As promised, I’m going to explain my philosophical/cosmological theory that relates to the probability of an individual’s thoughts and actions.
My philosophy is relational. It grew out of my thought processes about my journal-published research involving a self-organizing expanding system, not unlike the expanding boundary of our universe. Much of the changes of a boundary’s shape/potential, due to energy/information crossing it, can be characterized using the full General Energy Equation and statistical mechanics.
My scientific philosophy was influenced by Krishnamurti and his ideas about how our need to speculate corrupts our ability to sample what’s out there. We collapse Gary Zukav’s cosmic wave when we generalize about anything in arriving at our conception of our WHAT IS.
I will attempt to show that due to the Uncertainty of perspective, the WHAT IS (WI), what we sample and subsequently label, has only a statistical existence.
Unfortunately, one step in fleshing out our world, manifesting it, is speculating/generalizing about incoming information we might sample that underlies everything. The nebulous cloud from which we sample, I call the WIBWI (the WHAT IS BEHIND WHAT IS (which David Bohm calls the INPLICATE ORDER). It educates THE INCOMING potential that is there for our minds/brains to sample.
Though by virtue of my education and experience, I have a good grasp on many scientific topics, I’m not an expert on important pursuits of the scientific data concerning consciousness. The understanding of consciousness is coalescing from fields such as neurology, quantum information theory, the evolutionary biology of succession and many more perspectives.
I’m thinking here about the results of the processes that interact across the interface of the brain to provide probable sets of information that affect first the thinking and then the actions of individuals and societies.
Nothing can occur without sampling. When a boundary/brain/mind samples, it changes itself and its potential for thought and action. By changing itself, it changes the potential for action of the body/brain, but also, it changes its virtual environment and the statistical distribution of potential relationships, which I call THE INCOMING.
An example of a simple boundary across which a sample is taken might be: A human puts their index finger into a ball of soft clay. The human can now experience a new way of sampling. Once the finger penetrates the clay, then there is potential for an incoming relationship between the nerve ending in the surface tissue of the entire finger and the clay.
An example of a more complex boundary is the human mind, while sampling an object, such as a gun. Before the gun was first invented, no one could gain the capacity to kill anyone with a gun. But once the idea of the gun is introduced to a person, the incoming relationship potential is changed. It limits the way the virtual brain boundary is formed, and how it interacts with the world (it limits our way of sampling the incoming potential).
By this relational philosophy, certain technical accomplishments limit, or focus, or change, the mind/body’s potential for action. The existence of weapons and computers has changed the incoming potential (that David Bohm calls the Implicit Order, or what I call the WIBWI). What we invent for ourselves and our society changes the number and shape of successive pathways available to our sampling. While it focuses our sampling, it also puts much of the nebulous, yet multifaceted WIBWI out of reach (Limits the number of perspectives we can take on any specified topic).
But there are other ways incoming thoughts and ideas might be formed, even without mechanisms of invention or knowledge. Some pathways may grow out of self-organization.
Think of a nebulous cloud of WIBWI that underlies what we think of as WHAT IS (the meaning each of us gives to what we’ve sampled). I’m suggesting a process of organization by which a complex system, like a human being, samples and gives meaning to their world. The meaning may exist as the configuration of cellular tissue, changing as the brain/mind boundary changes with sampling and then progressively changes with a generalization about that sample.
By sampling, the body/brain boundary changes the potential of what it can sample, and what meanings it can attribute to that sample. In turn, action taken from its world of meaning changes the complex boundary of the brain/mind itself. The change of the boundary changes the potential pathways (mutual perspectives) that can be accessed through sampling the WIBWI.
Many computer models use this back and forth interaction or relationship across boundaries to predict how information changes boundaries, actions of systems, and the world in which they exist. This process is sometimes called recursion, a method for updating a boundary as a system and further updating its environment in the process of sampling. Incoming information from potential relationships with the WIBWI educates potential statistical pathways. (In computational fluid dynamics, boundaries are modeled using volumetric elements to express successive or recursive energy changes).
How might the INCOMING exist?
To reiterate, if we asked the question, “What came before the theorized Big Bang Singularity?” how might I guess at the answer from my relational perspective? Based in my experiment which involves a singularity of a sort (a source of radial flow from an approximate point) nothing can exist before an expanding boundary is formed. A boundary means there is some change emanating from the source. So, no, nothing can exist before the singularity, because until its inception, it cannot change.
And if we were to look at the singularity as all potential permutations of our universe wrapped in implicit form, nothing would exist before the singularity, because there is nothing explicit within the WIBWI from which to form a discrete boundary. The interpretive expansion of our universe only occurs as we (or other systems) sample the potential (the WIBWI) from a specific perspective and change or explain it—make it explicit.
If we were to ask “How did matter in our sun’s accretion disc look as it distributed itself, before it formed into planets,” we could use a rule of thumb. That is, the asteroids and rocks are distributed statistically by size. If we were to sample the accretion disc along its orbit, we would find that there are more smaller particles/rocks than larger ones. Let’s look at this statistical distribution of rock sizes orbiting our young star, by using the “distribution idea” of statistical sampling (popular in weather forecasting). We will now use this method of understanding statistical outcomes rather than “the idea of chance,” that is more difficult to imagine.
[It’s easier to think of rainclouds being distributed over 50% of the sky during a specified period of sampling, than to understand what a “chance of rain” means.]
When we sample from the early accretion disc of the sun, sometimes we get small particles and sometimes larger one. It’s easy to imagine the distribution of a few larger asteroids in an accretion disc, using the weather analog of distribution. (There may be many smaller clouds in the sky, but only a few that are energy rich enough to produce thunderstorms. The distribution interpretation of statistics says that if we grab a sample within a certain time duration (a day, for example) and a certain space distribution (subtended by our horizon) the rain-producing clouds do exist, but just not here or now where we’re standing.)
So how does this idea of size (how it’s easier to sample smaller things) relate to the sampling of the available incoming potential and how consciousness is statistically structured?
As samples are interpreted and given meaning, we, perhaps as an expanding boundary relationships, become limited in what we can receive. Like a puzzle, the disjointed pieces are much easier to move and join at first, but as the puzzle (or poem or story) progresses, the pieces become interrelated to one another and unavailable to be sampled individually. (The same thing happens to crystal formation, like frost crystals, as they bifurcate, they limit other forms of arrangement).
I call the puzzle pieces of the potential incoming relationships, and their resultant sampling pathways—snippets. I’m proposing that the simplest and smallest snippets are of the shortest duration because they are the least complex, and possess fewer potential relationships. I propose these least complex snippets, are incoming potential relationships or available pathways that form on expanding boundaries within the brain/body/mind/universe.
Like thunderous rain clouds of greater distribution, duration, and energy, there are more complex snippets available to be sampled. But as we acknowledged before, in our statistical sample, larger clusters of things are more rare than smaller clusters.
[Let me stop here before we discuss how I think this idea of some form of potential incoming relationship can organize with others to form larger, more complex relationship potentials or pathways through self-organization, and how they might lead to a conscious awareness. (With this assumption, the relationship boundaries within the universe that are assumed to expand (with a velocity of maybe three times the speed of light) may look as if they are expanding, only to invaginate within the expanding sphere of the universe (with a midrange slope that thereby reduces the fractal dimension of the entire universal system.]
[My next posting will take us through a parent/child programming using the proposed incoming snippets as examples of self-organization in the forming of the potential pathways for incoming samples and how a human child’s universe (starting with the WIBWI) changes, expands, and is limited by successive recursive relationships.]