In the beginning there was paradox: there was nothing and there was everything. In the end there was paradox: there was nothing and there was everything. In other words, the beginning is identical to the end, and in this identity there is nothing and everything.
This is how things got started, and this is why there is something instead of nothing. Our particular universe is a manifestation of some unfathomable number of possible universes. Each possible universe also exists, although we may be forever forbidden access to anything other than our own universe.
Time is a function of any specific universe; this is to say, without a universe there can be no time as time is what is formed when there are relations amongst parts. Space is also a function of relations amongst parts. Ergo, no relations means no spacetime.
Thus, we cannot get back to the singularity of the big bang because this is the initial point before time and space came into existence. Spacetime was created when the singularity became fragmented: its fragments formed the relations that both require and create spacetime.
Every universe begins the same; i.e., every universe starts from the same singularity. This is because the singularity transcends any specific spacetime matrix; thus, while any given universe blossoms forth from the singularity creating its own specific manifestations and its own unique spacetime structure, the singularity remains intact as the central force driving all possible manifestations. It is, in a sense, the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle.
The singularity is the ultimate paradox: it exists, and yet does not exist as existence is a function of some spacetime; it is nothing as something can only exist inside a spacetime matrix, yet it is everything as any instance of things is manifest only because of its fragmentation.
In the beginning there was I am & I am not.
Showing posts with label existence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label existence. Show all posts
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Time and Energy
I was chatting earlier and got into a discussion about physics, the description of reality, and energy. The person I was chatting with appeared to take the position that physics can account for everything—all phenomena can be described in terms of energy. I mentioned that we’re not even sure what energy is, but he claimed that energy is a signal is information. But, I protested, this is mere tautology: it tells us nothing more about what energy is than the fact that maybe we have more than one word for it.
So I look up energy, and the Wikipedia entry has a great quote of Richard Feynman:
“There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law; it is exact, so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.”
So, energy, as understood by physics, is ultimately without any properties other than a corresponding number. However, it also has many different appearances, and it is transition from one form to another that appears as motion or activity, and has more to do with the word’s etymology as “active,” “operation,” and “working.” Thus, there is a seeming paradox when it comes to energy: relative to a defined frame of reference, the activity of energy in a given space over time creates the phenomena that manifests within that space; however, the energy of the system remains identical to itself—it does not change. So what we find about energy appears to be that it changes in space over time, but it doesn’t change at all.
I also chatted with this person about how we don’t really understand what time is. Hir position was that we did, and that it could be understood as steps of progress in mutations, which seems to have intuitive merit; however, this merit, it seems to me, is based upon our perceptions of experiences as embedded within time, and not an understanding of time itself. Given that ‘space-time’ has no properties, but instead defines the dimensions of the system or structure in which energy exists, and that energy is merely some unchanging number, I’m not sure how we come to an understanding of what time is beyond a product of our own perceptions of something that, ultimately, does not change.
In other words, time makes no damn sense at all. And yet, this absurdity seems to be our reality.
So I look up energy, and the Wikipedia entry has a great quote of Richard Feynman:
“There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law; it is exact, so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.”
So, energy, as understood by physics, is ultimately without any properties other than a corresponding number. However, it also has many different appearances, and it is transition from one form to another that appears as motion or activity, and has more to do with the word’s etymology as “active,” “operation,” and “working.” Thus, there is a seeming paradox when it comes to energy: relative to a defined frame of reference, the activity of energy in a given space over time creates the phenomena that manifests within that space; however, the energy of the system remains identical to itself—it does not change. So what we find about energy appears to be that it changes in space over time, but it doesn’t change at all.
I also chatted with this person about how we don’t really understand what time is. Hir position was that we did, and that it could be understood as steps of progress in mutations, which seems to have intuitive merit; however, this merit, it seems to me, is based upon our perceptions of experiences as embedded within time, and not an understanding of time itself. Given that ‘space-time’ has no properties, but instead defines the dimensions of the system or structure in which energy exists, and that energy is merely some unchanging number, I’m not sure how we come to an understanding of what time is beyond a product of our own perceptions of something that, ultimately, does not change.
In other words, time makes no damn sense at all. And yet, this absurdity seems to be our reality.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Notes on EIO
A few months ago when I started this blog, I picked the picture of the fractal in the sidebar and titled it E = I + O. This represents a formula I was toying with in my mind, a metaphor of manifestation to guide some of my thoughts. I’ve been meaning to write about it, and it is some of what I hinted at in a previous post about going on vacation. This statement, “E = I + O,” kinda’ served as a beacon of sorts of the Re: Awakening.
