The Only Thing

.

There is one thing of which you can be certain beyond doubt, and that is, that you exist.  Descartes famously said, “I think, therefore I am.”  The words, “I think,” can be interpreted to mean, “I am conscious.”  Therefore, there are those who say that consciousness is the ultimate reality, but that is not quite correct.  The ultimate reality of which we are conscious is our own existence.  “Therefore I am.”

 

To some, this may sound circular.  It is to say, the ultimate reality is reality, or the ultimate existence is existence.  That is no more circular, however, than to say that the ultimate reality is consciousness, because the ultimate consciousness is consciousness of consciousness.

 

To be conscious, one must be conscious of something other than consciousness itself.  Okay, one may posit a theory of “pure consciousness,” a state of Nirvana, or something like that, in which there is nothing other than consciousness.  But that is a static state, not entirely unlike nothingness, a state in which not even consciousness exists.

 

No matter how hard we try, we can never truly escape the self-referential quality of the ultimate reality.  We can never escape its circular definition.  That is not a failure of the concept of ultimate reality, but rather, due to the fact that we are finite beings, attempting to encompass the infinite, a futile endeavor.

 

The concepts of zero, one and infinity are mathematical expressions of absolute, ultimate realities.  Their properties are very unlike those of finite numbers greater than one (or nonzero numbers less than one), and yet, all the finite numbers depend on zero, one and infinity.

 

This is unacceptable to some people, the idea that there are borders we cannot cross, fuzzy borders perhaps, realms of decreasing certainty where we get lost in the perilous swamps of conjecture and speculation.

 

But it is crucially important that we recognize our limitations.  This is the quality of humility.  Being humble is a much more involved virtue than it is often given credit for.  It is not simply keeping one’s head bowed.  It is a practical and valuable component of personality that makes life more rewarding.

 

We should think about the ultimate, absolute reality, but we should retain the sense of awe and mystery. 

Reality is a miracle.
.

Idealist Epistemology

.

Epistemology studies the questions, what do we know, how do we know it, and ultimately, do we really know anything?

Idealism (the philosophy) sets out to answer those questions, by beginning with the one incontrovertible observation we all make:  we are conscious.  The only thing we truly know is that we are conscious, and therefore, that consciousness exists.  All else is secondary knowledge at best.  Some say that beyond being conscious of our consciousness, there is nothing further that we can say with certainty.

This would be all well and fine were it not for this thing called physical reality, which some Idealists contend does not exist except as an illusion, a fabrication of our consciousness (or of a collective or spiritual consciousness).  But wait.  All is not well and fine, at least not once we get hungry.  You cannot eat abstractions, or illusions, or ideas. 

Try it.

But wait again.  We cannot glibly dismiss Idealism either.  Physics itself teaches us that physical reality is not what our five senses tell us it is.  Solid objects are not solid, they are mostly empty space. 

Quantum physics shows us that subatomic objects are not solid particles, but rather, probability waves.  Not being a physicist myself, I will oversimplify here.  The exact location of a photon cannot be known whenever its velocity is known, and vice versa.  In other words, physics is counter-intuitive.  Moreover, there are profound mysteries of physical science which remain unsolved.

Nature obeys physical laws, but physical laws are not solid objects, rather, they are abstractions.  Our conscious minds observe how objects behave, and then, using the abstraction called mathematics, we derive formulas to explain those observations, and then to predict what further observations are expected to be made.

There is no physicalist way to explain why natural laws are what they are.  Indeed, the natural laws which make our universe a suitable home for living, civilized, technological creatures (i.e., us) are infinitely unlikely.  They must be consciously designed.  As I have detailed elsewhere, attempted explanations, such as a multi-verse, do not make our universe more likely, but less.

Therefore, the debate between physicalism and Idealism cannot be won by physicalism.  We must look to Idealism for answers.

The danger in doing that, however, is that many Idealists regard the evidence of their physical senses as illusory.  Some go so far as to dismiss physical reality as a dream.

Monist Idealism is too rigid.  While it makes the valid point that reality is not bifurcated into two separate realms (physical and mental), it dismisses physical reality altogether. 

Instead, a better paradigm (I think) is to regard consciousness as a foundation of physical reality.  This in no way diminishes the role of consciousness, while at the same time, regards physical reality with the principle of practicality, avoiding having to explain away our five senses.

Physics is leaning toward an explanation of material reality as being composed of information, which in physics, is an abstraction that defines the states of a perceived object.

Rather than proposing an all or nothing monism, Idealism does better to regard reality as a hierarchy of realities, a web, a continuum from top to bottom, from basic foundation to outward manifestation.

