AN INVITATION TO A CHALLENGE: Reconciling Physics, Mathematics, The Occult, and Epistemology, throug

reply to post by stephinrazin


Interesting way to look at it, appreciate the response :-)

Ah, after poking at it... silence :-)

The hidden remains hidden :-)

easy!

They are all human conceptualizations of things that in their continuous totality, are beyond our comprehension.

I know, i know, not quite what you were looking for. The problem is, the different fields are not on an even playing surface. I think i saw a few book links earlier from people who have done it, to an extent.

Though, for anyone wanting to do it themselves, mathematics would be a good base as it crosses both language and idealogical barriers In the end though, no matter what representatives we place for our convenience, it is what it is, and that is happening continuously with us as a part of it. pretty amazing really..

i am sure some people dont like to spread around their "work" though, for various reasons I wouldnt necessarily think ATS is the best place for it either. But who knows, i am not them!

Fun thread, either way.

reply to post by laymanskeptic

The hidden's not so hidden. Probably the best question a person could ask is, "Hierarchically out of all these diverse fields what single object has the greatest number of dependencies?" Answering this gives a starting point to understand what likely binds the subjects together. Best of luck with your search.

Well, I'm not sure what I can contribute, but I am strongly in favor of this thread.

I am familiar with all of the areas you name, but among them my only specialty is computer science.

I'd be happy to attempt to answer questions or throw around speculations, but when it's open-ended like this I'm afraid I don't have much to say.

I too am of the intuition that they are all linked together, and I have reason to suspect the answer starts to become more clear (but never totally clear, just approaching "clearness" asymptotically, if you will) as one goes higher into esotericism. However, I am not at this point, nor even at the first milestone of any such path.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by laymanskeptic

 

The hidden's not so hidden.

Probably the best question a person could ask is, "Hierarchically out of all these diverse fields what single object has the greatest number of dependencies?" Answering this gives a starting point to understand what likely binds the subjects together. Best of luck with your search.

Suppose it's math, since math is the language of physics and computational science, and all the sciences. Furthermore, suppose given enough effort, even the Kabbalah can be described in mathematical language (I can see how this can be done).

Is math the root and the starting point? Or is it just a descriptive tool, describing the rules of thought?

What will you make of it, when you find equivalent mathematical structures within these diverse fields?
Is it math itself that binds the subjects, or the specific mathematical structure in question?

Is it possible that we are mistaking the tool of description for that which is described?
Are we mistaking the map for the terrain?

Is it possible to get to the point where the map and the terrain become indistinguishable from each other, and say that they are one and the same?

What then is the nature of the relationship between reality and reality theory?

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
Well, I'm not sure what I can contribute, but I am strongly in favor of this thread.

I am familiar with all of the areas you name, but among them my only specialty is computer science.

I'd be happy to attempt to answer questions or throw around speculations, but when it's open-ended like this I'm afraid I don't have much to say.

I too am of the intuition that they are all linked together, and I have reason to suspect the answer starts to become more clear (but never totally clear, just approaching "clearness" asymptotically, if you will) as one goes higher into esotericism. However, I am not at this point, nor even at the first milestone of any such path.

edit on 9-2-2011 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)

I'm delighted there is interest at all

Let's see where the thread goes, and see when you can jump in to help

To start, I would like to ask you this question: what do you think would it take, to create not just artificial intelligence, but artificial consciousness? Is there a certain level of existing computational architecture today, that can serve as an adequate substrate for artificial consciousness to "reside" in?

Artificial consciousness meaning, something that will have an authentic internal qualitative experience? Like internal private sensations? And meaning? Is it possible for these things to exist already in the computational world without us noticing or realizing it?

If this (artificial consciousness) is mathematically describable, what kind of mathematical structure would this be? Can this mathematical structure be physically implemented?

i have developed my own system of correspondences. an image of my system is below.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/34f91f0cb6198dd5.gif[/atsimg]


i have satisfied myself that the above image, if understood as a nested-series of cycles continuing upwards and downwards for forever, is sufficient to be isomorphically mapped to every possible frame of reality that is conceivable. any scientific discipline, social or personal development, or mythology can be understood by it. the image is a summary of years and years of personal study and pondering and inspiration into the question in the OP.

but the level of patience required to communicate the correspondences is, i have found, beyond the capacity of internet discussion.

nevertheless, this is the yardstick by which i personally measure all other systems of knowledge. as such, i feel certain that anyone else's similar models will correspond with what i have given.


not that i think i am anything special. to the contrary, i think that everyone should be striving for this goal.