As a sort of grounding, there is the already written The Fractal Structure of a Dispositional Universe, which explores the relationship between Dr. CB Martin’s dispositional theory and the properties of a fractal structure. The main import for this entry is that Martin formulates that “M = D + P,” where:
M = Manifestation
D = Disposition
P = mutual disposition Partner
I argue in the essay that such a formulation creates a fractal structure to manifestation, i.e., that reality exists in a fractal dimension—not quite here or there (in a way)—if we assume Martin’s dispositional theory as a model of existence.
So in terms of this metaphor, M = D + P is a facet of E = I + O. Now this is where it gets a little less rigourous (if it ever was in the first place), and becomes more loose, and, in a way, more free.
The simplest way for me to present this is as follows:
E = {Energy, Everyone, Everything, Eternal, Experience, Element, Expression, Encounter}
I = {Individual, Interpretation, I, Interdependent, Infinite, Information, Input}
O = {Other, Object, Opening, One, Output}
These are sets of words—each word obviously beginning with the letter name of the set—which I’ve loosely associated with the formula.1. Some particular groupings are more meaningful (seemingly) than others, and serve more to capture some of the intended meaning of the statement.
For example, since energy can neither be created or destroyed, “Energy = Input + Output” makes sense in terms where the energy present in a moment is identical to the energy that created it in the past and the energy that it will become in the future.2. In turn, a collection of energies creates the manifestation of the moment in a similar (metaphorical) way that a collection of points creates a fractal pattern.
Some of the words are meant to have slippery senses which point their reference to one of the other sets. This in order to give a feel for the self-referencing that is existence: a sense of the paradox that gives rise to manifestation.
For example, “I” can point to One, as I am the One that I know, for instance.
Or, O can been seen as 0 (‘zero’), and points to the notion that a singularity is nothing, 1 = 0, or that the self is empty (I = O)
Or, we can pun on I as ‘eye’ and bring in sensory data, or pun on I as ‘aye,’ affirmation, and make nodding reference to Derrida’s “Oui, Oui”.
Yeah, there’s a lot of sloppy metaphor in this E = I + O, and I hope that maybe this entry captures a little bit of what I mean here. However, ultimately, the formula is intended to create enough semantic play that boundaries collapse, and E = I = O, which, in turn, creates a space to catch a glimpse of a unspeakable ontological reality.
1. Please note the sets are not meant to be exhaustive, merely a sample of things that could be assocaited with each letter.
2. ETA on 9/18/08: Since writing this post this substitution has bothered me because in a standard interpretation qua physics E = I + O, where E is energy, I is input (of energy), and O is output (of energy) the formula is pretty much wrong. However, the idea expressed here, that energy remains constant over time, is true in terms of the law of conservation of energy. I suppose if we instead examined Energy, E, = the energy of the individual, I, + the energy of all Other individuals, O, then this would make more sense in terms of the actual physical law.
As a sort of grounding, there is the already written The Fractal Structure of a Dispositional Universe, which explores the relationship between Dr. CB Martin’s dispositional theory and the properties of a fractal structure. The main import for this entry is that Martin formulates that “M = D + P,” where:
M = Manifestation
D = Disposition
P = mutual disposition Partner
I argue in the essay that such a formulation creates a fractal structure to manifestation, i.e., that reality exists in a fractal dimension—not quite here or there (in a way)—if we assume Martin’s dispositional theory as a model of existence.
So in terms of this metaphor, M = D + P is a facet of E = I + O. Now this is where it gets a little less rigourous (if it ever was in the first place), and becomes more loose, and, in a way, more free.
The simplest way for me to present this is as follows:
E = {Energy, Everyone, Everything, Eternal, Experience, Element, Expression, Encounter}
I = {Individual, Interpretation, I, Interdependent, Infinite, Information, Input}
O = {Other, Object, Opening, One, Output}
These are sets of words—each word obviously beginning with the letter name of the set—which I’ve loosely associated with the formula.1. Some particular groupings are more meaningful (seemingly) than others, and serve more to capture some of the intended meaning of the statement.
For example, since energy can neither be created or destroyed, “Energy = Input + Output” makes sense in terms where the energy present in a moment is identical to the energy that created it in the past and the energy that it will become in the future.2. In turn, a collection of energies creates the manifestation of the moment in a similar (metaphorical) way that a collection of points creates a fractal pattern.
