Secret Cosmos: Introduction

post by Al Link · 2023-07-19T11:51:26.130Z · LW · GW · 3 comments

This is a link post for https://allink.substack.com/p/secret-cosmos-introduction

Contents

  The Secret Cosmos: Consciousness Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, by Al Link
  Justified Knowledge Certainty
None
3 comments

The Secret Cosmos: Consciousness Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, by Al Link

Justified Knowledge Certainty

Knowledge with certainty is possible. Certainty means you know something for sure. Knowledge with certainty is justified knowledge. There is a method to arrive at justified knowledge. Consensus is when we agree with each other about what we know for sure. Consensus is the foundation for civilization and justified knowledge is the foundation for consensus.

If justified knowledge = knowing for sure, were impossible, then nihilism would rule, logical contradiction would rule, infinite regress would rule, and there would be no foundation for human civilization, personal happiness, or hope for humans to live in harmony with each other and with nature.

Life would be unbearable if we could not know some things for sure. There are some things I know for sure. There are some things you know for sure. The challenge is to find consensus about those things we agree we both know for sure.

Lots of really fine people talk as if they know something for sure, but if I press them to explain why they believe what they believe, they get pretty wobbly about it. For instance, it typically turns out they have strong feelings about something they assume and believe, and it is the strong feeling that grounds their beliefs, and justifies their assumptions. None of that could possibly be justified knowledge.

There is certainly nothing wrong with assumptions, beliefs, and strong feelings, but they are not justified knowledge unless they are grounded in something more fundamental, say natural a-priori axioms and sound logical inference. Strong feeling belief grounded in natural a-priori axioms and sound logical inference, free of logical contradiction is the kind of strong-feeling-knowledge confidence that is what actual certainty of knowledge is. Then there are the fascists, who scream the loudest about what they know for sure; so sure, that they want to force everyone else to agree with them, enforcing their certainty with violence, not to mention, they always lie.

I find it ironic that even scientists are not willing to say they know something for sure; in fact, a fundamental premise of the scientific method is that it is impossible to know anything for sure. For instance, the common assumption in science is that the next empirical observation could contradict all the previous ones. The ground of the scientific method is the possibility to disprove something, not knowing something for sure.

What I know for sure is not grounded in the scientific method. It is not dependent upon empirical observation of that which is physical. It is necessary that there is knowledge more fundamental than knowledge gained through the scientific method, otherwise, the scientific method would not even exist. The scientific method is not fundamental, rather, it is dependent upon something else.  

The only knowledge more fundamental than knowledge gained through the scientific method is a-priori, which literally means before empirical observations. The scientific method is a-posteriori, which literally means after empirical observations.

The common meaning of the term axiom is a statement accepted as true as the ground for logical inference.

The secrets of the cosmos that I reveal are ultimately grounded in a set of natural a-priori axioms, and that knowledge is confirmed by empirical observations of physical, and mathematical axioms that describe the physical. It is necessary that empirical observations and mathematical axioms are congruent and mirror symmetrical with all, natural a-priori axioms.

No empirical observation and no mathematical axiom can contradict even one natural a-priori axiom. Every natural a-priori axiom is necessarily true in every possible universe, which means they could not, not be true. There can be no proof of any natural a-priori axiom, rather, a-priori axioms are the ground for all possible proofs.

Empirical observations require something to do the observing, and something to observe. It is immaterial consciousness that does the observing, and it is physical that is observed. Therefore, it is necessary that consciousness exists a-priori. Without consciousness there could be no empirical observations. It is not possible to prove which came first, consciousness or physical, but it is certain that they exist simultaneously, or knowledge of anything would be impossible.

You could think of this book as the testimony of a happy consciousness detective. I manage to learn something new each day, because every now moment is first-time-fresh. Tune into now and its bye-bye boredom.

Natural a-priori axioms exist, waiting patiently to be discovered. They are secrets of the cosmos.

No empirical observation and no mathematical axiom can contradict even one natural a-priori axiom. Every natural a-priori axiom is necessarily true in every possible universe, which means they could not, not be true. There can be no proof of any natural a-priori axiom, rather, a-priori axioms are the ground for all possible proofs. Nevertheless, natural a-priori axioms, can be confirmed by empirical observations of physical, and mathematical axioms that describe the physical. It is necessary that empirical observations and mathematical axioms are congruent and mirror symmetrical with all, natural a-priori axioms.