P.S. a brief discussion of this diagram is HERE.

Let me contribute to the discussion with the caveat I haven't mastered importing url's with my new smartphone; sorry. From my Internet travels nothing has fascinated more than discovering the Mandelbrot Set. Excuse my meager attempt to wrap my head around it but basically it is a pattern that repeats itself into infinity, most noticeably as one drills deeper into it. If you go to youtube and punch it in you'll see what I mean.

A visual aid may be to take 2 mirrors arms length 1 to the left, 1 to the right at approximately heads height. Face them toiwards each other so you can see your reflection in them. If you can position them just right you can see your reflection that seems to go on forever.

Along the same thought there is a golden mean/number that expands throughout nature. That number is 1.619, Fibonocci if I'm not mistaken. Measure the tip of your fingernail to that fingers first joint. Take that length times 1.619 and you arrive at the next joint on your finger; and on down the line.

That's my 0.02

Originally posted by Luxnor
Let me contribute to the discussion with the caveat I haven't mastered importing url's with my new smartphone; sorry. From my Internet travels nothing has fascinated more than discovering the Mandelbrot Set. Excuse my meager attempt to wrap my head around it but basically it is a pattern that repeats itself into infinity, most noticeably as one drills deeper into it. If you go to youtube and punch it in you'll see what I mean.

A visual aid may be to take 2 mirrors arms length 1 to the left, 1 to the right at approximately heads height. Face them toiwards each other so you can see your reflection in them. If you can position them just right you can see your reflection that seems to go on forever.

Along the same thought there is a golden mean/number that expands throughout nature. That number is 1.619, Fibonocci if I'm not mistaken. Measure the tip of your fingernail to that fingers first joint. Take that length times 1.619 and you arrive at the next joint on your finger; and on down the line.

That's my 0.02

Recursion, the repetition of simple rules creating complex structures that exhibit self-similarity.

What you mentioned is fascinating. As you can see some kind of equivalence as regards "logic-loops", which is present in all the fields mentioned in the OP.

I think the nature of perception (mind) is that it is self-similar to the universe that contains it. And that it itself contains a representation (model / theory) of the universe. You can imagine this ad-infinitum - universe containing mind containing universe containing mind... And there is where you have equivalence to self-similar structures like your Mandelbrot Set.

Additionally: Which contains which? Do they mutually contain themselves? Is that a logical paradox? Can we even avoid that paradox at all? Is it impossible to have existence without this paradox?

Originally posted by tgidkp

i have satisfied myself that the above image, if understood as a nested-series of cycles continuing upwards and downwards for forever, is sufficient to be isomorphically mapped to every possible frame of reality that is conceivable. any scientific discipline, social or personal development, or mythology can be understood by it. the image is a summary of years and years of personal study and pondering and inspiration into the question in the OP.

...

nevertheless, this is the yardstick by which i personally measure all other systems of knowledge. as such, i feel certain that anyone else's similar models will correspond with what i have given.


not that i think i am anything special. to the contrary, i think that everyone should be striving for this goal.

I also believe that everyone should strive for this.

I shall look into your model

Originally posted by Luxnor
Along the same thought there is a golden mean/number that expands throughout nature. That number is 1.619, Fibonocci if I'm not mistaken.

That's my 0.02

By the way, that number, 1.618..., can be approximated as a ratio of 2 consecutive numbers in a sequence resulting from a similar recursive process (simple addition). As this recursion is applied many times into infinity, the ratio of the last 2 numbers in the sequence approach this golden mean number.

Originally posted by sinohptik
In the end though, no matter what representatives we place for our convenience, it is what it is, and that is happening continuously with us as a part of it. pretty amazing really..

