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.
From an Unknowable to a Knowable Ontology of the Universe
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?
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.
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!
"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.
"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
"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".
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.
Hi ThistleScorpion,
I see you're short of the 10 ratings needed to qualify for the next stage of the contest. As am I. Would you like to help each other get across the line by reading and rating each others essays before the June 8 deadline? Mine is titled "A tool for helping science find the optimal path toward the truth: falsification."
Cheers
CoralBear
You have to think big!
It is known that Newton determined the gravitational coefficient through the parameters of the orbits of the planets of the solar system. If the gravitational coefficient is determined in a similar way from the parameters of the orbits of electrons in the Hydrogen atom, then the gravitational coefficient of the planetary system of the Hydrogen atom becomes 40 orders of magnitude greater than in the solar system. Then the Planck parameters of the Hydrogen atom are the parameters of an electron with its radius equal to the radius of the Compton wave of the electron. Those. each level of fractal matter has its own “Planck parameters”, and the generally accepted Planck parameters are an abstract delusion and have no real meaning at all. Indeed, what relation does the gravitational coefficient from the parameters of the Solar system have to the parameters of the planetary system of the Hydrogen atom? None!!!
You have to think big!
The fine structure constant can be easily calculated with an accuracy of up to 7 digits, assuming that all elements of matter have a fractal structure. Then, therefore, "black holes" do not exist, and there is no event horizon. Those. inside putative "black holes", there is deterministic matter that obeys the simple quantum laws of fractal matter, which unify gravity and quantum phenomena of the deterministic functioning of matter on all scales of the universe [ appendix: https://s3.amazonaws.com/fqxi.data/data/essay-contest-files/16/reference_id_2304.pdf
https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/entry/2304#control_panel ].
I would rather say "Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their ACADEMIC POSITIONS destroyed". The real mystery of nature is not so much what happens at the microscopic scale or cosmologic scale, but is the human scale. We investigate the microcosms and the cosmos to better understand our human dimension. The greater obstacle for the future revolution of science will be to accept the new vision of our human condition that it will bring along, as it happened with all the past scientific revolutions.
I hope you may find my assay "The Name of the arXiv: when too much zeal is an obstacle to science" interesting. Please, rate it if you wish.
Excellent!!... this easy examines perception as "a mode of thinking;"... i.e. "it is not The Truth"... advances perceptual revisions that are consistent with a non-perturbative analysis of space-Time emergence, and demonstrates application of revised perception to elevate the human condition.
"All of our research is “within” the universe. It is not even meaningful to talk about anything outside of the universe because there is no outside to even talk about. "
"Universe" must be defined before "outside the universe" has any meaning.
"I believe it was Feynman who said that when you ask why something happened, it has to be in some framework that allows something to be true."
"Universe" as a framework/structure must allow observations assigned to "universe"... e.g. existence of knowable and unknowable processes... to be true.
IF "universe" is defined as all that is, THEN there can be no "outside"... but there can be differentiable Logic Domains within the whole, and to differentiate a Space-Time Logic Domain, from a Spaceless-Timeless Logic Domain that projects the Space-Time Logic Domain, eliminates the question of "How did the universe arise?"... i.e. a temporal differentiation of "begin" and/or "end" does not apply to a Spaceless-Timeless Logic Domain.
In that substance dynamics infer spatial and temporal differentiation, a Spaceless-Timeless Logic Domain cannot facilitate observed substance dynamics, but this does not prohibit a Spaceless-Timeless Energy component of the universe, to provide an unlimited source of substance to facilitate Space-Time Energy dynamics, as perceived by a Space-Time Logic Domain observer.
To establish a framework in which observed Space-Time Energy dynamics are a manifestation of a Spaceless-Timeless Energy component of the universe, requires objectification of the fundamental elements of emergence... i.e. momentum mechanism, unit of substance, and a distribution structure.
To facilitate observer intelligence within a Space-Time Logic Domain as a consequence of emergence, requires the framework facilitate a non-perturbative emission analysis environment as a substance distribution structure.