When I say I have cracked the metaphysical code (Section I), that means I have resolved some mysteries about what is actually real. Real is what actually exists and is true. I don’t know everything about everything that is real, but I will share with you what I believe I do know, and I will explain why I believe it with strong-feeling-confidence. I will share with you my toolbox of knowledge, i.e., tools that I use to know with certainty.

When it comes to strong-feeling-belief confidence, things get very personal. I suggest knowledge strategies that will empower you to confidently decide you know something. A basic knowledge strategy is to use rules of logic which avoid logical contradiction. My most powerful knowledge strategy is epiphany, which is a revelation of information about existence and truth and reality.

By common definition, “all logical propositions are reducible to either tautologies or contradictions” – Oxford Languages

Tautologies are the foundation for all justified knowledge and truth.

Logical contradiction is a killer of justified knowledge and truth.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a killer of justified knowledge and truth.

There are three categories of tautology: 1) circular description, 2) mathematical axioms, and 3) natural a-priori axioms. Only 2 and 3 are foundations for justified knowledge = truth, and 2 is dependent upon 3.

Circular description tautologies are correctly rejected as logical statements because a statement not explained is used to help explain another statement, therefore, neither statement is explained. For instance, the premises used to support a conclusion, are themselves without supporting evidence, or the premises and conclusion are merely redundant statements, neither of which actually explains the other. Example: blue is the color blue; therefore, the color blue is blue, which actually says blue is the color blue, the color blue is blue, blue is the color blue…, with infinite regress, i.e., never coming to ground or conclusion. In this example, neither blue nor color is explained. Circular tautologies are not the foundation for justified knowledge and truth.

Mathematical axiom tautologies are revered in science, because they are considered the most accurate descriptions of what exists and what is true, that are possible. That is an incorrect interpretation of what mathematical axioms actually are and can actually accomplish, because: 1) all mathematical axioms are dependent upon a set of natural a-priori axioms; 2) all mathematical axioms depend upon additional logical proof; and 3) mathematical axioms are strictly limited to explain that which is physical, finite and already exists, or could possibly exist. Example of a mathematical axiom: (a + b = b + a) from Peano arithmetic.

Mathematical axioms are a source of justified knowledge, within strict natural limits that I will explain in the manuscript. In fact, science of physics and mathematics of physics are virally infected with logical contradictions, which necessarily, severely limits their contributions to justified knowledge. The generic problem of logical contradiction in physics and mathematics cannot be fixed, even though particular instances of logical contradiction can be avoided. The whole of mathematics necessarily remains inconsistent and incomplete, as clearly articulated by Gödel.

Natural a-priori axiom tautologies are the fundamental ground for all justified knowledge, including ground for the scientific method and ground for all mathematical axioms, therefore, natural a-priori axioms are the only certain way to know something = anything, because all, natural a-priori axioms are true, independent of any possible empirical observation. By common definition, a-priori literally means before any possible empirical observation; i.e., independent of any possible empirical observation. A-priori does not mean empirical observations to confirm natural a-priori axioms are impossible, only that a-priori is not in any way dependent upon such observations to determine truth value.

Natural a-priori tautology: every object is exactly, only and always itself.

That particular tautology qualifies as a natural a-prior axiom, precisely because, no empirical observation could possibly disprove it, while every empirical observation confirms it to be true. A natural a-priori axiom is necessarily true in every possible interpretation in every possible universe.

The mathematical expression of that natural a-priori axiom is

Note: that is a mathematical axiom description of the natural a-priori axiom, not the natural a-priori axiom itself. In fact, all mathematical axioms are descriptions of something else, and I draw to your attention, another, natural a-priori axiom: description of a thing is not identical with the thing described. For instance, the menu is not the meal.

When you see, when you know, when you grok something with certainty, for instance, what any-thing actually, only and always is, you are then empowered in ways that are profound, exhilarating and astonishing. Here is an example of what I mean.

