development and concrete examples to demonstrate their practical relevance.

​

Future Direction​

1. Empirical Investigations

• Design and conduct experiments to test the predictions of the MFoE, particularly regarding relational wavefunction collapse and non-local correlations.
• Investigate the neural correlates of consciousness using advanced neuroimaging techniques, exploring the potential link between subjective experience and physical phenomena

2. Mathematical Development

• Develop a rigorous mathematical framework to formalize the relational geometry of the MFoE and derive testable predictions.
• Explore the use of tools like tensor networks and graph theory to quantify the relationships between the vertices and their impact on observable outcomes.

3. Interdisciplinary Projects

• Foster collaborations between physicists, neuroscientists, and computer scientists to explore the implications of the MFoE for artificial intelligence and complex systems.
• Apply the principles of the MFoE to cosmological models and astrophysical phenomena to investigate the role of consciousness and information in the universe.

Conclusion​

The MFoE offers a bold and innovative approach to some of the most profound questions in science and philosophy, concerning the nature of reality, the role of consciousness, and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. While still in its early stages of development, it holds the potential to stimulate new lines of inquiry and foster interdisciplinary collaboration. Further research, both theoretical and experimental, is crucial to assess its validity and explore its implications for our understanding of the universe and our place within it.

 

[Ian]

Greeting.
I came across a video that I would like to share with you, which seems compatible with the title of this thread. In the video, you can hear about the mystery of life through, as far as I'm concerned, the "extraordinary" reflections of three exceptional minds, and they would be: Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake and Ralph Abraham. In this little more than an hour, these three try to present their understanding of the entire creation through various areas of human knowledge about the nature of reality: imagination, chaos, fractality, philosophy, physics, mathematics, history, occultism, to name a few... These are all broad terms and this attempt of mine to describe what is being discussed may be futile . But I believe that the content of the video is valuable and full of knowledge and in fact generosity, so that's why I decided to share it...

 

[aragorn]

Every once in a while, I return thinking about the Ultimate Question raised in this thread, and (for now) I've ended up with an answer that may not be 'satisfying' but which I (for now) see as the the only possibility. So, to recap, the Ultimate Question is: "What is the purpose of the Grand System (everything that is, the densities, lessons etc.)?" I realized that the word purpose was perhaps the key 'obstacle' in my thinking. Looking up the definition of "purpose" you find e.g. the following:

Merriam-Webster:

purpose: something set up as an object or end to be attained

ChatGTP:

The word "purpose" comes from the Old French word "porpos" (modern French: propos), meaning "intention, aim, goal, subject". This, in turn, comes from the Latin phrase "propositum", the neuter past participle of proponere, meaning "to put forth, propose". So, etymologically, purpose literally means "something that has been set forth or put forward", reflecting the idea of a proposed intention or goal.

I'll throw into the mix also Aristotle's concept of teleology:

Aristotle believed that everything in nature has a purpose, and to truly understand something, you must understand its final cause—the reason why it exists or what it's meant to do. He said that everything moves toward its natural end, much like an acorn grows into an oak tree. This "end" is not accidental but built into the nature of the thing. Aristotle’s teleology shaped: Biology (everything has a function), Ethics (human life has a goal: eudaimonia or flourishing), Politics (a just society helps people fulfill their purpose).

So, thinking about this left me with the following answer:

There couldn't possibly be a specific purpose for the existence of the Grand System, since "purpose" implies that there would be a goal/aim to be attained, to reach a state or characteristic that doesn't yet exist. Since the Grand System has existed forever and includes absloutely everything, which implies that it can't expand or evolve in any way, there can't be any final aim/goal that could be pursued. Moreover, there can't be any final cause/goal for human existence either; human's (or rather, souls) have been doing Grand Cycles forever, which means that there isn't any level of evolving/ devolving or flourishing (see, Aristotle) that the souls have not yet experienced. The lack of a specific Final Ultimate Purpose doesn't mean that there can't be smaller 'mini purposes' inside the system – the 'mini purposes' just keep the system up and going, like an engine.

Maybe the asnwer could be summarized as: It's the only show in town!

 

[aragorn]

Speaking of Aristotle, it is interesting to learn that he had similar ideas to those we've expressed here. He was, for instance, convinced that the universe had no beginning – that it has always been eternal. Since Aristotle's own writings are, at least in my opinion, quite cumbersome and 'scattered' to read, I decided a while ago to read a book called Aristotle for Everybody by Mortimer Jerome Adler, which is a little bit like a 'Aristotle for Dummies' version. Well, actually, I didn't find it to be 'for dummies' at all but rather a clear summary of Aristotle's main ideas.