Although my 2023FQXi Essay: "Digital Science: Emergence of Quantum Consciousness" (http://uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php) was intended as a demonstration of how a non-perturbative analysis structure would change science, the demonstration objectified a momentum mechanism as a single point pulse sourced emission of substance, as spatially defined minimum/indivisible quanta of Energy (QE), which inherently resolves all forces as derived of a single force, and consequently FQXi rejected my essay as being an ""alternative ""theory of everything"", not an essay about how science could be different."
IF all knowledge is encoded as a consequence of emergence from a Fact, a non-perturbative environment is inherent, and IF one knows the structural geometry of that environment, one can resolve an unbroken kinematic logic chain between Fact and observed manifestation of Fact.
In a framework that allows an emerging intelligent network to be true, perception is volatile software... i.e. a digitally coded application that can be revised to facilitate application of Q-functions which are revealed by CAD-SIM visual analysis of Space-Time Energy emergence, within a non-perturbatve Space-Time framework.
To aide conceptualization of entity differentiation within a homogeneous construct... i.e. comprised of unified minimum/indivisible units of substance (QE)... I have, in a manner inspired by Feynman diagrams, incorporated geometry elements of the UQS non-perturbative CAD environment, as visual icons of Logic Components, with which to construct QE spacial occupancy configurations as differentiable entities.
REF: Illustration #1 (http://uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php)
Emergent manifest configurations of Logic Components, differentiate entities as function specific logic circuits... e.g. the configuration of their respective visual icons/diagrams represents a distinction between "mind" and "brain" logic functions.
A universe defined as a composite of Spaceless-Timeless Energy, and the Space-Time Energy manifestations of Spaceless-Timeless Energy, infers nature as a consequence of the fundamental process by which all forms of Space-Time Energy are made manifest... i.e. nature is a result not a function, a product not a process.
The "... strong correspondence we observe between mathematics and the physical universe." is a consequence of the Q- mechanix of Space-Time Energy emergence.
In that on each Q-Tick of the pulsed momentum mechanism, distribution of QE as spatially defined minimum/individual units of Energy must be resolved, within minimum/indivisible quantization units (QI) of a spatial geometry environment, utilizing logic inferred from prior Q-Tick distribution resolve, mathematics inherently emerges, and nature as a product of fundamental process, is neither random nor determinate... i.e. definitely no "accident".
Having defined "universe" as a composite of a Spaceless-Timeless Domain, and a Space-Time Domain as its projection, the purpose... i.e. "teleology"... of the "universe", is observationally Spontaneous Harmonious Resolve (SHR) of Spaceless-Timeless Energy as Space-Time Energy, and although the "fundamental constants we observe", reflect the mechanix employed to achieve SHR, they should not be construed as limits on SHR.
The function of discrete entities as logic circuits, inclusive of humankind, embedded in Space-Time as a consequence of emergence, is to monitor and implement efficient digital processing as necessary to achieve SHR... i.e. human "teleology" can be viewed as an element of universal intelligence utilized by the the Spaceless-Timeless Logic Domain. to FEEL Space-Time QE/QI distribution Spontaneous Harmoniously Resolve, on every Q-Tick.
Although an individual humankind logic circuit may currently perceive, as "... fact, that all of our pursuits of knowledge preclude the possibility of discerning absolute truth.", and the "truth" may be that there is a Spaceless-Timeless Logic Domain.. i.e. an unknowable... component of the universe... one is NOT justified in making application of Factless abstractions to an investigation of a Space-Time emergence.
A non-perturbative analysis environment facilitates a mental framework in which a SOUrceLink (SOUL) can be True, and IF one pursues a non-perturbative analysis of Space-Time Energy emergence, a code upgrade to the logic utilized by the individual perception app is assimilated, making it difficult to deny/evade individual responsibility for accessing Cosmic Intelligence through the "I Am" SOUrceLink (SOUL), and verifying that one's perceived "teleology" is in accord with "universal teleology".
"History and science demonstrate there is an inherent fundamental drive in nature, be it animate or inanimate, toward destruction. The thermodynamic law of entropy for example indicates that everything goes from order to disorder."
Emergent logic... e g. inference... is not necessarily compliant with the laws of thermodynamics, which were abstracted without benefit of a framework that allows an intelligent universe to be true.