Amazing indeed

Originally posted by laymanskeptic

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by laymanskeptic

 

The hidden's not so hidden. Probably the best question a person could ask is, "Hierarchically out of all these diverse fields what single object has the greatest number of dependencies?" Answering this gives a starting point to understand what likely binds the subjects together. Best of luck with your search.

Suppose it's math, since math is the language of physics and computational science, and all the sciences.

Pretty good assumption. This is the argument behind Tegmark's ( discovermagazine.com... ) Mathematical Universe Hypothesis ( arxiv.org... ).

Is math the root and the starting point? Or is it just a descriptive tool, describing the rules of thought?

Take for instance a somewhat recent insight in to the nature of primes. Freeman Dyson and number theorist Hugh Montgomery discovered that if you "compare a strip of zeros from Riemann’s critical line to the experimentally recorded energy levels in the nucleus of a large atom like erbium, the 68th atom in the periodic table of elements, the two are uncannily similar. " ( seedmagazine.com... ). To further make the point consider the insane recurrence of π in many cosmological and physical principles, Euler's e, and the Golden Ratio in nature.

I'm inclined to say numbers represent "functiontionally executable language" of the universe.

What will you make of it, when you find equivalent mathematical structures within these diverse fields?

If it's true it suggests that information precedes manifestation. This corresponds with platonic thinking which argues "we don't invent mathematical truths, we discover them." A good example of this being "Plato's allegory of the cave" ( www.historyguide.org... ). If we accept this as truth then we're simply observing a shadow of reality.

This would also neatly explain why people looking in to esoteric areas of research who have more of a left-brained approach tend to lean towards the gnostic pythagorean interpretation of kabbalah ( www.digital-brilliance.com... ).

Furthermore, suppose given enough effort, even the Kabbalah can be described in mathematical language (I can see how this can be done). ...

Based on my personal philosophy (Cf. links in sig.) when it occurred to me 'scarcity,' represented by mathematical finitude, could accurately encapsulate difficult concepts like morality and even God-hood that's when I realized 'scarcity' was possibly tantamount to all mathematical structures themselves. This is actually a truism when you think about it because physical reality is, if nothing else, limited. Due to this, math, at least as far as how we know how to use it, deals with discrete objects. This is why 0 and ∞ are so hard to grasp. They don't behave like normal finite quantities. Georg Cantor was rather forward thinking to rationalize that ∞ is non-discrete and due to this has many properties and sub-types [e.g. countable ∞ vs uncountable ∞ ( www.sciencenews.org... )].

This thinking leads to a slippery slope however because if we follow it through to its end it suggests an inverse reality exists centered on infinity. Making us have to seriously consider God-hood as being something that's already happened. In an attempt to try to determine if such a thing was possible I rationalized: (1) if things come from nothingness, but all things can be overcome then a God is an inevitability. So (2) if we can see this process as being something that's knowable, then (3) we have to ask ourselves, "Has that already happened?" (4) To answer (3) we then look at the knowable components, (2), and contrast them against older holy texts to see if there are any similarities. If there are it then suggests the answer is, yes, God as a developed sentience already exists.

Amazingly it appears there's actual real-world empirical evidence to suggest it has already happened (see the Q+A on pp.9-12). Of all the structures looked at Kabbalah is by far the most similar (both geometrically and metaphysically) to the S.H. concept.

Is it math itself that binds the subjects, or the specific mathematical structure in question?

There's an expression I like to use, "The abstract becomes concrete and the material becomes symbolic." A reciprocal relationship exists where these two structures bridge in to one another, but are also simultaneously reflections of each other. Some people would refer to this as being fractal [i.e. a "rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole" ( books.google.com... ) ]. However what I dislike about this is it assumes there must be an algorithm to describe "fractalness" rather than being extant in a constant with the pattern emergent in it too. Begging the question though, "How do you quantize a constant?" The best I can imagine is that it would require some form of redefinition.

So, for example, most cosmologists strongly argue in favor of the idea of reality starting at a zero-point as a conformally flat manifold. If reality stems from zero then it requires we think of it as a multi-dimensional object. However this seems ludicrous on the face of it. Because how can everything compact down to a 0-dim point? The few attempts that have been made to reconcile this involves math that usually results in infinite or divide by zero calculations ‒ making the results appear meaningless. However if we're willing to redefine a constant we should also ask, "Is a divide by 0 meaningless?" This depends heavily on the redefinition. So there's a biconditional relationship. Personally I'd argue that if we view zero as a 7-fold truth table mapped to a spherical formal system (similar to the logical connectives as illustrated in a Hasse diagram) that the results can be made meaningful (albeit difficult to grasp).

