Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia; Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.
Post 37.05/25/2018continued . . .
Another Theory of Everything
Logical Model of the Universe
In his quest for ultimate unity, he opposes Kant's duality of phenomenon (matter) and noumenon (mind), and Descartes' duality of body (matter) and soul (mind). But I find those distinctions useful for interpreting the world in terms of things we can sense, and ideas we can only imagine. Our knowable Reality consists of both physical matter, and metaphysical properties, such as Life & Mind. Those real-world conceptual categories are united in the ideal realm of G*D, which encompasses all possibilities, from virtual to actual.
One point on which we seem to agree is that “the only concept not in need of structural explanation is the “terminal concept” with no constraints, and no structure to explain.” Langan calls that ultimate state the “ontological groundstate” or “unbounded telesis”. Christian theologian Paul Tillich identified God, as “Ground of Being” and “Being Itself” and “Power of Being. I call it simply BEING, the state of existing uncondition-ally. Which presumably, since we are here, includes the power to create other conditional beings & things.
Telesis means planned progress, and unbounded means outside the limits of physical reality. There again, it seems to refer to some sort of intentional eternal Creator. But he also says “UBT is a medium of pure potential, everything is possible within it.” Which sounds like my usage of the Greek concept of Chaos to represent the unstructured pool of potential from which our orderly Cosmos was actualized. None of these philosophical terms evoke images of humanoid Greek or Hebrew gods though.
However, such concepts of eternal creative power raise the old spectre of ex nihilo, or “something from nothing”. So Langan explains that “The paradox arises when “nothing” is taken to exclude, not just something, but the potential for something.” Even atheistic scientists agree that some power or potential must have preceded the Big Bang. Yet where they assume it was physical energy, Langan agrees with me that it was more likely a meta-physical power, equivalent to magic. But ex nihilo magic outside of space-time doesn't mean that such divine will-power exists within the physical constraints of the material world. So we don't put much credence in miracles.
One of his peculiar ideas is that evolution proceeds by a mechanism of “Telic Recursion” as Feedback between past & future states6. I assume that is his way of explaining how “the system brings itself into existence.” But I find that notion to be just as counter-intuitive as Krauss' idea of a universe popping into existence from a quantum fluctuation. Although mathe-matical physics works just as well in reverse, real physics is a one-way street. So I'm more comfortable with the old-fashioned idea that a self-existing deity created our world by divine fiat. That way I don't have to pretend that I know how things work in the absence of space-time. And I don't have to concede the pseudo-science nonsense of backward causation.
Post 37 continued . . . click Next
Multiplex Unity Principle of Teleologic Evolution Any Questions?
6. Past & Future : These categories are inherent in one-way space-time-matter-energy processes. But in the mathematical Block-time concept of physics there is no time for change, since every possible event exists all-at-once. Which is essentially the definition of Eternity. Langan seems to blur those real-ideal distinctions in his compre-hensive definition of Reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)
A feedback loop in a computer brings a past calculation into future computations, but postulated future-to-past cause-effect loops on the quantum level is still a conjecture looking for evidence.
Extrasensory Reality : Although our human senses perceive only a narrow band of reality, our latent talent for Reason has allowed a few of us to extend our senses deeper into the foundation (quantum) and ceiling (cosmos) of our world. And they bring back vivid descriptions of those unseen realms. Some imaginative thinkers have postulated that we can also expand our senses by willpower alone, without the crude mechanics of technology. They use meditation, psychic channeling, Gnostic knowing, or other means of communing with the cosmos. Their only evidence though is confidence-building anecdotes, saying “I’ve been there, trust me.” But that is the favorite hook-line of con-men. In order to avoid such bait & switch tricks, it’s a good idea to respond, “I’m from Missouri, show me.” Skepticism is built-in to the scientific method, but reasonable Doubt is replaced by irrational Faith in the pseudo-scientific approach. Langan’s self-confidence may be due simply to his massive intellect, but when he boldly claims that he has proven the existence of God, I’d respond that I doubt it. All he has proven is that the deity of his theory is mathematically possible, and logically reasonable. But that is what I would call an Ideal deity, not Real as he claims. Depending on the axioms you start with, you can prove almost anything is possible in the infinite potential of mathematics. I’m not saying that Langan’s theory is pseudo-science, but a little more self-effacing humility might make it less offensive to empiricists. As for me, I’ll welcome Langan to the TOE club.
Extrasensory Reality : Click here for popup
Axiomatic Certainty : I am not a mathematician, but I was aware that for centuries, mathematics was considered the queen of the sciences because it claimed certainty. It was grounded on some fundamental certainties - axioms - that led to others. ___Tom Stoppard
NEXT
BACK
Forum
