Reference: The Logic of Truth
In this essay we are going to look at the logical structure of the universe. A logical universe shall be a universe that is consistent throughout. It shall have a ring of truth to it simply because it is consistent.
In the process of looking at the universe logically we are bound to run into inconsistencies. We shall look at each inconsistency more closely and see where they would lead us to if we resolve them.
The very first inconsistency that comes up about the nature of the universe is. “Is this universe basically an expression of duality or non-duality?”
Everywhere we see opposing concepts—such as, ‘night and day’, ‘good and evil’, ‘man and woman’, etc. Actually, the question above itself is an expression of duality. Any concept seems to brings about an opposite concept. Can we then conclude that this universe is an expression of duality?
“Not so fast,” says the non-dualist, “Non-duality points to the idea that the universe and all its multiplicity are ultimately expressions or appearances of one essential reality.” It is asserted that there is a reality that transcends the opposites.
How can we grasp that reality conjured up by the non-dualist?
A logically consistent universe shall be made up of states that proceed from one state to the next in a consistent manner leaving no gaps.
On a number line, the value of a number changes from one point to the next in a consistent manner without any gaps. The number line extends in a consistent manner from negative infinity to positive infinity.
Is the concept of number the “one essential reality,” which expresses itself in the duality of negative and positive infinities?
Let us consider the duality of ‘night and day’ of the real universe. We find that night is changing into day, and day is changing into night with the steady rotation of earth. We notice the continuously varying characteristic of illumination, which expresses itself in the extremes of night and day.
Is illumination that “one essential reality,” which expresses itself in the duality of night and day?
We shall see a duality when we focus on the extremes and do not take into account the continuously varying nature of some attribute of the universe. The bigger is the gap between two points on the scale of that attribute, the more is the likelihood that those points shall appear as opposites.
So, duality appears when we focus only on the extreme states of a varying characteristic. Duality disappears when we recognize the characteristic that is varying continuously.
Thus we settle the argument about the essential nature of the universe by taking a mindful approach to looking at the “opposites” more closely.
.
Comments
wiki “In philosophy of mind, dualism is a view about the relationship between mind and matter which claims that mind and matter are two ontologically separate categories.”
“Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.”
What should constitute an “ontologically separate category”? In religious lore we have God creating the universe and all living things AND all of the souls, or whatever, that inhabit the universe.
This common origin would seem to describe non-dualism.
However, if we build a car from steel and a ship from steel, do we say they are the same (non-duality) or do the different categories of expression of the same ontological component (steel) still create a duality?
Perhaps the answer lies in un-creation rather than in creation. If we un-create the car and the ship by melting them we can get back to a common origin: molten steel.
If we try to un-create the spirit and body, we can succeed with the body but can’t with the spirit. Therefore, despite body and soul having a historically common ontology we are still left with a dualism as there is no longer a total equality among parts.
Per the postulate of logical consistency, it should be possible to map out the logical continuity from mind to matter.
It has to be man-made considerations that would constitute “ontologically separate categories.”
God does not represent non-dualism. God (creator) and world (created) is a dualism. A common origin does not mean non-dualism.
“It has to be man-made considerations that would constitute “ontologically separate categories.””
The idea that a “consideration” should define a category is inconsistent with good logic.
The “category” should be defined by the results of inspection.
In the case of mind and matter we can trace an ontological path which is continuous from the awakening of first primordial consciousness to the creation of a physical universe by a non-physical consciousness.
“Per the postulate of logical consistency, it should be possible to map out the logical continuity from mind to matter.”
So, that “mapping” can be done and should thus imply non-duality; a common ontological category.
And yet we cannot deconstruct the two lines equally. What we see if we free the spirit from the body – by death or other means – is that we have a residual consciousness in the spirit, but no residual consciousness in the material of the body. Therefore we have not one, but two, categories of state, and thus a duality between mind and body.
2ndxmr: “The idea that a “consideration” should define a category is inconsistent with good logic.”
That is true. Any categories should come out of good logic and not from arbitrary considerations. To me mind (spirit) is the inner essence and matter is the outer form of any reality.
My next post shall be tracing the path of beingness from the beginning space to the most developed consciousness of humans.