Amusingly real-world research bears this out. Ask a mathematician and they'll tell you zero is neither positive nor negative. Ask a physicist and following Paul Dirac's lead they'll say, "… a vacuum, or nothing, is the combination of matter and antimatter. Their density is tremendous, but we can’t perceive any of them because their observable effects entirely cancel each other out." ( www.sciencedaily.com... ). This suggests that zero is actually a union of positive and negative terms (i.e. A + B = A - B ⇒ 2B = (A - A) ⇒ 2 = (A - A) / B, where B=0, assuming not indeterminate ). Note the evaluation of the additive identity (B) illustrates the positive and negative terms collapse in to one another. Suggesting 0 ≡ (+ ∪ -), or perhaps, 0 ≡ (+ ∧ -).

This would then likely give us something like this,

Is it possible that we are mistaking the tool of description for that which is described? Are we mistaking the map for the terrain?

This question usually gets reformulated into, "I sure as heck don't feel like math." Even though I usually prefer thick definitions I'll forgo them and simply describe material reality as isomorphic to cardinality. Meaning our physical existence is just a small subset of root mathematical objects like ordinality, reflexivity, and polarity. ( space.mit.edu... )

Put another way I'm no more my hand than I am my brain. The "I" that is me exists in no one place in my body. Similarly to try to distinguish the tool from the terrain is to engage in the same form of infinite compartmentalization. The question assumes a discrete pattern in what's fundamentally a transcendental object.

Is it possible to get to the point where the map and the terrain become indistinguishable from each other, and say that they are one and the same? What then is the nature of the relationship between reality and reality theory?

Engels three laws of dialectic get to the heart of my thoughts on this, "quantity changes to quality, opposites interpenetrate, and the negation of negation." I think the difference is perspective. For instance take the RGB tuple [0,0,0] (black) and think of all the gradations as we increment towards [255,255,255] (white). Now ask yourself, "Is white the lightest type of black? Or is black the darkest type of white?" The problem here is that we're looking for a discrete perspective when instead we should view it as a continuum. White and black are extremes. The only real difference is we have two ways to approach the values. One is additive ( RGB ) and the other is subtractive ( CMYK ).

RGB: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fcceaf427191.gif[/atsimg]
CMYK: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fc3977b30091.jpg[/atsimg]

They each create the other through a venn diagram-esque union operation. So it's better to view these two schemes holistically as a sphere.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/956e8d54cfb2.gif[/atsimg]

So to answer, "What then is the nature of the relationship between reality and reality theory?" Well if information precedes manifestation then physical reality isn't as "real" as we imagine it to be because it's actually the effect not the cause. So the answer would, again, appear to be perspective.

reply to post by laymanskeptic



If you can imagine, the heliosphere which contains our sun and solar system plowing through the ether of the universe like a speeding bullit. Now compare that with a single celled amoeba organism if juxtaposed would appear identical. As above as below. Imagine further if somewhere in the hierarchy of cells in our body if they should contain some form of consciousness would they be able to perceive the finality of our being/knowing as some kind of God?

reply to post by laymanskeptic


I think you would benefit greatly from an ayahuasca ceremony under the supervision of Peruvian shamans. Maybe you could make a movie to document the whole trip.

www.ayahuasca-shamanism.co.uk...

www.ayahuasca-wasi.com...

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
To start, I would like to ask you this question: what do you think would it take, to create not just artificial intelligence, but artificial consciousness? Is there a certain level of existing computational architecture today, that can serve as an adequate substrate for artificial consciousness to "reside" in?

Artificial consciousness meaning, something that will have an authentic internal qualitative experience? Like internal private sensations? And meaning? Is it possible for these things to exist already in the computational world without us noticing or realizing it?

If this (artificial consciousness) is mathematically describable, what kind of mathematical structure would this be? Can this mathematical structure be physically implemented?

