Dec 10 (To understand this blog you’ll want to begin at the beginning: HOME – Post 1, June 14, 2015). (glossary: N = Now, D = Demiourgos (God) C = Consciousness Q = Incipient consciousness occurring at N W = World State, t =- past)
There are some considerations that are sometimes lost to mind:
1) Consciousness is the only thing IN existence that KNOWS or is aware of existence.
2) Physical existence is inert and cannot cause or produce anything, conscious or physical
3) Would it be POSSIBLE for physicalia to produce or cause something that is NOT physicalia – its own KIND of being? I rather think not since physicalia is not conscious, it has no intentionality. Could it cause a thing that is not of its own KIND of existence – not its own SUBSTANCE – by accident? This would entail a phenomenon of stuff acting on stuff to produce a NEW & different KIND OF THING THAT IS not stuff, bring it into existence, thus changing existence itself. This is an event that is BEYOND the capability of physicalia, even if it were not inert. Existence is an act of creation that within itself is unchangeable.
It can only be changed by an act of that which created it by the re-placing void with place. Though physical stuff is thus created, it can only be created or changed in its existence by that which re-places void. Therefore, consciousness could not be created by physicalia, even by accident.
Science hopes to discover some genetic or chemical transformation that will fit the emergence of consciousness into the theory of evolution. I don’t see how this can be achieved successfully for the above reasons. Similarly engineers hope to create consciousness by constructing an algorithm of artificial life. Both of these programs bear a resemblance to the medieval alchemical search for the ‘philosopher’s stone.’
4) Can ANYTHING that is not conscious itself, create anything like consciousness?
– Creation requires intentionality
– Intentionality requires understanding.
5) Would the physical universe EXIST without consciousness? Without consciousness, the question would be unaskable. What is known of the physical universe boils down to perceptia and the perceiving consciousness’ (as Berkeley correctly surmised). From over the millennia the SOCIAL WORLD, including the universe of fields, forces and particles has been constructed. Noting else in existence, save consciousness, defines existence.
It is only consciousness that MAY even be capable of discovering a MEANING for existence. Consciousness is GIVEN at N, which is to say that it EMANATES from a course that banishes void with stuff (and the KNOWING of stuff)
The knowledge of existence consists of direct awareness of the logos. To get there, two acts must occur: first, the creation of time, N and existence, W. The act of being: N(+W). This is an act from outside existence W which is bi-partite. First, an outline or a plan for W is brought into being, a plan that is the FORM of W. Of course, the logos by BEING the form of all that is, BECOMES itself. Thus, by becoming itself, represents the second part of the action of its creation.
Creation = of logos of existence
= by BEING, logos becoming itself.
An action involves a subject changing an object from what it was before the action, into what it will be, after the action. In the ‘social world,’ we have conceptually constructed, action is a matter of physicalia changing physicalia or ’cause and effect.’ As has been demonstrated, there is no cause and effect in the real physical existence, the only cause being the agent of N(+W) or D. The only effect, the instant of time and existence. So in the social world, for example, an action might involve somebody dribbling a basketball: a subject (a player) directing (act) the ball in his hand (object) downward. This act then effects CHANGE in which an object is transformed from a ball in a player’s hand to a ball on the floor.
The ball alone is not the object that is changed. The ball-in-place is the object. It is changed IN PLACE by the action of dribbling. so in respect to existence, TWO acts are involved, the first being existence, in which the physical world is created through the FORM of the logos, which itself is comprised of four NECESSARY categories: being, time, place and change. By becoming itself through its creation, existence is where formerly no thing (void). Void is never, of course, correctly referred to as BEING – such being an inadequacy of language.
By becoming itself, the second part of the act of creation occurs. The logos has brought W into being – that which it is the form of. It could be noted here that this could settle the medieval realism/nominalism debate in true scholastic style: no THING could be created without there first being a FORM of thing-ness first created. In the social world way of thinking, these a priori considerations will see quaint and chimerical. I understand that. But the social world is in truth, a largely false if livable narrative.
We live with our consciousnesses in the recent past in a myth we have constructed through a fundamental mistake in construing the nature of time. In pragmatic terms it works for us insofar as we may live what we conceive to be our lives. I am no exception. And this aside leads us to the second act that pertains to existence: the KNOWLEDGE of existence. Essentially, the base knowledge of existence is empirical: the awareness of logos – being in time CHANGING to being in time that is not being in time before THIS being in time and being a self-being that is in PLACE of ‘here’ as opposed to a possible ‘there.’
