View Single Post
Mar30-04, 12:58 PM
P: 1,499
Quote Quote by LW Sleeth
Sorry if I put my words in your mouth. It is MY opinion that what mathematical models miss is anything that is indivisible within its functions, and that that indivisibility represents a more general principle. If we "back out" so we can mathematically represent the more general principle's presence in a more general system, and there is still something unrepresentable mathematically, then again we've run into yet a more general principle. Is there an absolute bottom line, where indivisibility may be absolute?
Not sure I get you but that rings true.

I think in terms of ontologically backing out of manifest reality toward more and more basic systems (i.e. toward raw existence), one might run into consciousness at a pretty basic level, but I suspect that an absolute most basic level of existence is beneath that and not conscious at all. Why?

If the absolute most basic level is conscious, then how do we explain learning, development, conscious evolution? Assuming we humans are specific manifestations of something more generally conscious, then the fact that we can learn demonstrates the more general thing learns. But if it is now learned more than it used to be, then we can assume earlier it was less learned. Tracing that back we come to a stage that is unlearned, which suggests consciousness has a begining.
I agree. Thus Buddhists etc. often assert that consciousness does not exist. (Even though it's also fundamental).

For that reason I suspect there is a level of existence more basic than consciousness. A raw poteniality which has the potential for consciousness, as well as for everything else that is manifest.
Not sure about this because 'consciousness' gets tricky to define at all at this depth. Certainly a state beyond 'self' anyway.

In the past I've postulated this raw poteniality is an infinite continuum of non-quantumized "ground state" light. If so, obviously it would be too subtle to be detected by our machinery.
I would argue that it cannot be detected in principle because if it could it could not be 'ultimate' (it's existence would still be realtive or 'dependent'). We would still need yet another state beyond what we can detect. To link back to Goedel - the existence of the meta-system cannot be proved wityhin the system, only infered from the existence of the system. If the universe is seen as a formal axiomatic system (as per Penrose) then 'ultimate reality' is the meta-system (equivalently so is 'essence').

I prefer to think of it in terms of a perfect condensate of some some sort, one and many at the same time and infinitely peturbable - but it's just a metaphor.

Your point about the 'continuum' that mathematics cannot deal with is what I've occasionaly tried to argue from Zeno's paradoxes of motion, which are not paradoxes if reality is ultimately undifferentiated. But I haven't convinced anyone yet. Most seem to think that the calculus resolves them.

This brings us back to Penrose, who argues for some sort of ideal condensate in the brain, linked somehow to quantum coherence and microtubules - but he loses me on that one.