To distinguish between "alter" and "destroy" is a perceptual call, and although revision of the code utilized by perception, will "alter" perception, it will not undermine its function as an app to expedite monitoring requirements of humankind "teleology".
"... our history reflects the projections of an ontological fear in mind, caused by dissociation, leaving our mind in a very fear-prone condition."
Even IF the framework requires one to acknowledge existence of an "unknowable" component of the universe, IF an upgrade allows access by the individual to Cosmic Consciousness, to be "true", the fear, which underlies all aggression, can be resolved,
"Knowledge" is derived from a framework that facilitates Fact, and without an ontological Fact, Science and Religion teeter on unstable foundations
RE:2024:FQXi Essay "Science & The Unknowable" (https://s3.amazonaws.com/fqxi.data/data/essay-contest-files/16/essay_id_2267.pdf)
In that Science and Religion have become polarized, advocates of each promote, aggressively at times, adherence to their brand of Factless abstractions... i.e. dogma... and "fear" profits polarization, a framework in which individual entity access to the Cosmic Consciousness is inherent in humans, may meet with resistance.
IF "the brain, in principle, cannot answer ontological questions about the universe because it is part of the universe.", AND IF one defines universe as "all", THEN there is no logic framework in which any "other possible perspectives" could be true.
IF a perceived inability of the "brain" to resolve universal ontology is attributed to its logic circuit's lack of a SOUrceLink, that does not prohibit potential for a SOUrceLinked logic circuit... e g. the "mind"... to do so
IF a "unified state of mind" is in reference to the universe as a composite of a Spaceless-Timeless Logic Domain and a Space-Time Logic Domain, a Space-Time Logic Domain observer utilizing a perceptual framework in which "an observer that is part of the universe being observed" can NOT be true, will perceive self as "a split off aspect of the unified mind".
IF Spaceless-Timeless Energy is the pulsed sourced substance (QE) of Space-Time ontology, THEN the Space-Time Logic Domain, is still associated with the "unified state of mind", facilitating a logic framework in which the "split off aspect" has access to universal intelligence, can be "true".
All entities... e.g. mind.... are comprised of substance, as the element that experiences pulse sourced dynamics, and structure as the framework that allows intelligence to be derived from the dynamics of resolve of substance within the structure.
Within the UQS frameworked emergence, the Q-Mechanix of Space-Time Energy entity access... i.e. SOUrceLink (SOUL)... to and from the Spaceless-Timeless Source, emerges on Pulse-8- Open (P-8-O), as graphically illustrated in: Digital Science: Emergence of Quantum Consciousness (http://uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php)
Utilizing the Logic Component Icons/Diagrams in illustration #1, as logic/function building blocks of a Space-Time emergence, on P-8-O the initial Space-Time Inertia entity emerges, and QE input from an internal entity SOUrceLink is required to Spontaneously, Harmoniously Resolve (SHR) Next... i.e. to sustain the emergence.
As necessitated to SHR QE distribution on any subsequent Q-Tick, all prior emergent logic functions, inclusive of a SOUrceLink (SOUL), are available, and a Space-Time Energy entity source access hierarchy emerges to resolve a child's question: "Why do all my atoms fall with me?".
As a manifest logic circuit, the human "observer" is functionally responsible for opening the SOUrceLink (SOUL) at center of the "mind"... i.e. differentiated from "brain"... and the illustrations are intended as visual assistance for self-experiment.
Personal experience is not scientific method compliant... i.e. conditionals of a personal experience, may not be verifiably maintained to satisfy requirement for repeatability... but that does not invalidate knowledge derived from personal experience.
"Opening a new portal to the universe", can be achieved by installing an upgrade to the individual perception app, and "the world will still appear to obey the same physical laws that apply today...", but an unbroken kinematic logic chain from/to observation from/to Source will facilitate enhanced understanding of "physical laws".
One should research, and experimentally query the universal network, THEN IF the upgraded functionality apparently will facilitate resolve of limitations one's current understanding of "physical laws" places on the individual, CLICK INSTALL!!
Note: I do not know if un-install is possible?... i.e. I have never needed to do so.
Thank you for sharing the insights you have attained through application of a perceptual framework, that allows individual access to the "unified mind", to be true.
S. Lingo
UQS Author/Logician
(http://http:www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com)