For There To Be One There Must Be Another
- 1. For There To Be One There Must Be Another
- 2. SUMMARY: A set of three logical laws underlies the foundations of everything, describing dependent and independent existence and giving rise to math via the concept of quantity. A) B) C) In English: A) If there exists A then there exists B B) There exists C C) It will always be that if there exists A and B or if there exists A or B, then there exists C à∃A ⊃ ∃B ∃C (à(∃(A B)) ⟥ ∧ ∨ à(∃(A B))) ∨ ⊃ ∃C A = 2 Note: ∃= 1 unit of quan4ty B = 1 C = 3 A = 2 B = 1 C = 3 a = 3 b = 4 c = 5
- 3. This presentation is a fun thought exercise built from the ground up, paying no Mind to what is considered acceptable or not by what science and philosophy have said throughout the past. The world used to be flat, and the sun used to spin around us, so every now and then it’s good to throw all assumed knowledge out the window. This presentation exists solely to spark new thoughts, and is purposely incomplete by nature because – hey – what fun is a riddle if you’re given all the answers straight up? J
- 4. If the assumption is taken that consciousness exists at a fundamental level, it must be placed into the same scientific hierarchy encompassing the ontology of the Unity of Science. Just assume it exists. Consciousness Biology Chemistry Physics Essentially, all sciences above basic biology are in the scientific realm of consciousness, as they are the study of the conscious behavior of higher animals and human beings. But it is all connected, starting from the bottom. There was no “sudden leap” where things appeared out of thin air, unentangled with the ontological layers below.
- 5. We can expand on the ontology to see how the different parts are connected in their functions. The connection is important, since each realm needs the others to exist. Realm Form Consciousness Force Biology Matter Chemistry Matter Physics Force Placing all matter into the realms of chemistry and biology is a semantic question. We could also say that basic particles belong to physics and their compounds in chemistry and biology. But that’s semantics, let’s go with the above for simplicity.
- 6. Every force needs an equal and opposing force. At a primary level, fundamental consciousness confirms the existence of physical forces. Realm Form Consciousness Force Biology Matter Chemistry Matter Physics Force After all, if there were nothing conscious around the Universe anywhere, would the initial physical force exist in the first place, and would any of this be relevant in any shape or form? Sounds silly to us. But we’ll get to existence soon. Example: a physical force needs matter to be transmitted… …and the receiving conscious force needs matter to decode the message. At the fundamental level, this is a gravitational wave shifting spacetime itself. The other way, it’s fully coherent light in the form of a laser zapping straight through it.
- 7. Everything is connected in science, so we can expand on the ontology to consider how the realms interact. To consider how everything is connected, remember the importance of quantum entanglement and how space-time rips apart without it at a certain point. Google them, as these are very important pieces of knowledge. Realm Form Language Consciousness Force ??? Biology Matter Laws of biology Chemistry Matter Laws of chemistry Physics Force Laws of physics The natural laws can all be interpreted in the conscious realm. On a fundamental level, the Universal language is mathematics, which is how we make sense of the natural laws.
- 8. But if everything is connected, would it not suggest that there must be an underlying foundation from which the common languages of natural laws are born? And how are they propagated?
- 9. The mediums to propagate one force to the other are visible throughout nature. Realm Form Propagation Language Consciousness Force Forces of Logic ??? Biology Matter Biological compounds Laws of biology Chemistry Matter Chemical compounds Laws of chemistry Physics Force Forces of Physics Laws of physics Matter is simply the medium for the delivery of forces.
- 10. The propagation and language of consciousness requires more focus. Since everything is connected in the framework of science, and we understand everything through mathematics and logic, these should be fundamentally connected. Realm Form Propagation Language Consciousness Force Logical forces ??? Biology Matter Biological compounds Laws of biology Chemistry Matter Chemical compounds Laws of chemistry Physics Force Physical forces Laws of physics What are the foundations for keeping the above connected? Or, perhaps a better term, entangled?
- 11. As conscious beings, the human mind must be of use to understand the connection of everything that we perceive. The physical Universe creates us, but for it to exist in any relevant sense to us, we must, in turn, create it through our perception.
- 12. Reality System-1 could be viewed as the involuntary result of physical evolution (reality), whereas system-2 drives the voluntary rational perception of everything evolution has delivered for us and what we’d like to turn the future into (perception and imagination) Dual system theory paints a picture of the human mind where system-1 governs our involuntary/intuitive action and system-2 our voluntary/rational action Perception and imagination
- 13. Reality In short, our consciousness conjures our perception of reality at any instant and our imagination helps shape it towards our liking in the future. Reality has created us at this instant, but we create it through our collective perception of it at the same instant. By exercising free will, we shape reality towards our liking, and this defines the future. The future is probabilistic based on natural and conscious tendencies – determinism (past) and indeterminism (future) are the two extremes. Reality is the end result of physical evolution, static at any instant. But as conscious beings are born and mature, our perception and imagination have an impact on reality through the choices that we make. Again – just go with the thought that consciousness is fundamental. We can’t prove it, neither can you, so just go with it. Perception and imagination
- 14. …and perceived by conscious forces, creating each other. The next instant is shaped by the sum of actions of conscious forces impacting in the physical realm in an endless back-and-forth of continuous creation. At every instant, the reality around us is created constructively from physical forces… Realm Consciousness Biology Chemistry Physics Realm Physics Chemistry Biology Consciousness
- 15. If this dual nature of constant creation of instants holds, then we still face the question posed earlier: what holds it all together, how is it all entangled? Realm Consciousness Biology Chemistry Physics Realm Physics Chemistry Biology Consciousness
- 16. If we are conscious, entangled into the fabric of the Universe by some common foundation, then we should return to where we are most likely to understand this foundation: our perception of the Universe. Theoretically two humans could be in “perfect agreement” if they had the exact same life experience to acquire an identical set of cognitive knowledge and emotional affect. Of course, we are always at some incomplete level of agreement in reality, but theoretically perfect agreement could exist. Understanding = cognition + affect
- 17. If two humans understand each other perfectly, is it not the same as, say, the fusion of two atoms that do so perfectly naturally? There is a natural logic to the fusion of two atoms, and a language to describe it. Humans argue with logic, and communicate in a human language, but the underlying premise is no different when they come together in a theoretically perfect conscious agreement.
