Monday, March 13, 2017

Math and Reason Only Define The Common Mind

    Logic and mathematics describe the way we experience in our mind, a partial revelation of the universe around it. What we experience in our mind of the universe that surrounds it, can only be the basis for a premise about what is really out there,   a premise of experiential facts  upon which we extrapolate and theorize, using logic and math. But all we can be certain about, is that logic and math describe our experiences of manipulating symbols that represent further potentials of experience, potentials that always and by axiomatic truth, can only be realized in the confines of our own minds.
     We presume the existence of radio magnetic waves and sound waves based on mathematical calculations with which we can predict our own experiences in the realm of measurable heat and light and sound. When we do an experiment, we are initiating a chain of events that starts and ends in the realm of the measurable and visible and heard. Our theories and calculations deal with that which happens between the initiation of the experiment and the registration of the result. Theorems describe what we believe transpires in the invisible and unknowable chain of events that we presume takes place in the real universe, the universe we presume exists independently of our minds. All we know for certain is the result of our measurements because that is what we retrieve from what ever is going on, with our senses and in our minds.
    As our minds all share to some degree, the qualities of logic and coherence, the math we use to create formulas that describe the behavior of reality outside the realm of our experience  is common to all minds whether they know math or not. We share the common experiences predicted by math and logic. When experiments yield the same results when performed under the same conditions, the theories that allow the prediction of the results are given validity. This proves the similarity of our minds and how they are constructed, not the true nature of what transpires to information that is traveling between our minds and outside them.  The only information that matters is that which has been perceived, is being perceived and that which will be perceived. Around that string of sequenced knowledge we can weave a magic carpet of speculation that appears to fly from one vista to another. We might come to believe that without our carpet we are stranded, and then never learn that we can fly without it.
    We can only believe that the nature of  the world we hold in common exists independently from us. What is certain is that it binds us together, in that it enables us to share language. We can share our experiences and discover  that however it occurred that we came to be, our minds operate very much in a similar way and we can understand each other effectively and help each other, because we all want to experience integrity of self while sharing ourselves with others, we all want to experience the fullness of our own nature. 
    The belief that there is a universe out there like the one in our minds, a reality that persists in being governed by immutable laws like the reality in our minds, a substantial coherent consistent world  that exists whether or not we exist, is an assumption based on assumptions. An assumption such as the universe existed before our minds came to be and somehow caused our minds to come into being as a very partial and flawed reflection of it's comprehensive truth. We only perceive with our senses a very small fraction of the information there is out there to reprieve. The light we see with our eyes and that registers in our brains is an almost negligent fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum we calculate  is potentially infinite. The only reason the significance of the light we perceive as regards the nature of the universe isn't completely negligent, is that without it we couldn't make assumptions about all the light waves we can't see. The same could be said of sound. Or anything.
   Calculation and prediction became important particularly after man began to cultivate crops. Man then became acutely aware of the cycles of the seasons. His sense of time became more delineated. He began to measure time by observing the motions of the sun and the moon and the stars. He recognized recurrent  patterns and learned to predict seasons of rain. He observed the behavior of shadows and calculated the length of the day with units that represented the passage of time. He also saw other people with minds like his own,  be born and live and die, while the world continued to spin around him imperviously. It is very easy to understand why he would believe that man is transient and the universe is forever.
   Despite this, everything once believed about the nature of the world we exist in, has changed. For thousands of years it has been believed that matter can only be broken down into fundamental units that are of the same nature as their mass.  This was held true for a long time. For example, water could be boiled down to "atoms" of water which could no longer be divided. And so everything else. Recently it was discovered that much of nature is made of compounds that can be broken down into elements that are of a completely different nature than the compounds made from them. The qualities of the  compounds of elements held together in a uniform mass with the cohesive energy of the atoms of different elements are completely unpredictable. It is like this. 2A+1B  should somehow equal extrapolations of 2A1B, variations on a theme, so to speak. But they don't. 2A+1B equal completely unpredictable C.. There is nothing about the nature of C that can be inferred from As and Bs. Now when C is broken down, it always reverts to 2A+1B. This proves nothing but that man's experiences concerning elements and their combinations is logical and consistent even though he has no clue, "Why?"  that is so.
