It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by laymanskeptic
The hidden's not so hidden. Probably the best question a person could ask is, "Hierarchically out of all these diverse fields what single object has the greatest number of dependencies?" Answering this gives a starting point to understand what likely binds the subjects together. Best of luck with your search.
Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
Well, I'm not sure what I can contribute, but I am strongly in favor of this thread.
I am familiar with all of the areas you name, but among them my only specialty is computer science.
I'd be happy to attempt to answer questions or throw around speculations, but when it's open-ended like this I'm afraid I don't have much to say.
I too am of the intuition that they are all linked together, and I have reason to suspect the answer starts to become more clear (but never totally clear, just approaching "clearness" asymptotically, if you will) as one goes higher into esotericism. However, I am not at this point, nor even at the first milestone of any such path.
edit on 9-2-2011 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Luxnor
Let me contribute to the discussion with the caveat I haven't mastered importing url's with my new smartphone; sorry. From my Internet travels nothing has fascinated more than discovering the Mandelbrot Set. Excuse my meager attempt to wrap my head around it but basically it is a pattern that repeats itself into infinity, most noticeably as one drills deeper into it. If you go to youtube and punch it in you'll see what I mean.
A visual aid may be to take 2 mirrors arms length 1 to the left, 1 to the right at approximately heads height. Face them toiwards each other so you can see your reflection in them. If you can position them just right you can see your reflection that seems to go on forever.
Along the same thought there is a golden mean/number that expands throughout nature. That number is 1.619, Fibonocci if I'm not mistaken. Measure the tip of your fingernail to that fingers first joint. Take that length times 1.619 and you arrive at the next joint on your finger; and on down the line.
That's my 0.02
Originally posted by tgidkp
i have satisfied myself that the above image, if understood as a nested-series of cycles continuing upwards and downwards for forever, is sufficient to be isomorphically mapped to every possible frame of reality that is conceivable. any scientific discipline, social or personal development, or mythology can be understood by it. the image is a summary of years and years of personal study and pondering and inspiration into the question in the OP.
...
nevertheless, this is the yardstick by which i personally measure all other systems of knowledge. as such, i feel certain that anyone else's similar models will correspond with what i have given.
not that i think i am anything special. to the contrary, i think that everyone should be striving for this goal.
Originally posted by Luxnor
Along the same thought there is a golden mean/number that expands throughout nature. That number is 1.619, Fibonocci if I'm not mistaken.
That's my 0.02
Originally posted by sinohptik
In the end though, no matter what representatives we place for our convenience, it is what it is, and that is happening continuously with us as a part of it. pretty amazing really..
Originally posted by laymanskeptic
Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by laymanskeptic
The hidden's not so hidden. Probably the best question a person could ask is, "Hierarchically out of all these diverse fields what single object has the greatest number of dependencies?" Answering this gives a starting point to understand what likely binds the subjects together. Best of luck with your search.
Suppose it's math, since math is the language of physics and computational science, and all the sciences.
Is math the root and the starting point? Or is it just a descriptive tool, describing the rules of thought?
What will you make of it, when you find equivalent mathematical structures within these diverse fields?
Furthermore, suppose given enough effort, even the Kabbalah can be described in mathematical language (I can see how this can be done). ...
Is it math itself that binds the subjects, or the specific mathematical structure in question?
Is it possible that we are mistaking the tool of description for that which is described? Are we mistaking the map for the terrain?
Is it possible to get to the point where the map and the terrain become indistinguishable from each other, and say that they are one and the same? What then is the nature of the relationship between reality and reality theory?
Originally posted by laymanskeptic
To start, I would like to ask you this question: what do you think would it take, to create not just artificial intelligence, but artificial consciousness? Is there a certain level of existing computational architecture today, that can serve as an adequate substrate for artificial consciousness to "reside" in?
Artificial consciousness meaning, something that will have an authentic internal qualitative experience? Like internal private sensations? And meaning? Is it possible for these things to exist already in the computational world without us noticing or realizing it?
If this (artificial consciousness) is mathematically describable, what kind of mathematical structure would this be? Can this mathematical structure be physically implemented?
Originally posted by Xtraeme
Is math the root and the starting point? Or is it just a descriptive tool, describing the rules of thought?
Freeman Dyson and number theorist Hugh Montgomery discovered that if you "compare a strip of zeros from Riemann’s critical line to the experimentally recorded energy levels in the nucleus of a large atom like erbium, the 68th atom in the periodic table of elements, the two are uncannily similar. " ( seedmagazine.com... ). To further make the point consider the insane recurrence of π in many cosmological and physical principles, Euler's e, and the Golden Ratio in nature. I'm inclined to say numbers represent "functiontionally executable language" of the universe.
What will you make of it, when you find equivalent mathematical structures within these diverse fields?
If it's true it suggests that information precedes manifestation. This corresponds with platonic thinking which argues "we don't invent mathematical truths, we discover them." A good example of this being "Plato's allegory of the cave" ( www.historyguide.org... ). If we accept this as truth then we're simply observing a shadow of reality. This would also neatly explain why people looking in to esoteric areas of research who have more of a left-brained approach tend to lean towards the gnostic pythagorean interpretation of kabbalah ( www.digital-brilliance.com... ).
Furthermore, suppose given enough effort, even the Kabbalah can be described in mathematical language (I can see how this can be done). ...
Based on my personal philosophy (Cf. links in sig.) when it occurred to me 'scarcity,' represented by mathematical finitude, could accurately encapsulate difficult concepts like morality and even God-hood that's when I realized 'scarcity' was possibly tantamount to all mathematical structures themselves. This is actually a truism when you think about it because physical reality is, if nothing else, limited. Due to this, math, at least as far as how we know how to use it, deals with discrete objects. This is why 0 and ∞ are so hard to grasp. They don't behave like normal finite quantities.