Well, in my view this is not possible. No matter how complex you make a machine, how many complicated neural nets you build into it to recognize patterns and self-replicate and build things on its own, it will at bottom be a machine, not actually capable of "honest effort", "willful striving", or whatever you might want to call it. It is human consciousness, human efforts, human choices, that direct the construction of these neural structures in the human brain.

That's my current speculation on the matter, anyway. Well, just the best I could do at the moment to put my current speculation into words.

You might want to check out this thread; we just had a whole discussion on this topic about a week ago.

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Is math the root and the starting point? Or is it just a descriptive tool, describing the rules of thought?

Freeman Dyson and number theorist Hugh Montgomery discovered that if you "compare a strip of zeros from Riemann’s critical line to the experimentally recorded energy levels in the nucleus of a large atom like erbium, the 68th atom in the periodic table of elements, the two are uncannily similar. " ( seedmagazine.com... ). To further make the point consider the insane recurrence of π in many cosmological and physical principles, Euler's e, and the Golden Ratio in nature. I'm inclined to say numbers represent "functiontionally executable language" of the universe.

Is it also possible that this number recurrence (both in math and the physical) is just emergent from something more basic that governs both math and physics, and that neither is higher up the hierarchy? That the "rules" apprehending the mathematical are the same rules that apprehend the physical, hence the apparent recurrence?

It is quite a miracle to me, that for no apparent reason, mathematics identifies with its "containing" universe. The only way I think this could happen would be for our minds to be universes unto themselves, governed by identical rules: Math is to mind as physics is to reality - mind and reality are images of each other, neither is more fundamental than the other. And in the normal course of things, it is impossible to differentiate between the mathematical and the physical because there is only a single mind that perceives it, and that this perceiving mind possesses the very nature of that which it perceives.

What will you make of it, when you find equivalent mathematical structures within these diverse fields?

If it's true it suggests that information precedes manifestation. This corresponds with platonic thinking which argues "we don't invent mathematical truths, we discover them." A good example of this being "Plato's allegory of the cave" ( www.historyguide.org... ). If we accept this as truth then we're simply observing a shadow of reality. This would also neatly explain why people looking in to esoteric areas of research who have more of a left-brained approach tend to lean towards the gnostic pythagorean interpretation of kabbalah ( www.digital-brilliance.com... ).

I have always wondered how meaning is extracted from numerical "co-incidences" (in nature, or even in something more strange) beyond just mere coincidences, numerical being left-brained if I understand you correctly. Maybe my right-brained non-symbolic thinking interferes too much. To be honest there is a real pleasure to be had from right-brain indulgence, whether or not it results in truth. Perhaps paying more attention to my left-brain would reveal the hidden ugliness, incompleteness, and folly of right-brain indulgence. But perhaps not: I believe beauty = pleasure = truth. Also how am I able to linguistically express all these? Am I not using my left-brain too?

Furthermore, suppose given enough effort, even the Kabbalah can be described in mathematical language (I can see how this can be done). ...

Based on my personal philosophy (Cf. links in sig.) when it occurred to me 'scarcity,' represented by mathematical finitude, could accurately encapsulate difficult concepts like morality and even God-hood that's when I realized 'scarcity' was possibly tantamount to all mathematical structures themselves. This is actually a truism when you think about it because physical reality is, if nothing else, limited. Due to this, math, at least as far as how we know how to use it, deals with discrete objects. This is why 0 and ∞ are so hard to grasp. They don't behave like normal finite quantities.

I would try to translate your 'scarcity' to my language. Is it something related to 'existence due to difference'? Meaning, mathematical structures are defined by what they are not, as much as by what they are: to exist (as a mathematical structure) is to be different, or to differentiate from its containing medium, as any kind of structure must to exist.

There is existence solely because there is differentiation. The price of this differentiation is some kind of global coherency which we see as "laws", where starting from nothing (or infinite potential), for there to exist an X, it must be differentiated from not-X, and maybe this differentiation in the containing medium (nothingness) resulting in global coherency is the root of all "mathematico-physical" laws.