Such awareness of course is experience. But note that it is NECESSARY experience, the FORM of all subsequent experience of perceptia and conceptia. Therefore, the logos is both the FORM of EXISTENCE AND the FORM of the KNOWLEDGE of existence. The logos itself is not an act. It is the OBJECT of an act: agent D of time and existence (subject), transforms (act) void (object) to logos (object). In an act, the object of the act is always bi-partite. Divided. What WAS becomes what IS.
Thus, void, through creation of logos becomes PART of being where prior to creation there was no being. Nothing. Since the logos is not an act but the FORM of an act, the act of KNOWLEDGE OF THE LOGOS must ALSO be an act of the creator D of N(+W). And since bare N(+W) is physical and cannot create anything, being inert, let alone knowledge of the logos.
Therefore: knowledge of the logos – the base principle of the act Q must be a direct creation of D distinct from but accompanying the creation of N(+W).
So, therefore, the act of creation is not bi-partite but TRI-partite:
There is no, ‘arrow of time.’ Time is and then, is-not, ALMOST but not exactly, in the same instant. But there must be a duration of that duration of that instant – a smallest possible division of duration. If it were not so, the division of time would simply regress to the point where time is – not, and it and existence would not be: no-‘thing,’ only absolute nothing, not even possibility. void. But it is out of this void that time emerges and into which it vanishes. In order for there to be a NEW time, there must be some agent that can act from BEYOND time and existence, some agent that can create possibility and fill void with PLACE. Time cannot do this for itself simply for the reason that it does not yet exist.
In a brief essay appearing in the January 2016 issue of Harper’s Magazine, the physicist, Alan Lightman discusses some cosmological models under consideration by various scientists, largely in light of quantum theory. None of these models recognized the fleeting quality of time and the fact that time is NOT a continuum. In reality, time only presents itself once – the ‘present,’ and is instantly gone, existence is not possible without time. That is, there can be no such thing as being without time to BE in. Mathematical models which express quantum theories most eloquently, will only provide answers in relation to given variables or ‘first’ principles.
They begin their derivatives with – (like any language), mathematics. It is the language of quantity but quantity or the existence of physical matter or ‘stuff’ is one of the metaphysical points at issue. [I should emphasize here that I am not a mathematician. Some readers may consider that an important point. Perhaps. They will have their reasons.] The ONLY time is the instant of the present, which consists of a duration of a virtually infinitely small value, but an individual one. Once that duration is complete, void replaces it. Not ‘space’ but absolute nothing, not even the possibility of some ‘thing.’
When the present passes and there is nothing, the so-called ‘past’ has no existence. If it did, the ‘present would always be the same existing event with no NEW event’s existence, possible. The past is memory and the future likewise has no existence. Past (and for that matter, what we experience as the present, due to the relative tardiness of contemplation) is merely memory and the future is expectation. For an instant there is existence, including physical existence or what we call the ‘universe’ – and then there is nothing, hopefully to be replaced by another time and ANOTHER universe.
There was quite probably and likely will be many other material density accumulations in the plenum of physical existence. But their (and all existence) will be impelled by the inert conditions or ‘states’ of all being that are presented in a succession of temporal moments. Creation is not a one-time event, it is NOW. It is (hopefully) ongoing. What gives rise to the successive instances of time and the inert states of existence presented with it must be a causal agent acting from OUTSIDE time and existence as we understand it, since time and existence would have to PRE – exist themselves in order to cause themselves: an absurdity.
In a note further to the ‘Harper’s’ article mentioned above, the author relates how Einstein felt he was compelled to reverse his belief in a static universe by telescopic evidence that galaxies and galactic clusters appeared to be in motion away from the point of our observation, that the universe is not static, but instead is rapidly expanding. It could be pointed out that the point of observation was the same foundation of evidence for Ptolemy’s claim that planets orbited the earth. His system survived for about a thousand years because of accuracy in predicting planetary positions. Predictability of outcomes based on observation remains perhaps the most significant factor in the success of scientific methodology, but perhaps not always infallible.
More to follow of this investigation of existence