The following quotes, pertinent to this discussion, are from the book:

"Aristotle objected to the view that there are an infinite number of atoms in the world. The number may be very large, so large that it cannot be counted in any time that a counter might use to do so. But it cannot be an infinite number because, Aristotle maintained, an infinite number of things cannot actually coexist at any moment of time...The apparent contradiction is resolved by a distinction that is characteristic of Aristotle’s thought. It is the distinction between the potential and the actual—between what can be (but is not) and what is...Aristotle thinks that there can be two infinities—both potential, neither actual. One is the potential infinite of addition. The other is the potential infinite of division.

The potential infinite of addition is exemplified in the infinity of whole numbers. There is no whole number that is the last number in the series of whole numbers from one, two, three, four, and so on. Given any number in that series, however large it may be, there is a next one that is larger. It is possible to go on adding number after number without end. But it is only possible, you cannot actually carry out this process of addition, for to do so would take an infinite time—time without end. Aristotle, as we shall see in the next chapter, did not deny the infinity of time. On the contrary, he affirmed the eternity of the world—that it has no beginning or end. But an infinite time does not exist at any one moment. Like the infinite series of whole numbers, it is only a potential, not an actual, infinite. (Adler, 1997, pp. 172–173).

"Aristotle went further. He not only thought that time is endless, but he also thought that the world had no beginning as well as no end. If the world had neither beginning nor end, then time is infinite in both directions. There is no moment of time that is not preceded by an earlier moment. There is no moment of time that is not succeeded by a later moment. Why did Aristotle think the world is eternal? Time, he said, is the measure of motion or change. Another way of expressing this thought is to say that time is the dimension in which motion or change occurs, just as space is the dimension in which material things exist. Existing things occupy or fill space. Changing things endure in time. The billiard ball that rolls from one side of the table to the other does so in a period of time. That motion takes time. The duration of the motion is measured by the number of moments of time that it took for the billiard ball to get from here to there. It follows, Aristotle thought, that time has neither beginning nor end if motion or change has neither beginning nor end. But why did he think that motion or change cannot begin and cannot end? That is a very difficult question, indeed.

The answer, if there is an answer, lies in Aristotle’s notion of cause and effect and in his notion of God. Anything that happens, Aristotle said, must have a cause. If a body moves, something must cause it to move. That which causes a body to move must itself move. For example, the billiard ball did not move itself. It was moved by the billiard cue that struck it. To set the billiard ball in motion, the billiard cue itself had to move. But something else had to move it. And so on.

What this amounts to is a denial on Aristotle’s part of a first mover in the series of movers and things moved. Aristotle, as we shall see, did affirm the existence—more than that, the necessary existence—of a first mover. But, in his view, the first mover did not come first in a series of things moving and moved...If there is no reason for thinking that the world in motion ever had a beginning, there is equally no reason for thinking that the world in motion will ever come to an end. The individual things of which the world is composed come into existence and pass away" (Adler, 1997, pp. 176–177).

"Given infinite time, one might go back from effect to cause in an infinite series and never reach a first cause—a mover in motion that is not itself moved by something else in motion. A prime mover that moves everything that is in motion without moving and without being moved must cause motion by being attractive rather than propulsive...To move everything else without itself being moved or in motion, the prime mover, Aristotle argues, must function as an attractive or final cause...Thinking in this way, Aristotle found it necessary to endow the heavenly bodies with intelligences that function as their motors [resemblance to Gurdjieff's ideas?].

As the engine of an automobile is its motor, so an intelligence is the motor that keeps a star in motion. But unlike the automobile engine, which must itself be set in motion, the celestial intelligences function as motors through being attracted by the prime mover of the universe. To be an unmoved and eternal mover of a universe everlastingly in motion, the prime mover must be immutable. But to be immutable, in Aristotle’s view, it must also be immaterial. Anything that is material has potentialities: it is subject to change or motion. It is also imperfect, for at any time it is not actually all that it can be.

Pure actuality (form without matter) can exist, though pure potentiality (matter without form) cannot. It is by such reasoning that Aristotle came to the conclusion that the prime mover is pure actuality—a being totally devoid of matter or potentiality. In addition, this immaterial being is a perfect being, a being lacking no perfection that remains for it to attain. This perfect being, which is the prime mover of the universe, Aristotle called God" (Adler, 1997, pp. 185–187).

Aristotle did not think it necessary to explain the existence of the universe. Being eternal, it never came into existence, and so, in his view, it did not need an efficient cause that brought it into being—a cause that operated like a human maker who produces a work of art...If to create is to cause something that does not exist to come into existence (comparable to what the human artist does in producing a work of art), then a world that has no beginning does not need a creator. But even a world that has no beginning may need a cause for its continued existence if its existence is not necessary. Something that does not necessarily exist, in Aristotle’s view, is something that may or may not exist. If the world does not exist necessarily, it may cease to exist. What, then, keeps a world that may cease to exist everlastingly in existence? Aristotle did not himself raise or face that question" (Adler, 1997, pp. 188-189).

I highly recommed the book for anyone not too acquainted with Aristotle's ideas. He was a deep thinker, for sure!