Some of the words are meant to have slippery senses which point their reference to one of the other sets. This in order to give a feel for the self-referencing that is existence: a sense of the paradox that gives rise to manifestation.
For example, “I” can point to One, as I am the One that I know, for instance.
Or, O can been seen as 0 (‘zero’), and points to the notion that a singularity is nothing, 1 = 0, or that the self is empty (I = O)
Or, we can pun on I as ‘eye’ and bring in sensory data, or pun on I as ‘aye,’ affirmation, and make nodding reference to Derrida’s “Oui, Oui”.
Yeah, there’s a lot of sloppy metaphor in this E = I + O, and I hope that maybe this entry captures a little bit of what I mean here. However, ultimately, the formula is intended to create enough semantic play that boundaries collapse, and E = I = O, which, in turn, creates a space to catch a glimpse of a unspeakable ontological reality.
1. Please note the sets are not meant to be exhaustive, merely a sample of things that could be assocaited with each letter.
2. ETA on 9/18/08: Since writing this post this substitution has bothered me because in a standard interpretation qua physics E = I + O, where E is energy, I is input (of energy), and O is output (of energy) the formula is pretty much wrong. However, the idea expressed here, that energy remains constant over time, is true in terms of the law of conservation of energy. I suppose if we instead examined Energy, E, = the energy of the individual, I, + the energy of all Other individuals, O, then this would make more sense in terms of the actual physical law.
Friday, August 22, 2008
A Fragment on Singularity
Here’s a funny thing, I have tried several times to write for this blog, and got bogged down in getting it perfect—like I had to say everything all at once, and in a way that was entirely correct. What ends up happening is I either save, or more often, delete the entry, and don’t really return to it—although I may return to the ideas several times while not writing about them.
This is contrary and counter-productive to an aspect of what I am trying to accomplish here, which is, namely, to start writing philosophy again, to pick up the ideas I was working on in times past.
Now, part of this hesitation to post incomplete or partially formed positions and thoughts is because one day I want to make this blog more public, and I want it to be functionally fabulous in relating the ideas it sets out to explore. So I’ve set myself up with a paradox: write freely about these ideas as if no one else is reading, but restrict the writing to only polished and perfected pieces that will be suitable for public consumption.
Heh, figures I’d create a strange loop for myself over this endeavour: after all, the strange loop is what this is all about!
Lol, in reading over the wikipedia article I find myself laughing at how I could attempt to explain the “…hierarchy of levels…[where e]ach level is linked to at least one other by some type of relationship, [so that the] strange loop hierarchy…is "tangled" …[such]…that there is no well defined highest or lowest level [resulting in a structure where t]he levels are organized such that moving through them eventually returns one to one's starting point” which makes me choose this term to describe my ambitions, but then I’d have to start and finish a blog that was identical to this one: yet another strange loop.
Anyway, I’d like to get on with an aspect of what I spend time thinking about, the singularity.
So let’s take a moment to consider one thing all on its own—let’s call it A. Further, if we think about what we mean by “one thing all on its own,” then we find that what we mean—literally—is a singular thing: a thing with no parts, no properties, but a unit in and of itself.
“A unit of what?” we might ask.
Well, we cannot answer this question because we are considering A as existing in relation to nothing else, and this means there is no possible observation of A because A is the only thing that exists.
“But aren’t we observing it now, as we consider it?” we might ask.
No we are not. What we are observing in our mind’s eye is, perhaps, a picture of some object that looks like the capital letter A surrounded by empty space. In other words, we are observing a representation of the circumstance described, but we are not observing A itself, because as we have said, we are attempting—and failing, apparently—to examine a thing as it exists as a singularity.
Kant also thought along these lines, I mentioned this before—this time I did look it up though—noumena is what he called a singular thing in itself. As Kant also reasoned, a noumena is “specified negatively as unknown and beyond our experience, or positively as knowable in some absolute non-sensible way.” 1.
So the singularity, the noumena, remains unknown to us because it relates to nothing else. If we were to come to know it, then we would have to become it, but if we become it we lose ourselves which would necessarily include all our thoughts, ideas, modes of interpretation—since the noumena is not that—and all we are left with is being without any relations; being without anything at all.
Put differently, if A exists, then it exists as nothing, and the only way to understand “exists as nothing” is with the notion of ‘nonexistence.’ In other words A exists if and only if A does not exist.
1. Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, 1995, pg. 400.
