(by Dlanorrenrag*)
DEFIANT HOBGOBLINS:
IN-BUILT LIMITS OF MATH AND PHYSICS: For any particular attempt to rigorously and completely “close,” list, and assign weights or values to encompass each and every measurable variable that may impact any quality or thing being studied, it appears there may be an uncertain realm, role, or value tied to another variable which is not entirely measurable, i.e., the variable property for being a conscious, choosing observer, representative, or perspective of “will.”
INCOMPLETENESS, INCONSISTENCY, AND UNCERTAINTY: Immeasurability of the property of being a willful, conscious observer, carrying an uncertainly contextual frame of reference: foredooms every attempt to achieve a closed system of measurement; and relegates every such attempt to aspects of incompleteness, inconsistency, and uncertainty.
ART OF CONSCIOUSNESS: That being so, should each person, in practicing the general art of life and consciousness, perhaps be respected as much or more in his or her appreciation of such realm as any nerd of mathematics or science?
ADULT PATIENCE: When little minds append “scientific” to every upshot, whatever it may happen to be, should adults, then, entertain the nerdy little pretense that each and every upshot proves its exclusively scientific providence to have been predetermined?
GROWING UP: Regarding those nerds whose noses are stuck so far up test tubes as to lead them to wish to pretend that “rigorous science” can demonstrate some supposed monopoly over physics as a system that is “closed” to consciousness of “God”: Does there not come a point where such nerds should simply be told: “Grow up, already!”
ENTROPY: To the perspective of each human being of the algorithmic system that constitutes our world, his or her receipt of consciously measurable INFORMATION is accelerating in increasing orderliness, even as the ENERGY needed to appreciate and make use of such information is experienced as being dissipated in accelerating disorderliness.
META-BALANCING ENTROPY: Relative to our consciousness, is the entropy of energy increasing (energy is becoming increasingly disordered), even as the entropy of information is decreasing (information is becoming decreasingly disordered)?
META-MEASURING ENTROPY: Should we so choose, may we find we have capacity, within shared parameters of our holographies, to assign means for measuring our acceleration in consciously measurable information in correlative balance with our acceleration in dissipating energy? May we fulfill a useful, correlative, coincidental flux or relation between our explosion in information vs. our accelerating dissipation in energy?
FREE WILL WITHIN COORDINATE PARAMETERS: It would seem that any particular course that may happen to morph in respect of our relations need no more be purely derivative of (or inferior to) a competition among measurably confined forces of physics than to a competition among immeasurably free perspectives of a source of conscious Will.
LIMITS OF LOGIC: Must the moral purposefulness or fulfillment of consciousness be sought, inextricably: as much in aesthetics and Hegel-ian dialectic as in Kierkegaard-ian logic; as much in intuitive art as in empirical science; as much in emotional subjectivity as in indifferent objectivity; as much in metaphysics as in physics; and as much in becoming'ness as in being'ness?
TRANSCENDENCE: Must human perspective eventually be transcended, when it can no longer function in relation to a limit of energy dissipation and/or a limit of information acquisition?
GOD: May there be a transcendently higher reality (as source for expressing some holistic algorithm of “active information”), in relation to which the dissipation of energy as we experience it is merely an “illusory ground of being” for entertaining such derivatively inferior perspectives of beings as are constituted in ourselves?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dave,
The author of the subject article seems to be of a mind, relative to our shared consciousness, that the entropy of energy is increasing (energy is becoming increasingly disordered), even as the entropy of information is decreasing (information is becoming decreasingly disordered).
If so, his take seems quite contrary to the mainstream. Yet, the mainstream has not done very well in reducing the notion of entropy as it affects information to the comprehension of ordinary people.
I appreciate some of the counters: (1) This is too far over the heads of ordinary folks, so they should just take the medicine being prescribed by their scientific betters; and (2) ordinary words are too ambiguous, so ... if ordinary folks would see the light if only they better comprehended the rigors of math; etc.
Well, it is true enough that my math is quite rusty; but my innate ability in math has measured quite high, even if considerably below that of successful physicists. In practicing law, I had often had to argue points in a way to make them understandable to ordinary jurors. When I have been unable to do that, I tend to have found it to be because I myself did not have such a good grasp on my topic.
That experience has led me to suspect that the mainstream herd of scientists may not have such a good grasp as they may think they have about fundamental concerns that affect all of us.
I think math is just a more efficient shorthand for other modes of representing concepts. Insofar as scientists have not yet fully been able to communicate some of their ideas to ordinary folks, such may have as much to do with scientists’ incomplete (even mistaken?) understandings as with conceptual limitations of ordinary folks. Scientists shout “if only you understood math,” while ordinary folks rejoin “if only you knew as much as you think you do.”
When our little minds append “scientific” to every upshot, whatever it may happen to be, should adults, then, always entertain the little pretense that each and every upshot, in itself, proves its exclusively scientific providence to have been predetermined?
While proponents of natural selection insist it is an end-all-explanation, natural selection is neither testable nor falsifiable, but only an after the fact label for a result. Proponents, in pretending natural selection is the COMPLETE explanation, are relying on pretense — not science. When so used, “natural selection” is hardly consistent with precepts of science, but becomes not inconsistent with habits of religious choice or psychological conditioning of world view.
It may be true that a notion of spiritual morphogenesis serves no practical empirical purpose. For empiricists bent too long over test tubes, anything that serves no empirically practical purpose may be said to be meaningless drivel or, worse, noise. (If so, what, then, is music, or moral purposefulness, or enlightened empathy?)
A notion of higher consciousness need not constitute Marxist "false consciousness," but may instead serve an important philosophical purpose --- perhaps a purpose at least as meaningfully important, if not more so, as any empirical purpose. That is, a notion of higher consciousness (or morphogenesis) may help guide appreciation of moral purpose and enlightened empathy.
In that both natural selection and morphogenesis are non-testable and non-falsifiable, both are not altogether unlike religion. Thus, it is mystifying why evolutionists so often become so frothy, shouting the equivalent of blasphemy, every time someone like Ben Stein raises his hand to pose a question to the prevailing orthodoxy. (Go get 'em, Ben!)
Post a Comment