- 18. Realm Form Propagation Language Consciousness Force Logical forces ??? Biology Matter Biological compounds Laws of biology Chemistry Matter Chemical compounds Laws of chemistry Physics Force Physical forces Laws of physics The foundations of logic and math would lead to the theoretic possibility of perfect conscious agreement
- 19. If we are to consider a foundational combination of logic and math, it must start with the most fundamental of questions: existence. We hold that existence can only be considered as a belief system with two parts: Essentially, this says that existence needs to consider dependence and independence. Can something exist without the existence of something else? What would verify it? Can something exist independently? Can it verify itself? 1) Do you believe in the existence of yourself? 2) Do you believe in the existence of everyone and everything around you?
- 20. Let us try and codify dependence and independence: For the term “dependent” to exist, it must leave room for the term “independent” to exist as well. One cannot exist without the other, as otherwise “dependent” would itself be “independent”. a) IF there exists A THEN there exists B (definition of dependence and its verification by its two parts A and B) b) there exists C (definition of independence) c) it will always be such that IF there exists A AND B or IF there exists A OR B THEN there exists C (verification of independence by its one part C – C exists under all conditions and, thus, is effectively independent)
- 21. Let us consider the steps used to build a, b, and c: There is a clear paradox with the independence of C – it actually needs A and/or B to exist. But it is practically independent once it has come to be. This suggests that the default “Universal setting” is to believe in existence and say that A exists, which leads to C. a) IF there exists A THEN there exists B (definition of dependence and its verification by its two parts A and B) b) there exists C (definition of independence) c) it will always be such that IF there exists A AND B or IF there exists A OR B THEN there exists C (verification of independence by its one part C) We must start with IF, since existence is fundamentally based on belief of it. As we define the existence of A we define the dependent existence of B. This defines the parts A and B within (a), but also the same logic suggests the mandatory existence of another logical law (b) As (a) defined the concept of dependence, we must also define the concept of independence. They must both exist, since otherwise dependence itself would be independent. If we started with independence in a) we would get nowhere. The logical law (b) defines the part C but also logically suggests the existence of the law (c). As we are defining dependence and independence, the last step needed is for the part C to verify its own existence under all conditions, which makes it effectively independent.
- 22. Let us consider a visual representation in the context of one thing we can be sure of in life – a beginning A, the present B, and an end C (or any general outcome): A B C Life overall Eg. Conception A AND B C A OR B C Eg. Goal-setting. OR means you get to choose and exercise free-will, ie. Stay put or set a new target to advance towards
- 23. Logic needs to contain elements of math for this to extend to the ontology. We cannot elude that “there exists” is called an “existential quantifier”. Quantity suggests numbers, so let’s assume that every existential quantifier used gets one “unit of quantity”. We are very aware that we are stretching existing definitions, but why not when discussing existence itself? What else would give birth to quantity than existence itself?
- 24. Let us assign units to the below: a) IF there exists A THEN there exists B (two existential quantifiers means two units of quantity, a = 2) b) there exists C (one existential quantifier means one unit of quantity, b = 1) c) it will always be such that IF there exists A AND B or IF there exists A OR B THEN there exists C (three existential quantifiers means three units of quantity, c = 3) 2 + 1 = 3 == a + b = c (trust us, this came from building up from first principles of independence and dependence first, instead of being a “forced move”. There was a genuine “that’s funny..” moment here. Minsky said there was logic underneath it all.)
- 25. So how does this fit into the ontology described earlier? Realm Form Propagation Language Consciousness Force Logical forces ??? Biology Matter Biological compounds Laws of biology Chemistry Matter Chemical compounds Laws of chemistry Physics Force Physical forces Laws of physics A = 2 B = 1 C = 3
- 26. Does physics describe mass and forces related to it, such as the recently confirmed gravitational waves? Or is mass, in itself, actually a force (well.. Part of it at least), represented by matter? A = 2 B = 1 C = 3
- 27. Does chemistry describe the fusion of matter? A = 2 B = 1 C = 3
- 28. Does biology describe the systemic “network-building” of mass to keep it all from collapsing together immediately? A = 2 B = 1 C = 3
- 29. And do the combination of the aforementioned allow you to play funny tricks like this to (perhaps) provide a logically constructed proof of Pythagoras’ Theorem, the most proven thing in mathematics? A = 2 B = 1 C = 3 a = 3 b = 4 c = 5
- 30. Isn’t there a certain type of mechanics that talks about ‘spin’ all the time? Maybe it isn’t found underneath physics, but at the exact opposite end of science (see earlier ontology slides? Could you draw a perfect circle using all the aforementioned, if A, B, and C are spinning? A = 2 B = 1 C = 3 a = 3 b = 4 c = 5
- 31. If the set of three logical laws of existence could work, then their negation exists as well. So reality.. And imagination.. In a dual system, confirming each other’s existence with every outcome C being an outcome in reality? Spinning round and round? Think about it, and have fun J Reality & the physical realm Consciousness Biology Chemistry Physics Imagination & Perception Physics Chemistry Biology Consciousness