This is contrary and counter-productive to an aspect of what I am trying to accomplish here, which is, namely, to start writing philosophy again, to pick up the ideas I was working on in times past.
Now, part of this hesitation to post incomplete or partially formed positions and thoughts is because one day I want to make this blog more public, and I want it to be functionally fabulous in relating the ideas it sets out to explore. So I’ve set myself up with a paradox: write freely about these ideas as if no one else is reading, but restrict the writing to only polished and perfected pieces that will be suitable for public consumption.
Heh, figures I’d create a strange loop for myself over this endeavour: after all, the strange loop is what this is all about!
Lol, in reading over the wikipedia article I find myself laughing at how I could attempt to explain the “…hierarchy of levels…[where e]ach level is linked to at least one other by some type of relationship, [so that the] strange loop hierarchy…is "tangled" …[such]…that there is no well defined highest or lowest level [resulting in a structure where t]he levels are organized such that moving through them eventually returns one to one's starting point” which makes me choose this term to describe my ambitions, but then I’d have to start and finish a blog that was identical to this one: yet another strange loop.
Anyway, I’d like to get on with an aspect of what I spend time thinking about, the singularity.
So let’s take a moment to consider one thing all on its own—let’s call it A. Further, if we think about what we mean by “one thing all on its own,” then we find that what we mean—literally—is a singular thing: a thing with no parts, no properties, but a unit in and of itself.
“A unit of what?” we might ask.
Well, we cannot answer this question because we are considering A as existing in relation to nothing else, and this means there is no possible observation of A because A is the only thing that exists.
“But aren’t we observing it now, as we consider it?” we might ask.
No we are not. What we are observing in our mind’s eye is, perhaps, a picture of some object that looks like the capital letter A surrounded by empty space. In other words, we are observing a representation of the circumstance described, but we are not observing A itself, because as we have said, we are attempting—and failing, apparently—to examine a thing as it exists as a singularity.
Kant also thought along these lines, I mentioned this before—this time I did look it up though—noumena is what he called a singular thing in itself. As Kant also reasoned, a noumena is “specified negatively as unknown and beyond our experience, or positively as knowable in some absolute non-sensible way.” 1.
So the singularity, the noumena, remains unknown to us because it relates to nothing else. If we were to come to know it, then we would have to become it, but if we become it we lose ourselves which would necessarily include all our thoughts, ideas, modes of interpretation—since the noumena is not that—and all we are left with is being without any relations; being without anything at all.
Put differently, if A exists, then it exists as nothing, and the only way to understand “exists as nothing” is with the notion of ‘nonexistence.’ In other words A exists if and only if A does not exist.
1. Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, 1995, pg. 400.
From Elsewhere Again
A basic problem when trying to come to terms with duality and dichotomy is pointed at in the following statement:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can be divided into two kinds of people and those who can't.
A specific dichotomy can be collapsed, reconciled, or understood as a unity, but only from the perspective of some other duality.
Even talk about "nonduality" is talk about negating something, and negation is merely one side of a duality captured in, for examples, 'yes or no' or 'on or off'. Put differently, "nonduality" can only make sense if there is "duality" for it to be contrasted to, and so, we see two polarities manifest a paradox.
Paradox is the generator of experience.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can be divided into two kinds of people and those who can't.
A specific dichotomy can be collapsed, reconciled, or understood as a unity, but only from the perspective of some other duality.
Even talk about "nonduality" is talk about negating something, and negation is merely one side of a duality captured in, for examples, 'yes or no' or 'on or off'. Put differently, "nonduality" can only make sense if there is "duality" for it to be contrasted to, and so, we see two polarities manifest a paradox.
Paradox is the generator of experience.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Structures And Etc.
We all live inside structures. There are many different types of structures: economic, social, political, religious, geographical...ah but with that last we blur a line a little don't we? The rest of the list is more, shall we say 'ethereal' (sometimes called 'paradigms'), but that last is more concrete, more physical. And we exist inside physical structures too--I exist inside the structure of this apartment, for instance; but we also exist in bodies, which are nothing more than a kind of biological structure, of which there are currently many different kinds of biological structures (although some scientists tell us there are many types of biological structures dying off with each passing day). All of which, as far as we can tell, are dependent on a handful of the same types of protein strains--but that's another story.
