Does the universe evaluate itself?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Does the universe evaluate itself?

Its easy for us snipers to make holes in philosophies, but I want to take a second look at VO.

Physical existence can be seen representatively as like a ‘V’ with larger objects at the top and smaller towards the base. Then we have to chop off the very tip of the V, where the smallest particle [probably higgs bosons] denotes the smallest packet energy can be squeezed into, after which it all becomes abstract and particles go into superposition.

The mind and philosophy is the same, the only absolute truths are lies [literally]. Everything else can be drawn down to a given degree of accuracy [e.g. science], which is an assessment or evaluation [a valuing], after which we find conflicts between different fields e.g. relativity and QM, and the whole thing also falls into abstraction.

If we place QM and relativity together in the same pot – so to speak, then the quantum refresh wont be like on TV’s and computer monitors, of then on, instead the whole thing will be kinda ‘fizzing’. I think the mathematics of all that variation are impossible, each and every particle in existence is in a relative position to one another, then equally moving constantly in and out of manifest existence. On top of that many causal instances are not connected universally with all others at the macroscopic and atomic scales, so their values don’t correlate universally.

This leads us to the idea that the universe is not doing ‘it’ by maths, so by what? Is a valuing occurring, where nature has to evaluate what is needed to manifest the world, and not in a massively different way to how our minds manifest our worlds [our ‘game-world’]?

We could say that the universe merely uses the potentiality from the previous manifest mathematical set/s of information, and I am sure it derivatively does do that. Yet without an exact set there would be massive informational entropy. Then after a point ~ in the first instances of the end and beginning of universes, and of the first and last instances of particles going in and out of superposition, there are no values et al and no information. But we have that whole mix, and so I am wondering how nature can deal with ultimate informational entropy [the egg], without making evaluations, and hence manifest the world by that first and then the maths info and laws come into the picture [the chicken].

_

2

The relationship of man with cosmos is not a positive one.
The words positive/negative are human ones referring to human needs. The cosmos is niehter positive nor negative.
In that sense I will be using the words positive/negative.

Whoever sells the idea of the world’s preexisting positivity is hiding a motive, using psychology to exploit this negative relationship, offering comfort and delusion as a salve.
Man, as life, as organism, is in a state of antagonism with cosmos.
He, is ordering, in a world if fluctuating (inter)activity, producing fragmentation and chaos (Flux).

This is the “agon” Heraclitus spoke of
Life as warfare.
The agon is measurable with time/space.
The organism’s metabolic rates corresponding to its constant adjustment to this flux.

Schopenhauer realized this, as did the eastern spiritual teachings, and proposed a “waiting it out”.
Decreasing your “temporal/spatial signature” to reduce the need/suffering, and then prepare for death, as salvation.
Nietzsche did not add anything to the original judgment but only offered a different, more heroic,(re)action.
To live as if you were to live forever.
This is his “overman” metaphor: the future man coming to term with his own temporality, his own nature as spatial/temporal organism.
The man who has overcome the natural resentment of a consciousness awakening to its condition - becoming, increasingly, self-concious (know thyself).
This awakening produces the contradiction of a mind realizing that what it fears, and despises, is what makes it possible.
Within this we can find Modern definitions of words, beginning with the word “nihilism”.

Starting form this disheartening, for most, awareness we can proceed towards formulating methods of coping, or living.

The awareness of the fact that the world is negatively inclined towards life, towards man’s needs/desires, would be traumatic for the common mind, particularly when it has been softened up, and infected, over centuries by a system using this resentment to fuel civilization.
It’s a hard pill to swallow, when you realize you do not “deserve” anything, and the sexual reproduction leaves most rejected, and that all this need/suffering leads to death, and nothing beyond.
Something hard to take for weaklings and cowards.

But is this the end?
No.
This is the grounding.
Accepting this is the start.
The next step is realizing that not all can come to terms with it, and should be allowed to live in their delusions, but this means they are not fit for philosophy, or leading mankind.
The third step is evaluating human ideals, by how realistic they are, and how they accept and follow from what is past/nature, and do not attempt to escape and contradict this past/nature using words (symbols).
Debate is only useful among minds that are aware of the human condition, have come to terms with it, and can propose goals within the real.
Offering seductive ways to evade, to dismiss, to ignore, is what charlatans do to make their short-existence more pleasurable, by exploiting weakness and cowardice.
There is no moral law, I follow, against this practice, but when discussing philosophy, we begin with integrity, honesty, before we proceed to the application.