In that continuum, our conscious minds detect physical reality through our five senses, receive inputs, and evaluate them to form an image, a picture, of what is “out there,” in a form that is “in here.”  It is not an entirely objective picture, because like a blueprint, the image has a limited purpose (for example, getting food).

We don’t know exactly what things are, but when we get hungry, we know what food is in practical terms.  Neither our hunger nor our food is an illusion.

We just do the best we can.

.
.

Quantum Physics Is Not Magic—It’s More Weird than that

.

There is an experiment that seems to show that the past can be changed by something called a “quantum eraser.”

While that claim goes too far, the principle of quantum entanglement, used in the experiment, is just as weird.  Here is a video that takes this complex topic and makes it so clear that even I can understand parts of it.  Almost.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=quantum+eraser&&view=detail&mid=3430A260DC12C6244B373430A260DC12C6244B37&&FORM=VRDGAR

 

The lesson here is that, those of us who assert Consciousness as a fundamental principle of reality, need to be careful in how we interpret evidence, and how we evaluate extraordinary claims.  The internet and bookstores are fraught with wild claims that sound good at first, but break down under further scrutiny.

Reality is weird enough without leprechauns.  Leprechauns are mischievous, mythical creatures that mislead the conversation.  Let’s not invoke them.

Also, let’s not forget that physicalists correctly point out that physical reality appears to be physical.  Accepting that Mind@Large, or the Cosmic Consciousness, or (my favorite), God, supersedes the physical, it is nevertheless true that whatever gives rise to the apparent reality of the physical, does so for a reason.  It’s not a trick to deceive us.  Contrary to what some of my Christian friends assert, God did not plant dinosaur fossils in the earth to test our faith.

We should not be astonished (or disappointed) then, that physical experiments conducted by physicalist physicists (a play on words there) conclude that there are physical explanations for quantum events.

Past, present and future have mystified the great minds of philosophy for thousands of years, and just as much, they mystify present-day scientists.  Accepted physical theories do not account for the “arrow of time.”  Physics does not prefer events flowing from past to future, no more so than from future to past. 

An intriguing idea is that all of time, past and future alike, is a single thing, and moreover, that the various “locations” in time are all interacting with each other in a continuous feedback loop.  What this idea suggests is that both past and future can be changed, and indeed, are changing each other all the “time.”

Consciousness does play a fundamental role, but the "quantum observer" is not consciousness itself.  Consciousness overarches physical reality.  It is not produced by that which it perceives.

 

Here is another video that explores the idea (among others) of a universal feedback loop of time and consciousness.  Again, I do not pretend to agree with (or even understand) all of it, but it does provide food for thought.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=what+is+reality&&view=detail&mid=6675A3E6DBC08E521DD96675A3E6DBC08E521DD9&&FORM=VRDGAR

.

.

Evolution, Randomness and the Universe

.

The old theory of a “life force,” has long since been abandoned by physicalist biology, but in fact, the entire universe seems to be an intricately coordinated life force, or at least governed by one.  Physicalist attempts to deny this must fail.  Why is this so?

 
Any theory of evolution resembling Darwin’s must make several unwarranted assumptions, and then must inevitably encounter the brick wall of absurd conclusions.
 
There are two physicalist ways to approach the question of how life evolved. 

One of them is to begin with the smallest units of physical reality (quarks or strings, as the case may be), and show how they incrementally combined to make living organisms.

The other way is to begin with the largest scale of physical reality, (the cosmos or the multi-verse, as the case may be), and to show how the universe evolved into a life-producing structure.

If we begin with the smallest units of reality, and if we wish to show how they combined (evolved) to form living creatures, the physicalist approach must deny cosmic intent to do so, and rely upon chance. 

But not all the chance in the universe could form living creatures if the smallest units did not fit together at every scale needed for life.  Protons, neutrons and electrons must all have the properties that cause them to form atoms.  The atoms must have the valences to form molecules.  We have only begun the long list of chance elements that must all come together in an extremely unlikely combination to produce even the simplest life form.  Gravity, nuclear forces, electromagnetic properties and many, many more, must all be precisely coordinated to form living organisms.

 
In short, even physicalists admit that these facts fit a theory of Intelligent Design, a theory which they reject.
 
In order to reject cosmic intent, and to replace it with randomness, physicalism must speculate that there are vast (or infinite) numbers of universes—bubbles within a multi-verse—such that each universe has a minuscule chance of having all the ingredients for life.  But they conclude that the vast numbers (of universes) ensure a high likelihood of at least one universe being like ours.  Bingo, universes and living things can evolve randomly.  Case closed.

Or is it?