Georg Cantor was rather forward thinking to rationalize that ∞ is non-discrete and due to this has many properties and sub-types [e.g. countable ∞ vs uncountable ∞ ( www.sciencenews.org... )].
This thinking leads to a slippery slope however because if we follow it through to its end it suggests an inverse reality exists centered on infinity. Making us have to seriously consider God-hood as being something that's already happened. In an attempt to try to determine if such a thing was possible I rationalized: (1) if things come from nothingness, but all things can be overcome then a God is an inevitability. So (2) if we can see this process as being something that's knowable, then (3) we have to ask ourselves, "Has that already happened?" (4) To answer (3) we then look at the knowable components, (2), and contrast them against older holy texts to see if there are any similarities. If there are it then suggests the answer is, yes, God as a developed sentience already exists.
Amazingly it appears there's actual real-world empirical evidence to suggest it has already happened (see the Q+A on pp.9-12). Of all the structures looked at Kabbalah is by far the most similar (both geometrically and metaphysically) to the S.H. concept.

I don't know how you define God, but if there was something that exhausts all the infinite, or become the most that can be, I believe that thing would be nothing. In your slippery slope, existence could fluctuate back and forth from 0 to infinity, but also this existence does not distinguish between the two - as far as existence is concerned, 0 and infinity are merely opposite poles of a single rod. What is the nature of this "rod"? Are the endpoints (0 and infinity) one and the same, meaning, do they coincide to form a loop?

Maybe, God himself is not an entity inside reality. Maybe, God is the language out of which reality operates? Is he the "word" so to speak?

Is it math itself that binds the subjects, or the specific mathematical structure in question?

There's an expression I like to use, "The abstract becomes concrete and the material becomes symbolic." A reciprocal relationship exists where these two structures bridge in to one another, but are also simultaneously reflections of each other. Some people would refer to this as being fractal [i.e. a "rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole" ( books.google.com... ) ]. However what I dislike about this is it assumes there must be an algorithm to describe "fractalness" rather than being extant in a constant with the pattern emergent in it too. Begging the question though, "How do you quantize a constant?" The best I can imagine is that it would require some form of redefinition.

So, for example, most cosmologists strongly argue in favor of the idea of reality starting at a zero-point as a conformally flat manifold. If reality stems from zero then it requires we think of it as a multi-dimensional object. However this seems ludicrous on the face of it. Because how can everything compact down to a 0-dim point? The few attempts that have been made to reconcile this involves math that usually results in infinite or divide by zero calculations ‒ making the results appear meaningless. However if we're willing to redefine a constant we should also ask, "Is a divide by 0 meaningless?" This depends heavily on the redefinition. So there's a biconditional relationship. Personally I'd argue that if we view zero as a 7-fold truth table mapped to a spherical formal system (similar to the logical connectives as illustrated in a Hasse diagram) that the results can be made meaningful (albeit difficult to grasp).
Amusingly real-world research bears this out. Ask a mathematician and they'll tell you zero is neither positive nor negative. Ask a physicist and following Paul Dirac's lead they'll say, "… a vacuum, or nothing, is the combination of matter and antimatter. Their density is tremendous, but we can’t perceive any of them because their observable effects entirely cancel each other out." ( www.sciencedaily.com... ). This suggests that zero is actually a union of positive and negative terms (i.e. A + B = A - B ⇒ 2B = (A - A) ⇒ 2 = (A - A) / B, where B=0, assuming not indeterminate ). Note the evaluation of the additive identity (B) illustrates the positive and negative terms collapse in to one another. Suggesting 0 ≡ (+ ∪ -), or perhaps, 0 ≡ (+ ∧ -).

Maybe the universe is zero from an "outside" perspective (if such a perspective is at all possible). If you're inside a universe, things MUST exist since you as an observer (+) is differentiated from what is observed (-). The union of the observer and the observed creates a zero sum which we cannot directly see if we are "inside" this peculiar transaction. Observer and observed is in exact opposite phase to each other. But also, observer and observed "see" each other from the same surface of interaction - what happens in this surface completely describes both the observer and the observed - it is in effect the projected reality of both.

If we can extract some math from this, we can precisely explain such statements as "to be everything, one must be nothing", or "nothing and everything are the same thing", or "my mind contains the universe". There are other levels of interpretation to this too that can be applied to other problems such as those arising from "multiverse" theories.