Socrates realization that some “truths” uoght not to be shared with the citizenry (common man), implies the Platonic State and Philosopher kings.
Plato spoke of the inevitability that most of these potential “philosopher kings” being corrupted by society, hedonism, diverting their thinking towards politics and social status.
He warned against those who sought power, and described this “ideal” leader as one thrust into power, not wanting it, rejecting it, accepting it as only a duty, a heavy burden.
Politics is part of philosophy, as is psychology, it is not Philosophy proper - these are branches, extension of the main body which deals with the real, honesty, clearly, with no desire to mask, to hide, to cover, to benefit, to placate fears, to comfort feebleness.
The sciences, which politics is open of and psychology is attempting to raise itself to its standard, is an extension of philosophy.

Philosophy is not concerned with being popular, practical, useful.
This comes after an exploration of world is made, with no other motive than to see world as it is.
The goal is not the starting point.
It is, or may not be, a possible sign post, used for orientation, not as a final destination.
When philosophy is used as a political tool, or a psychological blanket, it looses its direction, and is engulfed within the human condition it sprung from.
It becomes trapped in itself, and its own symbols, metaphors, words.
It begins feeding on itself.

3

At least not on this thread. :wink:

4

Mathematics is a language-system of rules of quantitative associations, breaking things down into little bits that can be treated equally within certain confines of the system; valuing is a language-system of what remains outside of the mathematical, what is non-quantifiable. Anything that for whatever reason refuses to bd submitted to a larger system of rules by which it becomes just another little bit in a massive digital game, is what we could call a quality.

Valuing is rooted in qualities, but also operates within quantity systems and in terms of quantity rules, therefore perfect valuing would only be theoretical and could never exist in this digital universe.

But valuing is the intermediary between pure quantity (think quanta in QM) and pure quality (think Plato’s Ideas), an intermediary that we call by another name: life, or consciousness, or the self.

Three different angles upon the same thing; life, consciousness and self each need to be phenomenologically and existentially exploded conceptually and rendered to a truthful deconstruction toward the highest principles, toward the universal, after which we begin to get a more clear picture of what we mean when we say things like “mathematics” or “valuing”.

Almost no one is doing the real work of philosophy right now. Certainly you aren’t going to read about it here or out in the common literature on the bookshelves in the philosophy or science sections. So the aim to reconcile values and mathematics-physics is fine, but the ground for that task is lacking utterly.

Ask me if you’re interested in the real work, I’ll be able to point you in the right direction.

5

Yes, mathematics and geometry and words as symbols referring to mental models (abstractions) or noumena, and these noumena are referring to phenomena, if they have intellectual integrity, the right constitution, courage, honesty… and wish to engage world and not to evade it, or flatter and aggrandize self.

There is no one or nil outside human brains.
These are metaphors, approximations, symbols.

Self, the organism values in relation to its ideals and its motives its needs.
The word is meaningless if used before or in any other context that contradicts the experienced.

Quantity of reference points between the noumenon and phenomenon is what is called quality.
Nouemna with few or no connections to phenomena are delusions, toys, methods of escaping not engaging reality.
Popularity, politics are not good standards to evaluate the real.

We do not measure reality by how good or bad it makes us feel, unless we wish to revert back to an animal state and use hedonism as our subjective standard.
Cosmos does not give a shit about our feelings, our well-being, our hopes.
Whoever insinuates otherwise is a charlatan, and a hypocrite…effective only with minds weak, needy, afraid.

6

peitho

Not really, positive and negative are absolutely everywhere in the universe, every particle and arrangements of them derive their state and behaviours [=info] from polarity.

Organisms are the result of that constitution, where genes are blocks of chemical compounds which ‘stick’ together with respect to their constitution.

The eastern religions realised that the world was dualistic [polarised], so the more you remove duality the less you suffer. It is a misperception that one can become enlightened, and removed from the worlds duality, a flight of fancy for the individual which thinks it can outdo the world. Nietzsche’s heroic vision is no more than a furthering of that delusion, and an idiotic one at that. …that is if we consider the escape from duality to be an illusion [at least Buddha etc were humble], then seeing the world as a heroic battle [aka alien, Prometheus etc] the individual can win is absurd. I would put on my robotic exoskeleton many times stronger than the alien, place my hands one on top of the other around its neck and rip its fucking stupid head of. Then what becomes of strength? You end up with any given two or more individuals with the same ultimate robotic suit [when limits are arrived at], big muscles don’t mean anything, and the battle becomes strategic [= epic fail of masculinity to the feminine].