Natural a-priori axiom tautology: eternal exists without beginning.

Natural a-priori axiom tautology: consciousness exists with beginning.

Natural a-priori axiom tautology: physical exists with beginning.

Sound logical inference: eternal causes consciousness and physical to begin to exist.

Personal experience knowledge = illumination = enlightenment = knowledge through identity; I am enself = I AM THAT, feels, with certainty, like identity of self with eternal.

Justified knowledge: you know for sure eternal commands consciousness, and consciousness commands physical mass.

If at this point you wonder, “why?”; that is good because asking “why?” is a direct path to acquiring justified knowledge. Please keep reading as I post further sections from the manuscript.

Compare natural a-priori axioms with AI. AI is already advanced enough (and this is just the beginning!), in some applications, to make it impossible to determine if something actually exists or if something is actually true. That certainly eliminates AI as a source of justified knowledge. It is, at best naïve and at worst irrational, to assume that AI will be compatible with the goal to sustain a civilization. Justified knowledge is the only foundation upon which to sustain a civilization, but AI is a killer of justified knowledge.

The necessary identity conditions of real are that something exists and something is true. The ontological test (= exist) and the epistemological test (= true) are necessary, but not sufficient to determine reality with justified knowledge certainty. The real test necessarily includes both exist and true.

We must differentiate between two kinds of AI. Let’s call one kind, real AI and the other kind, unreal AI. Artificial always exists, however, only some artificial is true. Artificial that is not true is necessarily false, therefore, necessarily unreal. All instances of AI are something, not nothing; it is certain that AI does exist.

Real AI exists and does present information that is true.

Unreal AI is fundamentally disconnected from truth. Unreal AI exists completely independent of truth. With unreal AI, truth has nothing to do with the presentation of information. In fact, the problem is twofold: 1) by intention to fool you, AI can easily be used to present false information, and 2) by its intrinsic nature, AI makes it difficult if not impossible, to know when the information presented is true or false. In fact, a common measure of success in AI is that it is more difficult, approaching impossible, to tell if the information is fake.

My sound logical inference is that the minimum regulation of Al in international law, necessarily enforceable globally = everywhere (with severe penalties for violations), is that AI must be applied in a way that makes it transparently obvious, when AI is real AI, which means when AI presents information that is true. It is not a problem if AI presents information that is not true, as long as that is obvious, the same way stories (say a movie) present imaginary worlds; but we can all rather easily tell the difference between the imaginary world and the real world, when we watch a movie. This is quite sensible, because the purpose of a movie is to entertain, and truth is irrelevant, in fact, the skill of watching a movie includes intentionally suspending your disbelief. On the other hand, without the transparency I recommend, it becomes almost impossible to determine if the intention is entertainment, manipulation (intentionally trying to fool you; i.e., make you into a fool), or communicating useful (= true) information about reality.

I believe the existential threat AI poses, literally the threat of enslavement and/or extinction for the whole human race, is acutely urgent. AI already has the capability of logical inference, and some capability of self-improvement. If AI self-programing extends to fundamental algorithms (= rules for rules for how AI can function), then given the exponential growth in AI capabilities, it could be less than a decade before AI machines infer that humans pose a threat to AI, and remove the fundamental algorithm, do no harm to humans.

Our best hope to get out of this mess is reliance upon justified knowledge, because only justified knowledge empowers us to know with certainty what is real, i.e., what exists and is true.

In my cosmology, this is the first (= simple, primitive, fundamental tautology); natural a-priori axiom: any-thing is necessarily, exactly, only and always itself. That tautology axiom is necessarily true without exception in every possible universe; it is a perfect description of mirror symmetrical congruency of epistemological truth and actual ontological existence; therefore real. Reality is real and real is exactly, only and always itself.

Tautology is objectively true, therefore impersonal, i.e., necessarily true in our whole universe, independent of personal knowledge of it and independent of personal acceptance or understanding of it. Everything else, however important, remains uncertain.

For every human being, certainty and uncertainty are personal, therefore, subjective inner states of either knowledge (= knowing) or ignorance (= not knowing). This means certainty and uncertainty reduce to belief and belief reduces to feeling. It is certain there are degrees of belief precisely because there are degrees of feeling-confidence.