One big problem with the multi-verse theory is that the multi-verse itself must have unlikely properties in order to form “bubble” universes.  If we must rely on a multi-verse to explain our universe, then in turn, we must rely on an even larger multi-verse (a multi-multi-verse) to explain the multi-verse.  There is no end to it.  It’s “turtles all the way up,” always an ever-bigger universe to contain and give rise to ever-more multi-verses.

What principle of nature can physicalists cite to support such a conjecture?  Why would such a physicalist theory be preferable to Intelligent Design?

And that is only the beginning of the endless problems that physicalists face in their quest to explain evolution without cosmic intent.

 
Randomness can operate only within nonrandom parameters.  Dice, for example, do not have randomly determined numbers of sides.  They are designed.  If a die has six sides, it is designed and intended to have six sides; if it has four sides, then likewise, this is the product of intentional design.

Our universe has twenty-seven parameters called physical constants.  Why twenty-seven?  And why is each and every one of those constants at the exact value it is, a value within a narrow range that permits life?

Finally, the answers to the really big questions remain inaccessible to physicalism:  why does the universe produce or contain living creatures that can study the universe and draw conclusions?  Does the universe produce life, or is it produced by life?  Does it produce consciousness, or does consciousness produce physical reality?  Do we, as conscious, living creatures share in the power of cosmic intent through our limited power of free will?

Is it not an irony that, in order to survive, evolution theory has to evolve?  Or is evolution theory not fit to survive at all?

.

Can the Human Brain ever understand Quantum Physics?

.

For years, I have tried to follow the back-and-forth debates between physicists regarding "quantum theory" and "local realism."  I remain a bystander in these debates.

Someone named Patel drew my attention to the link, https://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-the-quantum-so-strange

This article, along with others, makes me think that physics, and quantum physics in particular, is not a natural "fit" for the human brain (apart from consideration of the mind.)

The Nobel-prize-winning physicist, Leon Lederman, speculated that the human brain may not yet have "evolved" (his word), to the point where it can understand physics.

Lederman's statement (here I go, criticizing my betters) is very contrary to Darwinism, which states that evolution has no direction, no purpose, no goal.  It is purely driven by random changes in the genome which sometimes enhance survivability.

Therefore, the human brain (apart from the mind!) can never "evolve" an understanding of physics unless two things occur:  random mutation and increased survivability.

Neither of these seem to operate in the brain's understanding of physics.

They do operate in intelligence, but quantum physicists do not seem to procreate in large numbers and then selectively enhance their survival by making advances in physics.  (That is almost a parody, is it not?)

The mind, however, is a different matter.  It can guide evolution, and it operates the brain as a musician operates his violin.  My violin is not a Stradivarius, so I will never understand even basic quantum theory.

The inability of physicists, after more than a hundred years of intense study by geniuses, to agree on quantum physics, and to reconcile it with Relativity Theory, is a profound demonstration that the human brain is not structured in a way that enables it to achieve these goals.

I still continue to be fascinated, and baffled, by the debates between those who promote the Copenhagen Interpretation, and those who reject it, because it not only humbles me, but I think it reveals something profound about both the universe and the human condition.

Quantum Theory needs its own Einstein:  someone who can go where no man has gone before, and lead others to a new paradigm in physics.

Will he be welcomed?

.

Is There an After-Life?

Other recipients:

I think there is no physical way to answer the question about what happens to our conscious self after we die. The rational skeptic can dismiss any proposed answer on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Indeed, the question of whether there is

I think there is no physical way to answer the question about what happens to our conscious self after we die.  The rational skeptic can dismiss any proposed answer on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

 

Indeed, the question of whether there is a "self" at all, or even consciousness, is challenged by physics.  Therefore, the question itself (of after-life) is considered irrelevant by some thinkers.

 

For many people, it is exceedingly uncomfortable to admit that there are questions that they can never answer, or at least never prove an answer.

 

Instead, we must turn to classical sources, whether they be the Bhagavad Gita, the Bible,

or modern authors and philosophers.  For each of these avenues, we must apply not only our reason, but also our deeper sense, an indefinable sense, perhaps one might call it the "faith" sense.

 

This is a life-long endeavor.  We come into this world not knowing what are the rules, or what is the object.  Over time, we start to piece it all together, but the journey includes many false paths, dead-end alleyways, and the edges of cliffs.

 

The final answer comes at the time of death itself, but of course, there is no universally accepted testimony from those who claim to have crossed over and then come back.

We can agonize over this, or else, we can simply enjoy the ride, the adventure, the seeking (rather than the finding).

 

If death is eternal oblivion, then we need not fear it, except by instinct.  If there is an after-life, then we should live as if there is one, and as if we are accountable for our deeds, but forgivable for our misdeeds,

-