Wyld
My original argument [on other threads] also pointed out those differences between valuing and value [mathematical].

The universe is not digital nor binary, it employs many patterns of maths the most fundamental of which is 3 ~ positive/neutral/negative.

Agreed, valuing observes qualities which are the result of arranged quantities [= information]. The idea in the op is that the universe has to do the same thing as our minds do [valuing] because the maths are not all encompassing nor absolute or complete [for the reasons I gave].

The two things value/valuing are not exact, so imho there can be no perfect union of the two. Its a very difficult thing, because in us we can see the observer makes rounded off perceptions concerning the world, however with the universe it is not doing that. there is as yet no such ‘real work’ imho.

If we can learn how the universe does it, maybe we will learn something about ourselves, but nothing out there achieves that as yet. This and questions concerning our fundamental nature are still areas philosophy has yet to resolve. Science thinks it has resolved it all down to the physics, so then we ask it where the colour etc is in our brains and they can’t answer [e.g. if you put a camera in the brain it wont see what you are seeing]. Or we can ask; how do these physical things in us mean >US< ~ what we are, and still no answers.

_

7

Polarity is relative to the observer.
There is no direction in cosmos.
Dimensions indicate possibility.
Expanding space is expanding possibility, with matter/energy being pockets of probability - ordering within the disordering.

There are relationships, patterns relating.

Increasing chaos is negative, for an ordering organism.
Order is positive.
There are relative to life - life being ordering (becoming).

Magnetic polarity indicates direction of flow.
Attracting/Repulsion produced by a disparity in energies.
The positive flowing towards the negative, as the cosmos flows towards increasing entropy/chaos, measured by what we call time - the disparity between one abstraction (flow of consciousness, mirroring the flow of cosmos, and resisting it) and the next (change).
We experience this as need/suffering, and call it negative.
We call an increase in order beautiful, or pleasing, or power.

Negative/positive are human constructs, based on human metabolic processes, resulting in our method of conceptualizing - on/off, good/bad, attractive/repulsive.
The symbols are part of our primal dualism, our binary logic - neurological.
Like all symbols they can be used to apply to all reality, in different contexts…like 1/0.
We also use it to represent sexual attraction/repulsion, emotional, libidinal.

A pattern can harmonize with another pattern, in relation to other patterns and non-patterned (random,/chaos) (inter)actions, producing what we call a unity, a particle, an element.
The congruity is not intentional, no more than a water flowing down a mountain side is intentionally preserving the relationship of water and earth.
Each pattern (inter)acts with other patterns in the only way it can.
There is no motive, if there is no life.
Some patterns harmonize, and in time after friction has reduced their repulsion, they settle into stable relationships, over long periods of space/time.

Each pattern attracts and repulses other patterns to a degree.
Environment, or the sum of patterns and non-patterns dynamic flows, not part of the relationship, contributes to its stability or instability adding pressure, repulsing, or pulling them apart, attracting, which may add to the friction, and in time producing harmony.
More than one pattern, flowing in conjunction, is a congruity…a unity.

Imagine a river flowing down a mountain slope, adding to its volume oil, or resin, or twigs, leaves etc.
In relation to the earth they are in congruity, and yet they repulse each other, producing the dynamism of (inter)activity we call existence.
Water (inter)acts with earth, rotating around a star, rotating around a galactic mass, relating to other galaxies…and so on.
Water is not motivated to remain in a relationship with earth.
It does not intend to be a river.
The direction of the river’s flow is dependent on the observer.
For one, on the ground, it is east to west, or west to east, from above it is bottom up or up towards bottom.
Toward the north and or the south pole.

The poles are the product of the earth’s and the sum of its patterned congruity, spinning.
Depending on your point of view it is spinning right to left, or up towards down.

Spin is the product of the mass of patterns in congruity reaching an apex where they begin iterating…pulling some of the patterns it is losing, due to friction, back into itself.
This is how life begins.
This is proto-feeding.

Spin is a product of instability as each pattern pushing and pulling produced regional disparity in energies, and this from order towards disorder begins moving it towards weakness, towards chaos.
Earth rotates towards its weaker side, relating to how the sun affects with its own iteration.