Robert Anton Wilson called paradigms 'reality tunnels'. The reality tunnel is a more versatile concept as it can be intimately personal as well as a representation of a larger group mind--a structure of people who have some similar set of ideas about interpreting experience. Ultimately, each person has a reality tunnel--a structured way of interacting with the world--and this reality tunnel generally shares many common elements with the tunnels of some other set of people.
Something interesting to note is that the whole of an individual reality tunnel need not be internally self-consistent. Indeed, like Lovecraft reckoned, if we could only put all of our experiences into relation, then we would go mad with the absurdity of it all! But in the meantime, we operate through our reliance on, and relation to, structures of meaning and of being; further, within the set of interpretations that compose our reality tunnel, we selectively choose (consciously--with intent--or otherwise) from possibly contradicting methods of relating to our experiences of being.
I'm writing about this so I can set up the fact that it is likely that I'll be discussing structures quite a bit over the course of this blog. I probably won't always call them structures though, but rather I'll discuss them by name, like 'Christianity', for example, or 'magick' or 'quantum mechanics'--or even something like 'the Calgary Tower'. The point being here is that structures of all variety or kind seem basic to human experience--not merely my experience, but everyone's experience--and that's what I want to start getting at again: everyone's experience.
Yeah, I'm probably one of the last of the "great system builders"--their time in philosophy has past in the shadow of modern philosophical thinking, at least, that's what I heard talk of around the department several years ago, back when I was on a campus and enrolled in the hallowed halls of academia. Their time has past, btw, because it is generally accepted that no one system (or structure) can hold up to all forms of philosophical critique. I mean, Godel's theorem applies to the seemingly most rigourous and formal of structures: mathematics, and it states that the structure of mathematics cannot verify its own truth. So if the most logically consistent structure cannot establish its own absolute reality (I'm slanting the interpretation here, yes), then how can the structures that make up any one being's reality tunnel--which are generally more sloppy and fuzzy than mathematics--be mutually self-consistent and collectively verify the over-arching structure of the reality tunnel's own absolute truth?
They can't. And I'm OK with that. We only need to recognize that a description or interpretation of experience must take this contradiction into account. We merely need to realize that we live in the reflection of some unnameable ultimate absurdity and all we can do is laugh. Without the laughter, as Lovecraft feared, we simply go mad.
Robert Anton Wilson called paradigms 'reality tunnels'. The reality tunnel is a more versatile concept as it can be intimately personal as well as a representation of a larger group mind--a structure of people who have some similar set of ideas about interpreting experience. Ultimately, each person has a reality tunnel--a structured way of interacting with the world--and this reality tunnel generally shares many common elements with the tunnels of some other set of people.
Something interesting to note is that the whole of an individual reality tunnel need not be internally self-consistent. Indeed, like Lovecraft reckoned, if we could only put all of our experiences into relation, then we would go mad with the absurdity of it all! But in the meantime, we operate through our reliance on, and relation to, structures of meaning and of being; further, within the set of interpretations that compose our reality tunnel, we selectively choose (consciously--with intent--or otherwise) from possibly contradicting methods of relating to our experiences of being.
I'm writing about this so I can set up the fact that it is likely that I'll be discussing structures quite a bit over the course of this blog. I probably won't always call them structures though, but rather I'll discuss them by name, like 'Christianity', for example, or 'magick' or 'quantum mechanics'--or even something like 'the Calgary Tower'. The point being here is that structures of all variety or kind seem basic to human experience--not merely my experience, but everyone's experience--and that's what I want to start getting at again: everyone's experience.
Yeah, I'm probably one of the last of the "great system builders"--their time in philosophy has past in the shadow of modern philosophical thinking, at least, that's what I heard talk of around the department several years ago, back when I was on a campus and enrolled in the hallowed halls of academia. Their time has past, btw, because it is generally accepted that no one system (or structure) can hold up to all forms of philosophical critique. I mean, Godel's theorem applies to the seemingly most rigourous and formal of structures: mathematics, and it states that the structure of mathematics cannot verify its own truth. So if the most logically consistent structure cannot establish its own absolute reality (I'm slanting the interpretation here, yes), then how can the structures that make up any one being's reality tunnel--which are generally more sloppy and fuzzy than mathematics--be mutually self-consistent and collectively verify the over-arching structure of the reality tunnel's own absolute truth?
They can't. And I'm OK with that. We only need to recognize that a description or interpretation of experience must take this contradiction into account. We merely need to realize that we live in the reflection of some unnameable ultimate absurdity and all we can do is laugh. Without the laughter, as Lovecraft feared, we simply go mad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
