After forced into becoming a process guy (just a different way of saying systems analyst), it was inevitable (slowly, and floundering away at times as well), that I would ultimately stumble on to this. The fact that gravity is the necessary result, of meaningful interaction, because there has to be the thing that brings it back around to the circle (or loop, if you will) of process it also, must necessarily be; else how could it possibly iterate in the first place?
Ah, but is it gravity in one frame of reference or, say, inertia in another, or relativistic mass in another still? Or whatever, other aggregate, that has been encapsulated within whatever other frames of reference you might imagine could interact, because of overlapping scales of energy consideration, in everything that is interacting throughout all of the realities of the entirety. And "meaningful interaction?" What are you talking about there? Well, I'm talking about the fundamental nature of what makes the intent of "object" possible in the first place, and why would there be energy to make the "objects" want to interact at all? And what about the absolutely necessary intent of "boundary" possible in the first place, because, obviously, they are all so relative.
And I do keep saying the word "intent" more frequently because I've come to appreciate more just how much having the idea of "Elemental Intent" can be beneficial to your basic, effective philosophy. So just let me quickly illustrate what I mean by "Elemental Intent."
One essential intent is the idea of zero. Can, and does, zero ever really exist? And the answer to that is "well, it depends. Sometimes yes, and sometimes no." But, and as you might guess, it is, in fact an essential aspect of having a good cosmological model, and you need that, in my opinion, to have a decent, effective philosophy (I also think imaginary numbers are necessary intents, crazy as the idea of the square root of negative one is in any ordinary, intuitive sense). But let us continue.
The idea of magnetic north, and magnetic south, are both absolutely necessary intents. And those intents are very specific: North must avoid other Norths, but seek out other Souths. And South must avoid other Souths, but also seek out other Norths. Now, what exactly is the difference between North and South? They are orientations, which are another intent by the way, which are the result of the relative movements of particular "objects"
But let's get to the real meat here. Do "objects" ever really exists? Well of course they do, but then sometimes they don't, because it really, really, does depend. On so many things relative to so many other things. And "boundary?" It has to exist as an intent too, but it also has to be just probabilistic enough so that things can be, universally, semi permeable; so that information can leak back and forth, and up and around, and all about, all of the angles one could ever imagine.
And the real problem for me, certainly, is understanding the process that mediates these more basic intents, because there has to be one or I wouldn't be here to type the question of it in the first place, nor you there to read it.
And so I created the basic intent of there being a singular thing, and the basic intent of there being the thing that had to be based on the waves of the analogue, as well as on the idea that the analogue is there only because many encapsulated groups of other processes are making them happen, but doing that from another frame, or scale, of reference, allowing for the information to come through to our immediate, experiencial, frame of reference, as a multiplex of such waves. Waves that also have to be thought of in the context of the body because it is the body, and its complete electrochemical, nervous system, that first gets all of our interface with physical meaning space, so how could it be otherwise.
It also doesn't hurt that you can go back to the more simple notion of the "Elemental Embrace," which is simply the need to come together, and exchange, for which to sum up the what the rubbing, somewhere, does to create all of those "Giga Wiggles."
You then have to only throw in the one other fundamental of importance, which is choice itself, of course, to seal what ought to be a pretty easy bargain; because we truly have demonstrated that energy can be understood as being described in either of, what do you know, the same two fundamentals: the singular quanta, or the wave, depending, naturally now, on how you chose to do the testing.
In all of this, it is really, really hard for me to see how you could not have a meaning processor (whether biologic in origine or not) involved in your cosmology, and still have it be capable of creating self sustaining iteration. Any more than you can have so much based on relativity and not make provision for the observer you need to be relative to; you know, the one who would have to have the same meaning system as you, so the two observations could be done with the same referencing system.
I am writing this in reference to the linked article below because, not only does it just blow me away that you could, conceivably (because I want to be clear that this must remain a philosophical discussion, for an idea that might be useful to us. For a while at least, until a better idea comes along, which it inevitably will), be in an existential frame of reference where all causality, as physics has ordinarily known it, would break down, so that you no longer had a past, and any future would be possible; not only does that blow me away, but it also reminds me that physics as we know it isn't dealing nearly enough with the whys, and wherefores, of how we get, and make use of, information, as biologically created, meaning processors, and what that then does, if one is really honest, to what one then concludes is the way the Cosmos itself works.