Is it possible that we are mistaking the tool of description for that which is described? Are we mistaking the map for the terrain?

This question usually gets reformulated into, "I sure as heck don't feel like math." Even though I usually prefer thick definitions I'll forgo them and simply describe material reality as isomorphic to cardinality. Meaning our physical existence is just a small subset of root mathematical objects like ordinality, reflexivity, and polarity. ( space.mit.edu... )
Put another way I'm no more my hand than I am my brain. The "I" that is me exists in no one place in my body. Similarly to try to distinguish the tool from the terrain is to engage in the same form of infinite compartmentalization. The question assumes a discrete pattern in what's fundamentally a transcendental object.

I would just like to think of it as, reality = reality theory. There is nothing beyond your reality than your reality theory. Any unexpected observation must be absorbed into the theory, and this absorption by default "modifies" or updates the theory.

Is it possible to get to the point where the map and the terrain become indistinguishable from each other, and say that they are one and the same? What then is the nature of the relationship between reality and reality theory?

Engels three laws of dialectic get to the heart of my thoughts on this, "quantity changes to quality, opposites interpenetrate, and the negation of negation." I think the difference is perspective. For instance take the RGB tuple [0,0,0] (black) and think of all the gradations as we increment towards [255,255,255] (white). Now ask yourself, "Is white the lightest type of black? Or is black the darkest type of white?" The problem here is that we're looking for a discrete perspective when instead we should view it as a continuum. White and black are extremes. The only real difference is we have two ways to approach the values. One is additive ( RGB ) and the other is subtractive ( CMYK ).
They each create the other through a venn diagram-esque union operation. So it's better to view these two schemes holistically as a sphere.
So to answer, "What then is the nature of the relationship between reality and reality theory?" Well if information precedes manifestation then physical reality isn't as "real" as we imagine it to be because it's actually the effect not the cause. So the answer would, again, appear to be perspective.

edit on 10-2-2011 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)

I accept your continuum argument.

Maybe we just need to update "physical reality" to just "reality", since as more and more phenomenon gets revealed, we eventually get to explain it sooner or later by a model. I wouldn't like to call my reality a "world of outcomes" as Kabbalah would put it, because clearly there is more to my reality than what we can measure with conventional instruments. As far as I can perceive, my world is made up of root level causes and day to day outcomes - whether this cause is from my reality is a matter of definition. Everything I recognize is reality.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
That's my current speculation on the matter, anyway. Well, just the best I could do at the moment to put my current speculation into words.

You might want to check out this thread; we just had a whole discussion on this topic about a week ago.

Thanks! I would like to join that thread

reply to post by laymanskeptic

-Physics (Quantum Mechanics, Heisenberg's Indeterminacy Principle, self-observing universe)

Simple... there is no such thing as a particle.

-The Occult (Kabbalah, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Ouroboros: the serpent eating itself, creation/genesis)

We exist in more than the "Three" dimensions that we can observe.

-and Epistemology (Theory of Knowledge, self-awareness, consciousness)

LOL! Self Referencing...

What is consciousness?

Self identification coupled with the ability to differentiate oneself from ones surroundings and environment.

In essence, Perspective, Discrimination, and Judgment.

Why do I exist?

Because your parents had sex. LOL!

How is self-perception at all possible?

It is a division of perspective caused by the necessity of differentiation of objects in our environment from other objects in our environment.

What are the rules of geometry?

Should be easy to answer in a 3(90 degree) dimensional matrix.

Higher dimensional Geometry is harder though...

How do I get from an axiom to a theorem?

Observe the world.
Make a Theory that describes what you are seeing.
Test that theory (Falsification, Prediction)
Refine based upon test results (Tweak theory, or scrap it and start again if necessary)

If space is optimally filled with solid spheres up to infinity, what is the percentage of the remaining empty space, and how would the answer change if the dimension is greater than 3, or if space is closed, open, curved, or flat? LOL

I don't think using spheres in 3+ dimensional topography is going to cut it.

Do I even possess the tools to answer these questions?

The capacity of understanding is all that is required, you (We) just lack the correct perspective. lol.