I-ness Conjecture

DICE --- FAIR, LOADED, OR DETERMINED:

Hypothesis Derivative of Turing Machines: For any mathematically driven function or system that encompasses and defines parameters allowed for drawing upon a composition of variously interacting sub-functions (“elements”), the reactively particular outputs thereby facilitated may reasonably be characterized as being randomized in ways that are: mathematically random (“fair dice”); mathematically biased ("loaded dice"); or mathematically determined (“be the dice”) --- depending solely upon the contextual perspective of analysis ("perspective adopted for being the dice").

COLLAPSING EVENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS BY ADOPTING A POSITION FOR "BEING THE DICE":

Specifiable aspects of such parameter-providing-background may eventually relate, come into contact with, or interact with a pre-set point-of-view or frame-for-measuring or recording perspective --- as by the participation of a sensing device, recorder, or observer in adopting a contextual perspective for observation.

Upon such interaction, parameters availed for experiencing or measuring each such specifiable aspect “collapse,” so as to afford a relatively consistent interpretation or translation for each such measurer. Upon such interaction, there occurs a specifying, collapsing, or constricting of determinations or choices from among previously availed parameters of ambiguity-preserving fuzziness.

I-NESS CONJECTURE:

Among hyper, superior levels, above any artificially limited holism of a lower system, may it be shown that: For any perspective-of-analysis — which is artificially constricted, acquired, or entirely entailed — within a lower system, such perspective would be availed a “conceptualization of truth” that need not be falsifiable or inconsistent with its experiences in respect of such lower system?

May such acquired perspective-of-analysis reasonably consider all events as may relate or manifest to its observation as being “randomized” — in pure, biased, or “determined-randomness” — in whatever respect is consistent with the case of observation availed to it?

WHAT IN COMMON MAY BE ADDUCED:

If so, it would seem the only superior or common reality that precipitates or adduces out of all such perspectives would be “I-ness itself” — in respect of acquiring to I-ness of perspectives of analysis (consistent with sensateness and/or sentience).

Until one takes a perspective, one may not very well relate whether any event is “truly, really, random” — as opposed to subsisting or existing merely in some state of fuzzy, un-collapsed, parameter-potential. Except in respect of one (being a sensate or sentient perspective of analysis, i.e., I-ness) who assumes or acquires a contextual perspective (either presently or in potential), no particular quality, property, or aspect of “Randomness” would exist; no physical-existent, superior-substance, or ultimate building block or particle would be adduced. (Note: Plants, such as trees, are not insensate.)

Even stars may take on a “main phase” only in relation to Beings (or potential Beings) with capacity to experience or appreciate them as such. From other systems of Beings Of Perspective, the nature of “space” occupied in respect of un-collapsed “parameter-fuzziness” may be differently translated or experienced.

Insofar as “space” may not exist in itself, but depend for its existential reality upon present or potential perspectives of sensate or sentient I-ness, it would seem that an infinite variety of systems for experiencing Holographic I-ness could occupy the same “existential space” or Source-Ground Of Being (which may be called “Holistic-I”).

INTUITION BEYOND LOGIC:

Such I-ness, not being substantive, would be beyond empiricism, being experience-able instead in direct intuition. Such I-ness would not, in itself, be subject to logic, but represents the source of logic. In existing in respect of conception itself, superior to any lower conception of logic, such I-ness is not falsifiable by a logical “law of the excluded middle.”

RESONATING INTUITIONS:

In trances and dreams, may conscious I-ness, being less tied to inanimate reactiveness, be freer to intuit a common source or resonance among perspectives of analysis? In trances and dreams, do elaborate intuitions, insights, sensations of deja vu, and even concise explications of complex relationships — sometimes resonate into clearer focus?