Where will self-organization lead?
And, is it possible to self-organize an overarching goodness.
Has anyone ever experienced a state of bliss?
What does that state require?
We go out into traffic and with increased population pressures we experience stresses and road rages that break any semblance of a blissful state of mind we may be able to establish.
How do we easily establish that blissful state?
Some of us believe we must discipline ourselves in meditation.
Others can look at the white noise of a blue sky full of clouds to attain the awe-inspired state.
We are told by many religions that we are born in sin. And there is something to being born as creatures full of judgment. As relationships develop out of the source singularity of our universe, there are at least two perspectives, two viewpoints, over the boundaries over which things relate. When perspectives are created, first by space and time, they begin to judge, perhaps not by conscious decision, but eventually evolving into virtual worlds of different languages (For example: one determines the structure of an atom; one tells atoms how to relate; the next may tell molecules how to relate; and so on).
It was this human virtual judging world that J. Krishnamurti pointed out to those who came to him for solace. K did not think that the world of science, that his friend, the physicist David Bohm represented, was part of that previous judgmental state. I believe it is.
As soon as boundaries, even weak ones are created, then comes different (sometimes complementary) perspectives. Different perspectives create the state of mind on which judgment and self-organization can be based.
This is a great problem for me and those who would like to see some sort of goodness or bliss develop in our sentient population. If we start out with something so nonjudgmental like the bliss experienced in white noise inspiration (maybe the sound of one hand clapping, that Zen Buddhists use to attain such a state), then any view (generalization/judgment) superimposed on that, must necessarily lead to something bad (more constraints), rather than something good (fewer constraints).
The problem I see is that I started using my experiment with a very low energy, self-organizing system (an oscillating, unstable, expanding droplet) thinking it would lead me to understand where this self-organization leads and how it may shed light on the birth and death of other systems, like the virtual reality projected to us by our human brains. But if these ideas of self-organization lead, through judgment and constraint, to something bad, that ain’t good. It’s not good simply for our logic to convince us that our goal is a good one, one that produces a blissful state. A blissful state must reduce constraint (the central requirement of self-organization of both form and function) in our universe.
So, how can all this confusing self-organization in our world lead to bliss, or, at least, a simple, nonjudgmental state?
As we collect more information about the world, as we grow older, we see that we gain knowledge. As we do, then the pathways to understanding (in our virtual world of what we believe) become intuitive. With educated intuition and strong pathways of understanding, constraints driven by isolated perspectives seem to be removed. (We were prejudiced against another person, but since we read their autobiography, we are not.)
So, removing constraints in the virtual world, given a robust-enough language, may result in a strong understanding and a forceful removal of constraint and the need to judge.
In this way, self-organization can lead to an ultimate state of the experience of bliss (at least in our virtual world).
Something else I need to say: I believe because we can only use our robust language of virtual meaning to self-organize, that does not mean we are isolated as a species on this planet or in the physical universe. I believe all nervous tissue, no matter how formed or organized, eventually experiences the same agreed-upon virtual world. Look at the different languages among peoples of different countries. They do not all speak the same languages but they experience a resultant emotional reality (and that goes for other sentient creatures on Earth).
I separate other sentient life forms on Earth from the way we think in that we have a robust enough virtual language that we might arrive at a goal of bliss, that does not require that we travel (or work hard) in order just to arrive there. Some animals less prone to generalization might, on their own, develop this nonjudgmental state, maybe even earlier than we do. More judgmental humans, if they work at it, might have the best chance to self-organize their virtual experiences along a simple and strong pathway of understanding and bliss.
So, given this belief, and using the logic of the Drake Equation, we might now understand why most of us have never experienced outer-space aliens. If outer-space aliens were an objective scientific fact, we would all have a route to seeing them. But just as stars far, far away in space only return a small number of observations points in time, so evidence of other civilizations remains improbable (low probability of repetition) in a statistically virtual world.
Why do I call the virtual world statistical? Because our virtual world is made up of all our thoughts and fantasies. So, if such a fantasy does not come to fruition often, then it either doesn’t exist, or, and it’s a big or, it does exist in our virtual emotional reality, just not here for everyone, and just not now for everyone. There are lots of real objective scientific physical phenomena that can be sampled, not in the here and now, but in the there and then. For example black holes, and galaxies, and stars, and planets. They are not here, now. They are light years away, but we create a virtual image of them in order to understand our sampling of them. That means, anything that is not here or now when we sample, is statistical. But even something, some idea, so fantastic as to not exist at 100% when sampled (in a scientific way), or even 1%, or even an infinitely small percentage, an error percentage, can exist, as long as we think it. That’s because a thought exists somewhere in our virtual world, and so, it does, somehow, exist in the universe. It may be hard or nearly impossible to find, because its signal is so small, but it can exist.
So, let’s get back to that blissful state we hope will greet us in life and as our boundaries, both virtual and real, break down toward death. That’s not just an idea. Most of us have experienced such a state. So this goodness, this bliss, does not just exist like some low probability event, but it exists like something, some state, that might possibly come about in our population at large.
Not today, you might think. Why does God put us in this natural-selection world just to learn all kinds of wonderful things then to suffer and die, maybe losing it all? I am beginning to believe that Bliss is not just here and now, but there and then, at our virtual expanding boundary of the future. (Most of reality is virtual. It just depends who is viewing and who is relating across boundaries.)
Let Bliss be, maybe not the first, but the last boundary. Taoists said that by letting go it all gets done. The Bible suggests to its adherents to: Let go. Let God. This suggests to me what the intuitive pathways of our virtual worlds of understanding do, smooth edges created by a generalized or judgmental perspective, that once-allowed self-organization.
The final self-organization of our expanding, unstable, droplet is a state in which there is no more boundary change. Might self-organization allow us to eventually capture this state of bliss? I do not believe so. This is a final, unchanging state worse than one with no boundaries, because it damps down error changes that might create new boundaries and transmit information and action. The only hope here is to explore the existence of error. If statistical error is a part of our physical universe, then change boundaries can always exist (maybe even one of bliss).
Can one person choosing to experience bliss in their lifetime create a climate in the population for such an experience? Maybe not directly, but let’s consider the Ten Commandments, a compilation of thou-shalt-not constraints. Do we need to analytically get into every detail of thou shalt and thou shalt not? From my experience, I don’t think so. When an individual is in the right place, perhaps this intuitive state of mind, of bliss, then only right action can follow (The First Commandment, Thou shalt have no other gods before me, might refer to God’s functioning (our innocent universe coming alive in intuition)). This might be K’s state of freedom, a state without thou-shalt-nots of some authority figure, but a state of experience from within that effortlessly guides us to proper action (action which reinforces the blissful state within us and others).
I’ve been having a lengthy conversation about Einstein’s belief in “Time” as a dimension. I don’t believe it is. I see time, and even bliss, as a purely human construct to organize unfolding events, give them a fixed observable place in our virtual reality. But the idea of it as a fourth dimension, you’re the scientist, but it seems to me it was created simply to make sense of their observations.
I appreciate your view on time.
There is absolute time, probably an outgrowth of one of the early universal relationships. The expanding droplet in my experiment experienced and remembered the passage of time through its own natural sampling frequency. For all systems/relationships across all boundaries, I believe this is true.
Thank you for your insights.
But is time an actual dimension, with properties as the three spatial dimensions we all recognize? I see it as more of a virtual human reality than an actual one. Time is like a woman’s closet, no matter how large the closet, given enough opportunity the lady will fill the closet. Space and time is much the same. You might call it the Closet Theory of Creation.