2ndxmr: “So, that “mapping” can be done and should thus imply non-duality; a common ontological category.”
The mapping shall show the characteristic that changes continually from “space” to “human consciousness.”
“Space” is the most primitive form of the universe, which contains in itself the potential manifestation of the whole universe.
“Human consciousness” is the ultimate development in this universe that exists side-by-side with the whole evolutionary chain that led to it.
2ndxmr: “And yet we cannot deconstruct the two lines equally. What we see if we free the spirit from the body – by death or other means – is that we have a residual consciousness in the spirit, but no residual consciousness in the material of the body. Therefore we have not one, but two, categories of state, and thus a duality between mind and body.”
Any residual consciousness after death resides in the residual body after death. There is no spirit independent of the body. But, yes, there are speculations to the contrary.
.
“Any residual consciousness after death resides in the residual body after death. There is no spirit independent of the body. But, yes, there are speculations to the contrary.”
You seem to speculate to the contrary, yourself, in your essay on consciousness arising in spacetime:
V:”But as a duality the physical and the spiritual elements must form extreme states of some continuously varying characteristic. This characteristic would be beingness, which would have an outer form and an inner essence at every point on the physical-spiritual scale. ”
Is it perhaps the word “spirit”? I, myself, have a hard time with the use of this word to represent the essence that we are talking about. What is known is that many people can personally experience a connectedness of awareness and space and a distinction of that space from the space of the body. From that observation it is possible to work out attributes of awareness and space that lead to a conclusion that an original awareness likely arose within a finite, primordial volume of space and that that volume of space may have been no different from other already existing finite volumes of space, except for the attribute that resulted in awareness.
You’re coming close to that idea now, too, but then you make statements like “Any residual consciousness after death resides in the residual body after death.” which is completely inconsistent with your original premise of a non-corporeal, space-consciousness.
I have said this before that the word “spirit” is so loaded with biased interpretations that it is a poor choice as the noun describing the phenomena, but the problem is that there is no existing word that is any better.
The next problem is attributing consciousness to this space. Consciousness has its origin in a concept of degree of alertness or awareness of a body. This makes consciousness a poor word to use in describing this unit of aware space. At least we agree that an awareness is associated with a space. However, your next mistake is in associating this aware space with what we call “physical space” in a one-to-one manner, i.e. that physical space is the same as aware space. There is a similarity and there is a difference.
Water and ice make for a bit of an analogy. Both are solely H2O but you have no problem taking a pitcher of water and ice cubes and identifying one from the other. You could even separate them with no problem. You could closely inspect them and discover that the only difference is a matter of entropy and geometry.
So it is with aware space and physical space. The differences that exist allow us to see them separate while having a basic similarity. The strongest similarity would be that both “aware space” and “physical space” could have a geometry (like the dimensions creating the effect of electromagnetism) or a multiplicity of geometries.
It would be the multiplicity of geometries that would give rise to what we call “fields”, from which energy condensations would result in elementary particles.
So “aware space” could clearly be the originator of “physical space”, and, to this degree, awareness could be said to have created the physical universe in its own image. Aware space could be called ‘God’ but I think it would be more appropriately viewed as ‘creator’. I would extend even that idea to the idea of the creator having been more of an engineer, learning by trial and error how to create geometries of space that would ultimately result in matter and energy.
The final question is whether or not physical space has the ability to create aware space. I think not. We know that physical space has the capability of condensing into elementary particles – but only did this in a big way during the big bang. Particles that show up now from field condensations in physical space show up in pairs as opposites that quickly self-annihilate and return to the fabric of space. At this point in its evolution, physical space seems to be no more than the framework for matter and energy
This fundamental difference between aware space and physical space – the ability to create – leads to the conclusion of duality, despite common origin and common basis.
Thus, it is not inconsistent to say that awareness could exist apart from a physical construct such as a body, and it is not inconsistent to say that awareness may require a body to affect what we call consciousness. The corollary may also be true, that a body with no awareness unit cannot remain conscious.
I believe these are fitting reasons to conclude that there is a duality present in the conscious body.
2nd: “You seem to speculate to the contrary, yourself, in your essay on consciousness arising in spacetime.”
There is a disagreement here. Therefore, there is an inconsistency.
My logic is already presented here. Let’s look at your independent logic.
