In this speculation I imagine a further complexity of general stereonomic spaces and the motion through them from questions as to what something vaguely in the vision is the nature and relations of consciousness. In this respect such super abstract imagined motions goes further than the ideas of galatomic by which in his system the smaller consciousnesses surviving the big bang are the engines of our present world, with purpose. I do not mean something this simple and unified even if it is an alternative to standard physics formulations. In the physics view as I see it, the computation of volumes as if solids and the interplay of projections between one type of nucleon or another too is generalized in the symmetry of the geometries with higher philosophical principles. It occurs to me in the actual hardware of the mind as our brain as scaffoling that these sorts of views could only be internal, a reflection of an overview and not an overworldview that goes beyond our subjective but concrete location or position in these higher abstract structures. If in fact in this one and only realty and there be nothing beyond such an infinite and boundless non-necessary generalization...it is still an amazing thought as to how much more potential and depths is the experience of life and of our species.
Imagine if you will space and time, the unique reality of the Omnium on at least our experience of a physical level where at each location, point or event, the intelligible application to our method of mathematics, of topology and numbers, give us a stance or view of the omnium as physical laws that cannot in principle be generalized even when inside each location the totality of all other locations can be reflected as not clearly any issue of physics, concrete or subjective consciousness like, or philosophic issues of quasic similarity.
This seems trivially true if we accept foundational properties of the generality of a total non-existence or that default chaos neither forbidden or not so in a quasifinite universe. In this extreme where the universe cannot be characterized as nonexistence or even non-necessity we might say that the issues of multiplicity as many-world or multiverse as existence is also a mirror of equivalent worlds or concepts. We could say we have infinite and unbounded extent as a starting ground but a sort of imagined disembodiedment that asks foundationally of what sort of thing is it disembodied from?
Even then this seems short of some idea of what consciousness and intelligence is beyond the Omnium which we vaguely describe in mere human words as God. In this overworld (let us leave the worldly distinction of our word for underworld as disembodied the same description in a view where the miscellaneous and total sum are one thing or that the generalization loops to encompass its paradoxical and even looping definition of a general space or continuum, a sort of philosophic continuum, that while spacious in its physicality and sentience on many levels or of one level its complexity and simplicity seems to persist as all such paradoxes beyond determinism and freedom of possibilities to so imagine and enquire. These necessary things are after all a shadow of what we call embodied, the substance of hidden or direct awareness of abstract space as experienced real.
Yet in the non-necessity, the experience of thoughts and doubts in dreams, open or closed the self reference frames and spins with no intrinsic concept of scales of observation despite somewhere persistent necessities and coincidental resolution of singularity, voids or creative, we, at least at this moment of living can generalize the possible Overworlds as a fact of existence of truths that are to some extent certain should we privilege as real some level of our subjective environs. The fact seems to be a given that we are as sentient things intuitively aware of this factor in the general design of things- and although in a sense it cannot be extended too far into the unknown as a ground theory- for example the interpretations of quantum theory as a description of observation as a total subjective explanation, that the higher idea of (at least human) consciousness adds a vast complication and generalization to theoretical models.
All of which it is not clear how our philosophic principles and even religious principles say in the panorama of some vision of reincarnation of souls as in St. Origen, a Christianity founding father as quite a grand and general vision, can be intelligibly extended and so generalized- save that the reach of sentience in contemplation and meditation on itself is a higher order of thought and design than the scope of our current standard and creative scientific and philosophic speculations.
Imagine then some distant entity deep into the multiverses within multiverses where things are copies, or very much endless possibilities of differences in the details other than at least for some range of reality reasonable foundational laws. For example on some deep and distinct level there is a person contemplating the cosmos imagining but not clear that this may be real another person, say on some echos or levels of smaller things in the microworlds in microworlds. Where these may in fact be a system of reality and even a link in some higher yet spaces of influences in the totality the vision not necessarily looping back to person so artfully designated (do you wish to be in the virtual play wherein in the narrative I take you out of the plot back into your world not suspended into the fantasy true to its own laws? )Perhaps, I am that person viewed by some abstract soul in a more general space.
Which of all of us is real and which is dream and in the usual sci fi scenarios, that which is original and unique as a question raised vanishes even the idea of uniqueness yet all things are in principle enduring- that is all can be changes past present and future- but on what level and on what embodied concern should one so change it? Uniqueness, as of any individual and total sentient evolving learning absolute thing is itself a nonnecessity and as real as it is quasifinite. That the world has being or substance is to a great extent founded on some reality sufficient to the concerns of some level or compass of space and time and from a higher philosophic perspective observers engaged or not with the Overworld is irrelevant to even the independence of phenomena, above our cherished ideas of life and death and how to deal with it. Sometimes the gods have different wishes than our own, nor are they necessarily in the business of granting wishes- that our imperfect and indifferent ground or domain. But such a view nevertheless establishes the value of a sentient soul equal to a universe even greater than all possible worlds described short of Heaven.
If somehow there are restrictions beyond intelligible views or if our design of being in reality changes to more general states or if the universe is ultimately intelligible at all, it is for us to show this as in our incomplete view of say such worlds denying issues close to supposed beginnings and origins or even upon cycles of generalization as oscillating models of a universe that extends our physical principles, or in the rather limited idea of compactification only as to how space folds, or in the general idea of symmetry how in the reduction of some extensions, a simpler higher space, we have actually widened the room and scope for ideas of the role of symmetry.
If moreover, such models, even from a more centered similar being somewhere in the space in the Overworld closer perhaps to the reality of things, even that which will carry in his wake the lesser beings to him but failed stars let alone stars that explode in creation from the seemingly nothingness, then within the compass of our current contemplations and limited physics and what seems solid in our awareness of being, it is intelligible and ever more likely that something beyond the overworld can be a high order of Intelligent Design (with a capitals), that or our physics is foundationally wrong.
Can we know or know if we might ever know this short of some drastic change? Can we truly understand what our wholeness or errors of mind are? That or the world can seem one unity of many such layers where each is independently unique outside the compass of Overworlds as to some truth- but this thought is after all part of the range of discussion and generalzation of the thesis known still an open or closed question, if we are scientifically honest as a goal where the teleology is of the same paradoxes or intellect and order. Will these be resolved as theories of theories of everything that we can say why or not it is intelligible which way our greater imaginations and reality stand independently, touch, or connect at least in physical terms? In short, ultimately, is physics itself possible even as an activity of sentient beings whom have yet to dream but of shadows of what may be a final understanding that there is so much more to what the world and we are especially as things radically shift into what remains for me an optimism of the immense enquiring and emerging into wide futures?
* * * * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment