Discussion:
Inviting discussion
(too old to reply)
Kaydon
2015-11-19 21:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
--

What is the loop of Creation? How is there something from nothing?

In spite of the fact that it is impossible to prove that anything
exists beyond one’s perception since any such proof would involve one’s
perception (I observed it, I heard it, I thought about it, I calculated
it, and etc.), science deals with a so-called objective reality “out
there,” beyond one’s perception professing to describe Nature
objectively (as if there was a Nature or reality external to one’s
perception). The shocking impact of The Matrix was precisely the valid
possibility that what we believed to be reality was but our perception;
however, this was presented through showing a real reality wherein the
perceived reality was a computer simulation. Many who toy with the idea
that perhaps, indeed, we are computer simulations, deviate towards
questions, such as, who could create such software and what kind of
hardware would be needed for such a feat?

Although such questions assume that reality is our perception, they
also axiomatically presuppose the existence of an objective
deterministic world “out there” that nevertheless must be responsible
for how we perceive our reality. This is a major mistake emphasizing
technology and algorithms instead of trying to discover the nature of
reality and the structure of creation. As will be shown in the
following, the required paradigm shift from “perception is our reality
fixed within an objective world,” to “perception is reality without the
need of an objective world ‘out there,’” is provided by a dynamic
logical structure. The Holophanic loop logic is responsible for a
consistent and complete worldview that not only describes, but also
creates whatever can be perceived or experienced.

Stating that it is impossible to prove the existence of anything beyond
one’s perception is not saying there is nothing beyond perception, only
that if there is anything, then whatever that is, is indefinite. It
could be argued that the existence of physical laws, the universal
perception that the apple falls to the ground is proof of an objective
reality. However, this universal agreement is also our perception. It
could be argued that if we cannot decide what to perceive, and
everybody perceives the same physical reality, then there must be some
lawfulness that dictates how we perceive and therefore, this lawfulness
could be external to our perception. However, this lawfulness, as we
shall see later on, is the precise lawfulness that creates perception,
the process of definition, which is not external to perception (this
process creates the perceived and the perceiver, which then gives
meaning to this process – a loop – but about that, later). It could be
argued, that hitting our knee on the table – whether we believe in the
table or not – will hurt. The table is external to our body, but not to
our perception. What then is perception? It is relating, a process of
definition, defining and thereby rendering meaningful what has been
perceived.

What then is this process of definition? It is creating borders within
which one’s perception gains meaning. The word “definition” comes from
the Latin de finire, meaning, making finite or limited. In Hebrew,
definition is HAGDARA , meaning, to border. Any definition necessarily
implies what the definition is not, or stated differently, to have
meaning, whatever is defined explicitly includes the meaning by
implicitly excluding everything else. Consequently, to define means to
place the defined object within borders that by default create
something beyond the borders of the definition. What is this something
beyond the defined? The implicitly excluded everything else, or in
other words, the indefinite. The paramount importance of incorporating
the indefinite within a consistent logical structure cannot be
overemphasized. The indefinite itself is a paradox, and incorporating
it within the Holophanic logical structure engenders the loop of
Creation where the dynamic structure of paradoxes is both the creative
force of existence, and also the proof of the necessity of existence.

To better grasp the impetus of Creation, let’s look at the indefinite
and paradoxes. What does “indefinite” mean? Anything as long as it is
not specified (not defined); anything that appears both within and
beyond the borders of the definition and thereby rendering the border
superfluous, which means, no border, no definition. If nevertheless we
would attempt to define the notion “indefinite,” then that’s a paradox
because if we succeed, then it is defined, which contradicts its
meaning – its indefiniteness – and the word “indefinite” means that it
cannot be defined. This is an example of a paradox, that in essence
means, if it is what it is, then it is not what it is, yet if it is not
what it is, then it is what it is. A paradox is a creature that
consists of a structure (how it is defined, the dynamic process on its
way to stabilization) that contradicts its significance (what it is,
the stabilized entity). What characterizes a paradox is the motion
between its structure and significance, where the structure implies
that its significance contradicts its structure, and vice versa.

Another example of a paradox would be “wholeness.” Wholeness (totality,
infinite, boundless) can only be wholeness if we can find a way to
define it so that it includes everything and there is nothing beyond
it. However, if we define wholeness, then to have meaning, it must be
bordered within the walls of the definition, which implies that there
is something beyond this border, in which case it is not wholeness. Or
in more formal language, wholeness is only wholeness if it is not
wholeness, which is an inconsistency. If we are satisfied with that,
then we have completed the definition of wholeness. However, if we try
to include the <i>beyond</i> created by our earlier definition within
the borders of our next attempt at defining wholeness, then we gain a
new definition of wholeness, which by the sheer structure of the
process of defining creates a new <i>beyond</i>. In this case, the
process of defining wholeness will be consistent but incomplete, and
wholeness will remain indefinite.

Contemplating the paradox of Creation, the ancient Egyptian myth of
Creation springs to mind, the myth of the self-creating god, Amun (or
Amon). Amun masturbated and swallowed his semen, after which he spit it
out in the form of a ball, thereby impregnating his mother, the sky.
And only then, was he born. Thus Amun was his own father. Those pious
who discovered the illustrated version of this myth in Karnak covered
up the erect phallus of Amun, and with it, this story of Creation was
laid into obscurity. The Holophanic model of Creation could regard this
Egyptian myth as Amun <i>retromorphously</i> creating himself. I have
coined the word <i>retromorphous</i> to mean, defining in retrospect,
turning non-being into the potential of whatever the observation is
made from, or in other words, creating the past from the present,
creating the source from its outcome, which is the basis of complexity
in the context of the loop logic. That is, only after Amun was born can
he give meaning to his mother, the potential from which he emanated and
to the process that created him (as represented by masturbation and
incest) whereby he was born. Of course, neither the sky nor the
masturbating Amun have meaning until Creation takes place <i>de
facto</i> and Amun emerges. I find this an enticing illustration of the
basic paradox of existence.

So how can there be something from nothing? What is “nothing?” Nothing
is what didn’t turn into the potential of something. If there was
something from nothing, then that nothing would have turned into the
potential of something, because when we ask, how is there something
from nothing, we ask this question from something, when something
already exists. If we take a deeper look at “nothing,” we’ll discover
that “nothing” is a paradox. Any definition is something, so if we
defined “nothing,” then it would become something, which contradicts
its essence of being “nothing.” Another way of looking at “nothing”
would be by means of it being something that is meaningless. That is,
“nothing” could be something that does not relate and that no thing or
no one relates to. That is, if there was something totally alone in the
universe, then that would be nothing, but it would be meaningless. If
such existed, its existence would be external to our perception, and as
such, this “nothing” would be indefinite.

We said that the indefinite could be anything, as long as it is not
specified (not defined). However, if we nevertheless tried to define
“nothing” (the indefinite), what would we get then? Since “nothing” is
non-definable, it is transparent as the object of our inquiry. So when
we attempt to define it, all we have is what we put into it, which is
the process of definition. “Nothing” stayed nothing, we didn’t define
it, only made the process of definition explicit. “Nothing” gains
meaning when we fail to define it; but having tried, we are left with a
bonus, a something, which is our process of defining “nothing.”
Creation of something from nothing is not a function of defining
something, but a function of attempting to define “nothing.” And then,
if that process of definition – which already is an existence – looks
back at its origins, if this process of defining investigates into its
own genesis, then what does it see? It sees itself. It sees the process
of definition – self-reference.

If there is nothing external to perception, then this process of
definition is the overall wholeness, the creator of meaning when it can
relate to itself. However, to have meaning, the process of definition
has to be defined; this definition would be a self-referential
quasi-infinite
and continuous process of establishing borders that create the
indefinite beyond that establishes borders creating the indefinite
beyond that establishes borders… which means, wholeness would
continuously and forever fail to define itself while succeeding to
define something – anything but itself.

Of course, both the totally defined and the totally indefinite are
idealized notions that would be inconsistent with the Holophanic loop
logic, nor can they be found in nature. The totally indefinite would be
the total meaningless nothing, the kind of non-being that cannot be
fathomed because if we would think about it, it would already be
something. On the other hand, there can be no total definition either.
I have used the term <i>uncertainty of sameness</i> to describe the
logical impossibility of total definition. A defined entity can be said
to have reached <i>sameness</i> — it is the same as itself — which
means that it is, it exists as something definite, no matter which
parameters defined it. However, no sooner does our object achieve
sameness than the uncertainty of sameness raises its ugly head. Could
it have been defined differently? Yes, of course. Could it have
additional parameters? Yes, of course. Could it have been defined more
precisely? Yes, of course. This uncertainty of sameness is the
indefinite included in the definition, which is the result of including
the tools of definition in the definition. Since <i>‘a’</i> can only be
defined as <i>‘a’</i> with meaning if it implies <i>‘not-a’</i> (the
indefinite beyond the borders of the definition), and since <i>‘a’</i>
can only have meaning as <i>‘a’</i> because it is different from
everything else (the everything else is the indefinite beyond the
borders, which actually gives meaning to <i>‘a’</i>), the meaning of
<i>‘a’</i> depends on <i>‘not-a.’</i>

When the meaning of something depends on the indefinite, on what our
defined object is not, then this indefinite is necessarily included in
the process of definition. This logical implication that perception of
meaning is only possible if and only if the indefinite is included
within the perception is the reason why the 19th century dream of a
consistent and complete axiomatic system with only well defined
(explicit) empty signs had to fail (see more about that in my article,
<i>The Loop Logic</i>). In spite of the fact that logic is the
fundament of algorithms and computer science, it had neither the
aspiration nor the ability to be connected to the real world precisely
because its propositions were so anemic regarding meaning. In the
effort to exclude any hint of the indefinite, logical inference was
confined to a binary type of world of true and false and lacking any
correlation with life and experiencing. However, including the
indefinite in the process of definition not only makes the loop logic
the fundament of existence, but determines the necessity of existence.
With the birth of Holophany, Heidegger’s question, <i>“Why is there
anything at all, rather than nothing?”</i> becomes irrelevant. When
existence is relations, and relating is the act of perceiving, and
perceiving is the process of definition, then existence is the overall
lawfulness, the isomorphous lawfulness of the process of definition –
the loop of Creation. What is being perceived, what is being
stabilized, which significance is brought to the foreground from the
amorphous background of the indefinite, depends on the non-linear rules
of complex interactions. Thus the loop logic emphasizes the creation of
<i>essents</i> rather than their interactions.

Is there a lawfulness responsible for any and every existence? An
electron and a dog are very different creatures; so what invisible
lawfulness is responsible for the existence of both? What kind of
lawfulness would fulfill such demands? The answer is, isomorphism — the
same logical inner structure in entirely different representations.
Whether an electron, a dog or the weather, each could be a different
realization of the same inner logical structure. Creation of anything
is the creation of meaning, which is an act of definition. The act of
definition attempting to define itself is consciousness. So
consciousness, or the soul if you wish, is not some invisible copy of
our body carrying our identity, but the lawfulness of Creation
expressed as our individual qualitative essence. Of course, it has been
endlessly stated that we are God, that we are parts of God, and similar
phrases. This is true, but true in the sense that God is the lawfulness
that unfolds Creation, and this lawfulness is inherent in all creation
including the creatures therein. It could be argued, that a soul, a
person is more than mere definitions and intellect. If this logic is
the logic of anything and everything, then it should be able to
delineate the logical structure of experience as well. Indeed.

Anything that has meaning has to be defined, which places it somewhere
on the scale between the continuous and the discrete, between the
indefinite and the definite. The indefinite, continuous, infinite tends
in the direction of the meaningless, whereas the meaningful is at best
imprecise. Experience is the process of attempting to define the
indefinite. When we try to capture an experience in a description, we
are actually defining our attempt at defining the indefinite. The
experience is continuous whereas its description, the definition is
discrete. Just as we can never define wholeness, we can never define
experience. Any description, any definition, is by nature discrete,
whereas the net experience is continuous. So when we have an experience
or perception and we become aware of having that experience, then we
give it meaning by defining what it is. By doing this we create a
discrete replica of the experience, yet the experience remains
continuous and non-definable, non-discretizable. Experience is
connected to learning. The person encounters something new. How do we
know that something is new? Because it is inconsistent with our system.
So when we interact with it, we have to integrate it, to assimilate it
into our system. If we met something that was not new to the system,
then our system would recognize it as part of itself. When that
recognition does not occur, the system is interacting with something
new. That is the impact. The system adjusts to include the new – that
is the change. One’s selfhood is the path of changes following one’s
experiences.

Our <i>knowledge</i> of the experience – whatever it might be that we
experience – makes it exist for us. We could say, one only experiences
when one is aware of experiencing. How do we know that we are aware of
experiencing something? By experiencing it, we experience the awareness
of experiencing. In this sense, experience and awareness of the
experience, experiencing the awareness of the experience, being aware
of experiencing the awareness of the experience, etc. is an infinitely
continuous chain, which is what defines what experience is (not the
interpretation of a specific experience, but experience in its general
sense). <i>And that’s the definition of experience: an infinite loop of
the process of becoming aware.</i>

When “nothing” is the limit of both the totally indefinite and the
totally defined, then that’s like a circle of going from something to
nothing to something to nothing, etc. The ‘going’ here means
perception. “Nothing” is only a notion that has meaning if it has been
perceived, in fact, a paradox. If it really is “nothing,” then it
cannot be defined, and hence, it has no meaning. Yet if I relate to it,
then it is something. So whenever I relate to “nothing,” whenever I
say, Creation of something from nothing, that “nothing” has meaning for
me, and hence, it is significance — it is something just like any other
something. That is, the structure of “nothing” is the same structure as
that of something. Essentially, something from nothing is
<i>formation</i>, not Creation, since nothing is also something. Then
what is Creation? Creation is rather the creation of nothing from
something, because Creation is the process of definition, and when we
define, we create the indefinite beyond the definition, which at its
limit is nothing, and only then can we have something from nothing… Oh
yes, the loop. A true loop is only such if it contains its own source.
If nothing can be proven to exist external to perception, then logic
must be a loop, and existence is a logical necessity inferred by the
loop.

Including the indefinite in the process of definition has far reaching
consequences. It means that the tools of the definition are necessarily
included in the definition. It means that meaning can only occur when
there is both definition and also experience. It means that
consciousness (whether it succeeds to define or not) <i>must</i> be
part of science or any so-called objective endeavor. It means that any
and all perception includes experience. The interaction with the
indefinite, the experience, is what gives meaning to the defined.
Perception, meaningful definition, can only occur in a highly flexible
complex system that can learn and change. That’s the difference between
us and an electron, which only has fixed relations, and consequently,
limited interactions. An electron always succeeds in defining, or it
would be more correct to say, it can only interact with what it
succeeds in defining. If it encounters the indefinite, it assumes a
state of superposition.

Where is God in the loop of Creation? If we wanted to define God, the
totality, we could not define God, because by the act of definition we
would create the beyond, what is beyond God, which contradicts God’s
totality. Therefore, no definition of God would do justice to God, and
every such definition would truncate God’s wholeness. If God is
indefinable, then God is indefinite. If God is indefinite,
then I create God by the implication of the act of definition – any
definition, because every definition creates the beyond, the indefinite
beyond the borders of the definition. In that sense, this is consistent
with the statement that I create God by my perception (definition).
This does not say that I perceive God, but that my perception implies
the existence of the indefinite (God). This means that if I perceive a
dog, this perception implies the existence of God. If I perceive that I
perceive, then that implies the existence of God. If I perceive dust, a
table, an idea, whatever, then that implies the existence of God. If I
experience, then that implies the existence of God. That’s because any
existence implies the existence of God. And that’s because any
existence is such if it relates or is related to, if it has meaning, if
even partially it has been defined, which means, its mere definition
implies the indefinite beyond the borders of the definition, it implies
God, the indefinable. So one cannot directly perceive God (perhaps that
is why it was stated in the Bible that no one could see God’s face and
live = exist – “no man shall see me and live…” – Exodus 33: 20), but
only know about God by implication, which means, the implication of the
indefinite – God – is what attributes meaning to any existence.

However, “God” does not equal “indefinite,” but <b>the process that
implies the existence of the indefinite</b> is what could be said to be
God, since that’s the process of Creation. This is the process of
Creation that both creates something, existence, and also nothing, the
indefinite. This is why this logic is a loop.
David Dalton
2015-11-20 03:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I've marked your post as unread so I can read it and maybe
reply on a future night; tonight I have a bit of a cold and
should get to bed early.
--
David Dalton ***@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"One bright blue rose outlives all those/Two thousand years and still
it goes/To ponder his death and his life eternally." (J. MacCarthy)
Mike Duffy
2015-11-20 05:09:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kaydon
Where is God in the loop of Creation? If we wanted to define God, the
totality, we could not define God, because by the act of definition we
would create the beyond, what is beyond God, which contradicts God’s
totality.
Maybe there is no God. Thus there is no contradiction.

If you want to use "God" as a simile for unknown / undefined / unknowable /
etc., that's fine. But if you do that, you cannot start assigning all the
traditional qualities. (omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, etc.)
Kaydon
2015-11-20 18:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Duffy
Post by Kaydon
Where is God in the loop of Creation? If we wanted to define God,
the totality, we could not define God, because by the act of
definition we would create the beyond, what is beyond God, which
contradicts God’s totality.
Maybe there is no God. Thus there is no contradiction.
If you want to use "God" as a simile for unknown / undefined /
unknowable / etc., that's fine. But if you do that, you cannot start
assigning all the traditional qualities. (omnipresence, omniscience,
omnipotence, etc.)
Tru dat :)

--
David Dalton
2015-11-22 03:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kaydon
--
What is the loop of Creation? How is there something from nothing?
In spite of the fact that it is impossible to prove that anything
exists beyond one’s perception since any such proof would involve one’s
perception (I observed it, I heard it, I thought about it, I calculated
it, and etc.), science deals with a so-called objective reality “out
there,” beyond one’s perception professing to describe Nature
objectively (as if there was a Nature or reality external to one’s
perception). The shocking impact of The Matrix was precisely the valid
possibility that what we believed to be reality was but our perception;
however, this was presented through showing a real reality wherein the
perceived reality was a computer simulation. Many who toy with the idea
that perhaps, indeed, we are computer simulations, deviate towards
questions, such as, who could create such software and what kind of
hardware would be needed for such a feat?
In my first waxing gibbous moon trial, during May 1992, I was
logged on a Sun workstation and thought that I was living in
a virtual reality.
Post by Kaydon
So how can there be something from nothing? What is “nothing?” Nothing
is what didn’t turn into the potential of something. If there was
something from nothing, then that nothing would have turned into the
potential of something, because when we ask, how is there something
from nothing, we ask this question from something, when something
already exists. If we take a deeper look at “nothing,” we’ll discover
that “nothing” is a paradox. Any definition is something, so if we
defined “nothing,” then it would become something, which contradicts
its essence of being “nothing.” Another way of looking at “nothing”
would be by means of it being something that is meaningless. That is,
“nothing” could be something that does not relate and that no thing or
no one relates to. That is, if there was something totally alone in the
universe, then that would be nothing, but it would be meaningless. If
such existed, its existence would be external to our perception, and as
such, this “nothing” would be indefinite.
Nothing, zero, and empty set are answers to a question that
there is no answer to that question. "What is there? Nothing."
is equivalent to "Is there anything? No." There is no
such thing as a nothingness, even empty space is a something.
Post by Kaydon
Where is God in the loop of Creation? If we wanted to define God, the
totality, we could not define God, because by the act of definition we
would create the beyond, what is beyond God, which contradicts God’s
totality. Therefore, no definition of God would do justice to God, and
every such definition would truncate God’s wholeness. If God is
indefinable, then God is indefinite. If God is indefinite,
then I create God by the implication of the act of definition – any
definition, because every definition creates the beyond, the indefinite
beyond the borders of the definition. In that sense, this is consistent
with the statement that I create God by my perception (definition).
This does not say that I perceive God, but that my perception implies
the existence of the indefinite (God). This means that if I perceive a
dog, this perception implies the existence of God. If I perceive that I
perceive, then that implies the existence of God. If I perceive dust, a
table, an idea, whatever, then that implies the existence of God. If I
experience, then that implies the existence of God. That’s because any
existence implies the existence of God. And that’s because any
existence is such if it relates or is related to, if it has meaning, if
even partially it has been defined, which means, its mere definition
implies the indefinite beyond the borders of the definition, it implies
God, the indefinable. So one cannot directly perceive God (perhaps that
is why it was stated in the Bible that no one could see God’s face and
live = exist – “no man shall see me and live…” – Exodus 33: 20), but
only know about God by implication, which means, the implication of the
indefinite – God – is what attributes meaning to any existence.
I define God as ALL, or all/everything? And I define
all/everything by: "Is there anything outside all/everything? No."
I don't agree that such a definition immediately implies
something beyond the definition.