2nd: “Is it perhaps the word “spirit”? I, myself, have a hard time with the use of this word to represent the essence that we are talking about…”
I look at the word “spirit” without later additives. From derivation, SPIRIT = “a breathing.” It is the criterion of a body being alive. When the body is not breathing it is dead. This may be extended to mean that “spirit is the essence of life. It is the essential characteristic.” For example, when one talks about the spirit of the moment, one is talking about the essential characteristic, which defines that moment. It is more of an abstract meaning derived directly from the concrete meaning of “breathing,” without any additive.
I am well aware of the later additives. Most of them have come from subjective feelings and not from objective observations.
2nd: “You’re coming close to that idea now, too, but then you make statements like “Any residual consciousness after death resides in the residual body after death.” which is completely inconsistent with your original premise of a non-corporeal, space-consciousness.”
I have explained my logic in my latest essay “The Logical Structure of the Universe (Part 3)”. I hope that clarifies any inconsistency on my part.
.
Here’s an amazing TED talk that I think relates to the discussion on this thread. The speaker is a brain scientist who – as “fate” would have it – experiences a stroke where a blood vessel explodes in the left portion of her brain and eventually becomes a golf-ball sized blood clot pressing on the language centers of the brain. At first, she experiences her left brain still functioning, but only off and on, and in between she experiences what it’s like where the left-brain is “silent” – a whole different “space” as she calls it.
When one is on the surface of a sphere no one coordinate necessarily provides the correct distance from the center. It is the mathematical combination of all three coordinates per the Pythagorean Theorem, which provides the correct distance from the center.
Similarly, when one is operating in this universe, no one sense channel may provide the correct sense of reality. It is the logical combination of the data from all sense channels, which may provide the correct sense of reality.
There are five main physical senses, but there are many others that need to be included. It is the logical combination of all senses, which provides proper appreciation of reality.
Disagreement may come about when only one or few senses are focused upon and other senses are omitted. People may individually think that they are right in their perceptions, but none of them may be assessing the reality correctly because they all are limited in their focus.
.
Thanks for the reply, Vin. I’ll have to think about it and get back to you when I get back home later.
Being in the La La Land (right brain alone) is not the proper reality either. Proper reality shall come from both right and left brains seamlessly functioning together.
Vinaire: “Proper reality shall come from both right and left brains seamlessly functioning together.”
That seems right, from what I know of available evidence. Apparently, it’s also true that people can and do shift back and forth between what is considered right-brain activity and left-brain activity, depending on what’s needed and wanted by them. 2ndxmr said it this way: “I got to a point [in drilling TR 0] of where I had to actively turn on the speech process.”
Similar to what he said, I too have experienced a definite “shift” at times when I’ve wanted to transition from a sort of speechless or “wordless” state of perception/awareness to a state where I could put my perception into words. There’s a definite sense of making an effort to do so that goes along with it. And it indicates the existence of a senior entity over the brain that decides which part of it to utilize.
Well, that is the effort toward the ideal scene of seamless operation.
One can see that Jill is powerfully expressing her experience without thinking. It is like the right brain functioning seamlessly with the left brain and using its language center to express itself.
If the left brain is not working seamlessly with the right brain then that is an inconsistency.
It is my supposition that both halves of the brain are operating seamlessly together when the child is born. It is the upbringing of the child from that point on that seems to introduce logical inconsistencies in that operation.
Loved that TED talk!
Jill’s conclusion that she is now able to shift perception between hemispheres at will (17:00) is extremely similar to what I learned to do while drilling TR’s.
I would guess it was the quieting of her left hemisphere as a result of the stroke onset that allowed her to experience a temporary right-hemispheric cognitive dominance. Being a scientist she was able to look at the experience objectively even though it was arguably subjective. What is outstanding about her experience is that it formed a learning reference for her (she now understood this new phenomena through direct experience) and that, post recovery, she has maintained both her positive ability to access the state and her certainty that it was a valid state, not just some dream or aberration of injury.