Georg Cantor was rather forward thinking to rationalize that ∞ is non-discrete and due to this has many properties and sub-types [e.g. countable ∞ vs uncountable ∞ ( www.sciencenews.org... )].
This thinking leads to a slippery slope however because if we follow it through to its end it suggests an inverse reality exists centered on infinity. Making us have to seriously consider God-hood as being something that's already happened. In an attempt to try to determine if such a thing was possible I rationalized: (1) if things come from nothingness, but all things can be overcome then a God is an inevitability. So (2) if we can see this process as being something that's knowable, then (3) we have to ask ourselves, "Has that already happened?" (4) To answer (3) we then look at the knowable components, (2), and contrast them against older holy texts to see if there are any similarities. If there are it then suggests the answer is, yes, God as a developed sentience already exists.
Amazingly it appears there's actual real-world empirical evidence to suggest it has already happened (see the Q+A on pp.9-12). Of all the structures looked at Kabbalah is by far the most similar (both geometrically and metaphysically) to the S.H. concept.
Is it math itself that binds the subjects, or the specific mathematical structure in question?
There's an expression I like to use, "The abstract becomes concrete and the material becomes symbolic." A reciprocal relationship exists where these two structures bridge in to one another, but are also simultaneously reflections of each other. Some people would refer to this as being fractal [i.e. a "rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole" ( books.google.com... ) ]. However what I dislike about this is it assumes there must be an algorithm to describe "fractalness" rather than being extant in a constant with the pattern emergent in it too. Begging the question though, "How do you quantize a constant?" The best I can imagine is that it would require some form of redefinition.
So, for example, most cosmologists strongly argue in favor of the idea of reality starting at a zero-point as a conformally flat manifold. If reality stems from zero then it requires we think of it as a multi-dimensional object. However this seems ludicrous on the face of it. Because how can everything compact down to a 0-dim point? The few attempts that have been made to reconcile this involves math that usually results in infinite or divide by zero calculations ‒ making the results appear meaningless. However if we're willing to redefine a constant we should also ask, "Is a divide by 0 meaningless?" This depends heavily on the redefinition. So there's a biconditional relationship. Personally I'd argue that if we view zero as a 7-fold truth table mapped to a spherical formal system (similar to the logical connectives as illustrated in a Hasse diagram) that the results can be made meaningful (albeit difficult to grasp).
Amusingly real-world research bears this out. Ask a mathematician and they'll tell you zero is neither positive nor negative. Ask a physicist and following Paul Dirac's lead they'll say, "… a vacuum, or nothing, is the combination of matter and antimatter. Their density is tremendous, but we can’t perceive any of them because their observable effects entirely cancel each other out." ( www.sciencedaily.com... ). This suggests that zero is actually a union of positive and negative terms (i.e. A + B = A - B ⇒ 2B = (A - A) ⇒ 2 = (A - A) / B, where B=0, assuming not indeterminate ). Note the evaluation of the additive identity (B) illustrates the positive and negative terms collapse in to one another. Suggesting 0 ≡ (+ ∪ -), or perhaps, 0 ≡ (+ ∧ -).
Is it possible that we are mistaking the tool of description for that which is described? Are we mistaking the map for the terrain?
This question usually gets reformulated into, "I sure as heck don't feel like math." Even though I usually prefer thick definitions I'll forgo them and simply describe material reality as isomorphic to cardinality. Meaning our physical existence is just a small subset of root mathematical objects like ordinality, reflexivity, and polarity. ( space.mit.edu... )
Put another way I'm no more my hand than I am my brain. The "I" that is me exists in no one place in my body. Similarly to try to distinguish the tool from the terrain is to engage in the same form of infinite compartmentalization. The question assumes a discrete pattern in what's fundamentally a transcendental object.
Is it possible to get to the point where the map and the terrain become indistinguishable from each other, and say that they are one and the same? What then is the nature of the relationship between reality and reality theory?
Engels three laws of dialectic get to the heart of my thoughts on this, "quantity changes to quality, opposites interpenetrate, and the negation of negation." I think the difference is perspective. For instance take the RGB tuple [0,0,0] (black) and think of all the gradations as we increment towards [255,255,255] (white). Now ask yourself, "Is white the lightest type of black? Or is black the darkest type of white?" The problem here is that we're looking for a discrete perspective when instead we should view it as a continuum. White and black are extremes. The only real difference is we have two ways to approach the values. One is additive ( RGB ) and the other is subtractive ( CMYK ).
They each create the other through a venn diagram-esque union operation. So it's better to view these two schemes holistically as a sphere.
So to answer, "What then is the nature of the relationship between reality and reality theory?" Well if information precedes manifestation then physical reality isn't as "real" as we imagine it to be because it's actually the effect not the cause. So the answer would, again, appear to be perspective.edit on 10-2-2011 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
That's my current speculation on the matter, anyway. Well, just the best I could do at the moment to put my current speculation into words.
You might want to check out this thread; we just had a whole discussion on this topic about a week ago.
-Physics (Quantum Mechanics, Heisenberg's Indeterminacy Principle, self-observing universe)
-The Occult (Kabbalah, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Ouroboros: the serpent eating itself, creation/genesis)
-and Epistemology (Theory of Knowledge, self-awareness, consciousness)
What is consciousness?
Why do I exist?
How is self-perception at all possible?
What are the rules of geometry?
How do I get from an axiom to a theorem?
If space is optimally filled with solid spheres up to infinity, what is the percentage of the remaining empty space, and how would the answer change if the dimension is greater than 3, or if space is closed, open, curved, or flat? LOL
Do I even possess the tools to answer these questions?