But also I think your ideas would get some good feedback
on alt.philosophy.taoism .
--
David Dalton ***@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"The lighthouse lures the old dissenters/Retired pirates, lonely painters
Early morning jubilators/Up to no good instigators" (R.Hynes & D.O.)
Kaydon
2015-11-22 17:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Dalton
But also I think your ideas would get some good feedback
on alt.philosophy.taoism .
Thanks David. I'll have a look.



--
The One
2015-11-22 19:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kaydon
Post by David Dalton
But also I think your ideas would get some good feedback
on alt.philosophy.taoism .
Thanks David. I'll have a look.
--
alt.religion.kibology

If you want to have words that make things ;-)
Bassos
2015-11-22 10:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kaydon
What is the loop of Creation? How is there something from nothing?
There is not actually something.

Nothing is just stretching flexibly ;)

With nothing ya cannot really describe that as 0 (zero) cos that is a thing.

For concept sake we will use that anyway.

nothing ..."magick" .. 'magick' . magick -> 0

now(!) with zero you can describe that in many ways.

0=1-1
0=1-1+1-1+1-1
0= some tendimensional fractal function that (also) presents local
fields of consistency that appear to be stable viewed from within said
fields.

with 0 = ya can pretty much write an entire universe of universes as
long as they are balanced.

And lo and behold: the deeper theory of how magick works.

Reality as a mosaic of infinite peaces, where every peace is reflected
into every other peace. (pIeces, seems so selfabsorbed)

Was a typo, but i prefer the peace/tranquility version better;
The medium *IS* the mAssage!
David Dalton
2015-11-24 05:08:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
And 0 scratched itself to produce epsilon and -epsilon
which then danced to create everything?
--
David Dalton ***@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"The lighthouse lures the old dissenters/Retired pirates, lonely painters
Early morning jubilators/Up to no good instigators" (R.Hynes & D.O.)
Bassos
2016-10-30 11:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bassos
Post by Kaydon
What is the loop of Creation? How is there something from nothing?
There is not actually something.
Nothing is just stretching flexibly ;)
With nothing ya cannot really describe that as 0 (zero) cos that is a thing.
For concept sake we will use that anyway.
nothing ..."magick" .. 'magick' . magick -> 0
now(!) with zero you can describe that in many ways.
0=1-1
0=1-1+1-1+1-1
0= some tendimensional fractal function that (also) presents local
fields of consistency that appear to be stable viewed from within said
fields.
with 0 = ya can pretty much write an entire universe of universes as
long as they are balanced.
And lo and behold: the deeper theory of how magick works.
Reality as a mosaic of infinite peaces, where every peace is reflected
into every other peace. (pIeces, seems so selfabsorbed)
Was a typo, but i prefer the peace/tranquility version better;
The medium *IS* the mAssage!
How can you then do anything without causing a change in the way the
mozaick reflects ?

Short answer:

Every (somewhat) intentional act is a magical act, and thus causes
change in the entire thing.

Longer answer:
Beauty.

Phi.

When the center of the magnifying glass is through you, while you act.

<wayback machine, in my drafts folder>


I think i meant that to combat terror you enhance beauty.

Loading...