This is an example of the largely unprovable argument that those who have experienced an altered state or dimension face when trying to get understanding established with those “who have undamaged brains”. The phenomena of the left hemisphere blocking attainment of state by the right hemisphere is probably especially severe in those who have the constant voice chatter. Perhaps mindfulness can be used to reduce that chatter and open that right-hemispheric gate. That was a significant point for me on TR0 even more than OT-TR0. I got to a point of where I had to actively turn on the speech process. That fits with both the objective of TR0 (to remain in present time and perceive) and what Jill stated was the activity of the right hemisphere – to be aware of the present moment and perceive.
I guess the critics of TR’s now have positive proof that TR’s cause brain damage!
Well said, 2x.
Another thing I thought the talk illuminated was how the left-brain enables us – essentially “forces” us – to differentiate things, one from the other, because of the way it (the left-brain) formats consciousness. The formatted differentiation process includes even distinguishing the atoms of our own bodies from the atoms around them – as well separating ourselves as spirits from other spirits, apparently.
It seems that these “filters” (to use Vinnie’s famous word) that cause us to differentiate are the result of our indoctrination as humans living in human bodies with that particular brain and set of sense organs – and it’s especially the case in cultures that overemphasize left-brain education.
To illustrate, I’ve read that people who are blind at birth, and then at some later time get an operation to restore their sight, have to “learn” how to see – which is to say, they have to learn how to group the “pixels” of energy.
2x: “Being a scientist she was able to look at the experience objectively even though it was arguably subjective.”
I look at the definitions of “subjective” and “objective” differently.
Objective = Logically consistent in the dimension of abstraction.
Subjective = Opinions that disregard logical consistency.
According to these definitions Jill’s observations are objective and useful.
.
In other postings you have been of the opinion that phenomena such as the expanded space Jill felt were subjective because they couldn’t be scientifically proven. Are you now including those observations under the category of objective?
I do not think much of the categories “subjective” and “objective” because they form a duality that hides the scale of continuously varying perception. That perception extends from concrete perception of physical senses into the abstraction perceived through mental sense.
What matters is the logical consistency of perception. In my opinion, scientific proof in the dimension of abstraction depends upon establishing logical consistency with relatively concrete perceptions.
.
V:” In my opinion, scientific proof in the dimension of abstraction depends upon establishing logical consistency with relatively concrete perceptions.”
I definitely share that approach, especially in the case of the phenomena that are outside of normal perception and normal measurement.
As you know, I have for a long time held that the dimension defined by the math operator ‘i’ is the holder of the pictures of the state transitions of elementary particles. This space is mathematically orthonormal to physical space, and, like a fourth physical dimension, can’t be directly viewed or easily understood. It does, however, definitively show up in the wave equations and is an integral part of quantum theory.
I have now found some developed math that pretty much confirms my original concepts of quantum inertia and the image-retaining quality of this orthonormal dimension.
I have also proposed that, if there is a space or dimension that is representative of the “spiritual” aspect of man, it will be this dimension and associated space.
So, on the one hand, quantum physics tells us that this virtual ‘i’ dimension may be the virtual imager of physicality, and, on the other hand, an inspection of our ontological roots leads to the same dimension as a candidate for the space of awareness units.
An interesting thought would be that “awareness” created dimensions orthonormal to “awareness space” as a sort of hard-disc memory for itself.
That would make physicality the virtual space in the viewpoint of the creator.
In other words, it is our egocentric attitude that we are the ‘real’ units and our universe-centric attitude that gets in the way of understanding our real basis and origin.
Mathematical conclusions still need to be shown as logically consistent. String Theory is all mathematical that fails to show logical consistency.
The math derives from Dirac’s electron model and is fully consistent with my model of a cycling universe.
String theory is not complete, but the current ideas behind branes, strings and loops will fit into my model of space geometries. As a “for instance”, string theory posits strings with charge as having one end on a brane and the other end free from the brane. These are spin 1/2 fermions. The string is likely a tightly spinning space structure that could resemble a spring, and the direction of spin of the spring accounts for Pauli exclusion rules. The fermionic string represents a pi/2 geometry in the full 2*pi Planck cycle,
Bosons model (in string theory) as a string that has both ends connected to the brane. This is pi radians of the full 2*pi cycle. It also accounts for bosons not having charge; they are “grounded” to the brane, so to speak.
Loop gravity completes the circle of string on the brane to form a full loop, spin 2, At the point the full loop appears, string theorists say that the loop can be free of a brane.