     In addition to this, it was further discovered that there are elements that can be broken down into other elements, that also have different qualities. The idea of a stable building block for all mass just keeps deteriorating like a radioactive isotope, but hasn't been abandoned even today, when it has been demonstrated  that the fundamental nature of mass is as much an infinite field of potentials as a particle we actually collide with. Not only that, the fundamental particles keep breaking up when we smash them together, producing a menagerie of circled and  patterned  motion, though we still have not a clue concerning what is really moving. It isn't and can't be  particles with mass as whatever it is, it doesn't behave the way mass should, according to the theories that are supposed to describe the true nature of mass and not just the way the mind thinks about mass. Science has come to the conclusion that the mass we perceive is actually an illusion of the mind. They draw their conclusions from the logic and math that describes the behavior of mass in their mind and then believe at the same time that the mass in the mind isn't really the same substance as keeps slipping between the ever growing holes in the sieves of their pet theories, the theories they try to catch particles of mass with, to find out what they really are.
   Laboratory experiments consistently demonstrate that the nature of any kind of fundamental particle  we wish to turn into information that we can think with and incorporate into a theorem of prediction is ever more elusive. Laboratory results demonstrate phenomena that exist outside the confines of logic and math, phenomena that completely demolish the idea that we  really know the nature of  the universe that exists within our own minds, let alone the nature of the universe that we presume exists out side our minds.  Scientists want fundamental particles that persist with a consistent definition no matter what you do to them. Without such particles, nothing can really make any sense. Wave functions are infinite and unpredictable. Energy alone can't explain why things behave like solid objects. The fact is, we can smash particles together and they collide and explode, even though that is a mathematical impossibility because nothing can really touch anything else mathematically. But logically things do touch and move each other. Suddenly the simplicity of the  logic of human experience trumps in its importance the theoretical consequences of experiential results that defy logic and experience. Scientists just can't let go of there being particles that exist in nature independently of our minds. Never the less, it becomes ever more evident that particles don't exist until someone sees them.
   Unlike the elusiveness of  the nature of substance itself, our minds are able to maintain the meaning of the symbols we think with and calculate with. This is so for no other reason than we decide it to be so. It is what works.
   In the same way, while our minds are mostly consistent in the way stimuli are perceived and translated into sensations, this is far from absolute. It is clearly evident  that a person can change in the way they interpret as a  sensory perception, a vibration that causes it. When a woman is touched by her husband intimately, she might moan with pleasure. If the same vibration causing motion were to be perpetrated by a stranger against her will, it might cause great emotional pain and distress. The significance of the sense causing vibration is determined by the context in which it is experienced. Just like the results of experiments in quantum mechanics.
    On the other hand, the mechanics of linguistic thought, perceptions in the nervous system, the brain's productions of sensations that represent hunger, thirst, sexual arousal, motion, emotions that represent states of well being or the lack thereof, all these  and more internal workings,  remain mostly consistent over time and are shared for the most part by all humanity. While we don't know why red is the sensation we experience when our eyes  are exposed to a certain wavelength of light, the relationship between the stimulus and the response of color in our eye is persistent over time, until the eye decays. There is commonality, consistence and persistence in the way our nervous system translates vibrations into sensory data. This is the foundation of language.
    In addition to this, sensory data is stored in our minds and used  as an ever greater,  more complex and sophisticated context, to evaluate new data. Our wisdom, if not our intelligence, grows as we age.
Logic and math  define much of the way we process and use information, but intuition and spontaneity determine ideas and decisions that are life enhancing and sometimes life saving, and very often it is impossible to explain logically or mathematically  how these qualities of mind come about.

What is certain is that A must continue to be A for things to make sense.

 Science reveals to us that the only place in the universe that A stays A long enough to use it in a calculation of the future, is in our mind, where it is certain that A exists. 

In the universe "out there", beyond the  relative commonality, persistence and consistence of our minds,


No comments:

Post a Comment