From an Unknowable to a Knowable Ontology of the Universe

ThistleScorpion

A paradigm provides the questions for what should be asked, what phenomena should be observed, and how the observations are to be interpreted. Within our current paradigm it is assumed that the human brain, a physical biological organ, is the center of intelligence. Like the universe it is studying, it is a mathematical structure. Despite the astonishing discoveries scientists have made, there remains many unanswered foundational questions, some of which can’t even be asked within this paradigm. Since the brain’s mode of thinking is perception and perception is interpretation based on beliefs, never things as they really are, there must be a state other than perception. While the brain processes information about mathematical structures in the universe, it is not the source of this information. The source is not a mathematical structure within the universe, nor is the scientist, the one observing the universe and without whom nothing would meaningfully exist, a mathematical structure. The Truth cannot be perceived, however, the interpretation of our perceptions can lead us towards, or away from truth, depending on our purpose. This essay will demonstrate why the question of the universe’s ontology can, indeed must be addressed. It is the most important fundamental question profoundly impacting the lives of everyone experiencing the universe. Within the appropriate framework we can explore these questions, bringing us closer to truth.

Download Essay PDF File

Vladimir Rogozhin

Very important and interesting essay.

A good title for an essay that aims seekers of truth at the main problem of modern science - this is the solution to the problem of the ontological/metaphysical "first beginning" of knowledge and cognition.
<<From an Unknowable to a Knowable Ontology of the Universe>>
Excellent epigraph by E. Schrödinger to the essay. I take note in my list of quotes from great scientists to help find the path to the truth:
"The task is not to see what has never been seen before, but to think what has never been thought before about what you see every day.”
But at the same time, your statement is not clear:
<<We all admit that the brain basically cannot answer ontological questions about the universe, because it is part of the universe.>>
4 You write about "metamatic structures of the universe"...
Have you ever dealt with the problem of the ontological basification (ontological justification) of mathematics / the problem of the foundations of mathematics, and hence knowledge in general?

ThistleScorpion

Vladimir Rogozhin

Thank you for your meaningful comments. With respect to my statement regarding why the brain cannot answer ontological questions about the universe: The brain, housed in a physical body, is part of the universe and as such, and here I agree with Max Tegmark, is a mathematical structure.

The thrust of my essay is to suggest and support the idea of a new way of thinking about how the universe we (observer) experience came about: from a Unified Mind to a split-dualistic mind. Mind is not part of the universe, it is the Source of our experience, it is not material in nature and, of course, is definitely not the brain as I stated. Within the universe the brain would be seen as processing information generated by mind.

To be sure, these ideas require a much, much deeper and thorough discussion. This essay barely touches the surface of the magnitude of this idea. My old way of thinking never afforded meaningful answers to the personal, social, political, environmental etc. issues confronting me. However, since interpreting my experiences from this framework, the “world” is very meaningful and helpful and I understand my role in it: To be in the world but not of the world.

CeruleanJackal

Dear FlaxMole,
A beautifully written essay and deserves the highest praise. I caught myself thinking that this is all I know and would like to say so, but you said it so beautifully!
“Despite the astonishing discoveries scientists have made, there remains many unanswered foundational questions, some of which can’t even be asked within this paradigm”.
“The Truth cannot be perceived, however, the interpretation of our perceptions can lead us towards, or away from truth, depending on our purpose”.
“Within our present paradigm, science, in principle, cannot answer any ontological questions about the world we experience”.
“A paradigm provides the questions for what should be asked, what phenomena should be observed, and how the observations are to be interpreted”.
In my essay, I just focused on specific interpretations of observations in which the paradigm did not see new phenomena and laws of nature that could change the paradigm.
Thank you for a wonderful essay. But, unfortunately, not many people on this site will understand our essays.
I wish you success!

KhakiHeron

"They can and are also used for destructive ends: stones used as weapons,
atomic knowledge used to develop weapons of mass destruction, psychological
knowledge used for torture, biology used to develop biological weapons. Even the
amazing technology developed over the last hundred years could be seen as having put
us on a fast track for destroying our environment. And as we explore outer space it
seems only natural to develop a military or Space Force."
The Holy Coran says "Corruption abounded on land and sea due to what people's hands earned" but we go straightly to God " Oh man, you are toiling towards your Lord with toil and you will meet Him" this is our ontology.

KhakiHeron

"In the concept of the mind, Al-Farabi was associated with his teacher, Jacob bin Ishaq Al-Kindi, and spoke of direct reliance on the active mind. He arranged human minds into three categories: “the mind by force, the mind by action, and the mind learned.” The learned mind deals purely with the abstract concepts that the mind has already reached. With attention that the activities of human knowledge derive from the creative active mind"
Translated from :https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%82%D9%84_%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%89_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%8A

KhakiHeron

"Why should the basic laws governing the universe lead us
to conclude that either there is no truth or it must remain inaccessible to us?"
It means also that science is infinite. There is no limits :"above all knowledgeable who knows everything".

ThistleScorpion

Thank you for your generous comments. Your essay detailed what, decades ago, led to my realization for the need of a new way of thinking about the world I was experiencing. The most difficult obstacle was my own resistance to seeing what seems so obvious now. Properly understood, the world is a classroom within which we learn, not just what the world is, but who this “You” is who is experiencing the world! A world that seemed devoid of meaning has become central to my pursuit for truth! A universal theology or scientific theory is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but necessary.