All this fits within the model of geometries of space being the fundamental building block of elementary particles. String theorists do not yet claim to have all the answers, but the models are consistent with predictions. To date string theory has not been falsified, though many improvements and extensions are foreseen.
I think that when string theorists get to the point of recognizing space fabric as the fundamental unit that they will also see how different geometries act as fractal representations of mechanical actions we perceive at the classical scale. Beyond that, what is necessary is to realize the Dirac equations represent a cycling state of matter. The apparent solidity of matter drops out when the equation is written as a cyclical process. The reason it’s not self evident is that the timing of the cycle is the Planck unit, and, of course, that poses a measurement problem since it creates a paradox of a picture taking a picture of itself.
OTOH, if one is basically a being of the ‘i’ dimension, then that being does have the potential of understanding and measuring the Planck-unit cycling of the universe. Of course, that would be of a classically subjective sort of measurement and subject to the interpretation problems of that category.
What is an electron? How is it consistent with electromagnetic radiation?
Electromagnetic radiation does not fully define an electron. Electromagnetic radiation is produced by the movement of an electron through space, and that idea of <through is probably the operative word.
In order to understand the concept of electromagnetic radiation, the concept of space has to first be understood as it is the interaction of the condensed electron with the non-condensed fields of space (fields are likely just space with a particular geometry) that produces radiated energy.
Unfortunately, the full description of this phenomena is a bit beyond what can be done within the confines of WordPress.
As far as the electron goes, I would anticipate that it is made up of a multiple of geometries – not just the simple brane geometry I described as the ST model and potential source of the charge parameter. Other geometries would lend to the attributes of mass and cumulative spin.
Just as an additive to what I mentioned earlier about the Pauli exclusion rule, to get the idea of why spins must be opposite for electrons sharing the same state (overall brane geometry)(orbital, if you wish), consider this model:
Take a Slinky (spring toy) and set it on a surface, fully collapsed, with the circular geometry in full contact with the surface. Rotate it. Here you have the string theory (ST) model of a fermionic string. If you extended the spring along the path of a sinusoid and stopped your extension at the pi/2 point of the path, you’d probably have the correct model for the fermionic string.
If you were able to keep the free end of the spring following a sinusoidal path back to the surface you would now have the ST model for a boson.
Now, if you continue rotating one end of the spring you will see the other end, at the common surface (the ST brane) rotating in the opposite direction.
Next, keep the idea of the spring rotating and then snip it into two equal parts right at the apex, the pi/2 point. Keep both of the springs rotating as you had established with the continuous spring.
Now what you are left with is a model of two fermionic strings with opposite spins but coming from the same direction off the brane.
This is a model consistent with the Pauli exclusion principle, and consistent with a model for a common charge.
A positron could be modeled as a spring emerging from the opposite side of the brane.
Electron-positron annihilation could be modeled by these geometries coming together to form a bosonic loop (pi/2 + pi/2 = pi = bosonic gamma).
Logically, space should come before electromagnetic radiation, which comes before electron, which comes before the hydrogen atom. I want to work out this logical progression in detail.
In my opinion extremely low frequency electromagnetic radiation that is limiting toward zero frequency becomes space.
It is space, which becomes electromagnetic wave upon acquiring frequency. So, space lies at the extreme low end of the electromagnetic spectrum.
.
“Logically, space should come before electromagnetic radiation”
That’s what I’ve been saying.
“In my opinion extremely low frequency electromagnetic radiation that is limiting toward zero frequency becomes space.”
Space starts as a static (zero frequency). Perturbing it may result in an oscillation or vibration.
EM requires 2 space dimensions. It is not an effect that can be propagated in one uniquely defined space geometry, or dimension
“Static” is not space. Static precedes space. Here is what I think static is:
“The state of static comes about at the end of a cycle of the universe and before the start of the next cycle. This is a momentary state of total potentiality. Nothing is there, not even space and awareness.
“As the state of static is disturbed toward the state of kinetic, first there is emergence of space filled with potential. Then there is a band of perception paralleling the electromagnetic spectrum. Next there is a band of concept and ideas paralleling the atomic configurations. Beyond that there is a band of consciousness (self-awareness) paralleling the physical forms. Ultimately, this evolution culminates in human form and consciousness.”