In other words, in my opinion, they just aren't appreciating just how fundamental we are in making energy, or matter, possible in the first place (hence their ignoring the whole reality that whole body experience information can, and does, transfer across what might seem like impossible borders, because, if it didn't how could there be the phenomenon of savant). How could things that I have never had the actual life experience for, suddenly express themselves whole and complete; even if they were in very narrow contexts some times. They've ignored it, just as they have ignored the possibility that we can perceive giga wiggles from quite afar, and far beyond what we ordinarily consider as senses (eyes, and ears, and what our hands can touch at the moment); because here it can be a multiplicity of wiggles, forming complex associations, into codecs we simply don't fully understand yet; precisely because translating them to any of the other, word oriented, mind space codecs, is damn hard. And I should know because I've been trying to learn how to do it for going on 50 years now at least.
Said one more way, just as they give lip service to the "uncertainty" principle, so do they also seem to forget that there is no escaping their own involvement in what they seek to measure, and test. Because the simple fact of the matter is this: The further afield you go in looking into things farther from the scale of reference of your own reality, which would be into either the deepest realms of sub, sub atomic, or the farthest reaches of grander scale, in galaxy clusters, or other, larger dimensions outside of our reality, the more you entangle yourself, and the instrumentality you chose to use, with the way you chose to use it, into the mix of what you get back for results. And there will never, ever be any way you will be able to escape that. Which is why, at some point, you will be forced to face whether you can embrace faith or not, because it will come down to that. It is, in fact, already starting to come down to that.
The really bottom line here is this: I may well not be right about this whole structure I have created, but I am pretty sure I am asking some very important questions. I can only hope it intrigues you to learn more about this stuff, and to start asking your own questions about it.
Some Black Holes Erase Your Past and Give You Unlimited Futures
See Also:
[Post Note: Professor Davies presents his case as a "Closed Loop," but we all know that what he may well likely be talking about, in the larger sense, is "Self Sustaining Iteration."
Perhaps, at some point, people can come to realize that, just as a "nucleus system" in an atom must have its own sense of gravity, and inertia, and relativistic mass, so also must ideas themselves, biological systems, or even social systems. And it is all, ultimately, based on the meaningful elements inside, and the meaningful connections they have. And the fact that, with this resolved meaning, does it then create its own curvature of causality and effect so that it can maintain itself as a self sustaining, iterative process.
At least, that's how I see it. J.V.]
A closed loop
[Main Text Change Note Detail:
1. This paragraph:
After forced into becoming a process guy (just a different way of saying systems analyst), it was inevitable (slowly, and floundering away at times as well), that I would ultimately stumble on to this. The fact that gravity is the necessary result, of meaningful interaction, because there has to be the thing that brings it back around to the circle of process it also, must necessarily be; else how could it possibly iterate in the first place?Has been changed to :
After forced into becoming a process guy (just a different way of saying systems analyst), it was inevitable (slowly, and floundering away at times as well), that I would ultimately stumble on to this. The fact that gravity is the necessary result, of meaningful interaction, because there has to be the thing that brings it back around to the circle (or loop, if you will) of process it also, must necessarily be; else how could it possibly iterate in the first place?
2. This paragraph:
Ah, but is it gravity in one frame of reference and, say, inertia in another, or relativistic mass? Or whatever, other aggregate, that has been encapsulated within that other frame of reference. And "meaningful interaction?" What are you talking about there? Well, I'm talking about the fundamental nature of what makes the intent of "object" possible in the first place, and why would there be energy to make the "objects" want to interact at all? And what about the absolutely necessary intent of "boundary" possible in the first place, because, obviously, they are all so relative.has been changed to:
Ah, but is it gravity in one frame of reference or, say, inertia in another, or relativistic mass in another still? Or whatever, other aggregate, that has been encapsulated within whatever other frames of reference you might imagine could interact, because of overlapping scales of energy consideration, in everything that is interacting throughout all of the realities of the Entirety. And "meaningful interaction?" What are you talking about there? Well, I'm talking about the fundamental nature of what makes the intent of "object" possible in the first place, and why would there be energy to make the "objects" want to interact at all? And what about the absolutely necessary intent of "boundary" possible in the first place, because, obviously, they are all so relative.
J.V.]
No comments:
Post a Comment