V:”“Static” is not space.”
There is no reason you cannot have a “static”, unchanging space once the space has emerged to a final volume. That would be like blowing a soap bubble and watching it drift unchanging in the air. There may be a question as to whether the expanding space can be deemed fully static, but if it is only expanding and not going through cycles of expansion and contraction, then at any point within the space it will appear as static.
So it comes down to how you define static.
You could also have a static as a no-space, no-dimension zero ( the Hubbard definition) but there is no reason to not have a static space that does have volume. It is not until a perturbation of the space – a disturbance, if you like – that the static space takes on a kinetic characteristic.
And, if the space has the attribute that endows it with awareness, then, when the space is perturbed/disturbed, that potential awareness can be awakened to actual awareness.
Thus “static” and “static space” do not have to be different, especially the aware spaces.
Hubbard treated “static” as an absolute. That is logically inconsistent because that makes “static” a singularity. There is no singularity in a logically consistent system.
The logical system presented in KHTK is from the Vedas. In this sysem “static” is as temporary as anything else. It appears momentarily at the end of a cycle of the universe and before the start of the next cycle.
Beingness arises as space the moment static is disturbed. This space is filled with potentiality. There is a physical-spiritual spread to this beingness. The physical aspect is the outer form of space; and the spiritual aspect is the inner essence of awareness. This is the elemental “Self.” There is no intelligence at this point. There is only potential.
I would say that awareness arises once the potentially-aware space is disturbed, but beingness may be a distant thing from initial awareness. The initial awareness would have been stupider than we are when first awakened from a deep sleep.
2ndxmr, you seem to be treating “space” as ever-present and absolute. To me that is logically inconsistent.
Electron arises out of the instablity at the upper end of the electromagnetic spectrum when it collapses upon itself.
I have to work out the details here.
You will never work out consistent details from that starting point.
I thought that was a brilliant supposition. 🙂
Static is a point just before Big Bang for science, and just before Creation for religion. But static is just a momentary state that occurs at the end of a cycle of the universe and before the start of the next cycle.
The error in both science and religion has been to give static the status as an absolute. The truth is that there are no absolutes.
An absolute defies logical consistency. It generates an inconsistency. It is an illusion.
.
Static is definitely not the point just before the big bang, although the singularity could be misconstrued as a static by an observer with a low-resolution microscope (measurement device).
Just before the bang a very elaborate set of very large space geometries had to be created and then sent into a massively compressed state in order to create the singularity.
In addition, there had to be a huge torus of electromagnetic space set up to first contain the singularity and then to separate out the matter and antimatter products of the bang.
This was a massive engineering task. It just did not pop into existence. You only have to look at the engineering feat of the large hadron collider to get a faint glimmer of an estimate of the energies and scope of universe creation.
Before the Bing Bang is the previous cycle of the universe coming to a close.
The point of reference for anything in this universe is the whole universe.
And the point of reference for the whole universe is the whole universe too.
.
The first question is what we define as the whole universe. The physical universe is expanding in a larger void. Which is the universe you are talking about?
The void may have infinite size capacity; the physical universe has an expanding boundary.
The universe is the single superset of all things. If there is a void beyond the physical universe then the universe is “physical universe +void.”
That’s fine. But you cannot then call the physical universe “the universe”.
The physical universe is just one aspect of the universe.
Now you’re going circular.
Just define what you’re talking about when you talk about it. That is why I always make reference the the physical universe when I am talking to disambiguate it from the larger void which could have any number of other sub-universes within it.
It is circular. Linearily implies an absolute point. There are no absolutes.
By calling God a “being” one turns God into an idol.
Why would that be? Only by consideration, for sure. So if you don’t consider the creator being as anything but a creator, you don’t create a God.
Is Steve Jobs a God?
No.
Just a brilliant creator.
That is because a “being” is something created.
So you create a baby. Are you a God? That logic does not follow.
And a “being” is not necessarily anything but a thing that emerged. There is nothing in our progression from “nothing” to “something” that requires the being to have been created.
Sorry, my friend. I now have to leave for the weekend.
The mind finds it very difficult to consider that its stable datum might not be absolute.