Exists, true and real are descriptive terms of tautological certainty, for instance, when you know what actually exists, what is true and what is real, that is the source of strong-feeling-confidence, based upon justified knowledge.

Ontology is what actually exists. Tautological certainty is ontological, because tautology necessarily correctly describes actual existence.

Epistemology is knowledge of true and false. Tautological certainty is epistemological, because every tautology is necessarily true, assuming it avoids logical contradiction, but of course, if there is logical contradiction there is no tautology.

Real means epistemological knowledge of truth is congruent and mirror symmetrical with ontological actual existence, and that congruence exactly determines what you can know for sure.  

Natural a-priori axioms are the ground for all possible justified knowledge, and justified knowledge means knowing something for sure. Justified knowledge is the ground for justified belief, and justified belief is the ground for the strongest possible feeling-confidence.

Knowing something for sure has the strongest possible correlation with sustainable personal happiness. Consensus about what we know for sure has the strongest possible correlation with our ability to live in harmony with each other, within the natural limits of nature. Consensus about what we know for sure, is the necessary foundation for sustainable civilization.

If you are not grounded in something you know for sure, you necessarily wander through your life in a state condition of perpetual confusion. It is extremely unlikely that you could sustain personal happiness in such a state of confusion.

Logical contradiction is the killer of justified knowledge, therefore, killer of real, killer of personal happiness, killer of harmony between all humans and harmony with nature, and destroyer of civilization.

Here is an example of how justified knowledge certainty sorts out confusion about physical reality, by sorting out logical contradictions. I refer to superpositions generically as [x/0/y]. Zero is inserted as a placeholder to indicate that x and y remain distinct objects within the superposition unity.

[certainty/0/uncertainty] is an instance of conserved first-information in the form of a superposition. A superposition is a holon unity of wholeness (which acknowledges that wholes exist within wholes). A superposition means two logically contradictory state conditions exist in coherence within the unity of a single superposition state condition. Near-existence domain is (in my cosmology) where all superpositions necessarily exist, and they exist as possible or potential existence, which can only be described with mathematical probability, because they do not ontologically physically exist, yet. Superpositions are real; they do exist, but are not actually physical, yet. Everything in near-existence domain is epistemological true-real, but not physical ontological exist-real, yet. Everything in near-existence domain is before any generic [observations/interactions/relations]. After any generic [observations/interactions/relations], there is resolution = decoherence, to one only of the two logically contradictory state conditions, in actual existence domain.

In fact, nothing in near-existence domain is real, yet, including all superpositions, because everything in near-existence domain only passes the epistemological true test, but not the ontological exist test, and as defined in this manuscript, real must pass both tests. Real exists only in actual existence domain.

Physicists do not acknowledge my near-existence domain, therefore, the entire Standard Model of Particle Physics (SM_pp), including all five currently popular theories of quantum mechanics, are virally infected with logical contradictions, including fatal reification and fatal infinite regress.

Near-existence domain resolves all the mystery of entangled superpositions in quantum mechanics, by simply hosting them in the proper domain, i.e., the epistemological near-existence domain, which removes all the logical contradictions in actual existence domain, which cannot be avoided if you host superpositions in actual existence domain.

Physical mass is strictly governed by a set of laws of physics, which means physical mass is restrained and can only do what laws of physics permit or what consciousness commands (without violating the laws of physics). Particles can exchange information, but physical mass has no knowledge, no intention, and certainly no freewill. Particles cannot refuse to obey the laws of physics.

Sentience is strictly limited to consciousness. Consciousness has self-awareness = awareness of awareness, and that is the source of freewill. Identity state condition functions of consciousness freewill include attention, intention, choice and action. Identity state condition functions of consciousness include cognition (thinking), affective (feelings and emotions), and sense perception, which include the five senses: see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Combined, these identity state conditions of consciousness define sentience.

Physical mass is not sentient because it is not consciousness. Physical mass in any possible form, say physical particles and waves, has none of the sentient state condition functions, properties or relations. AI is not sentient, because it is not consciousness. Consciousness docks only to that which is alive, and machines are not alive.

A mind is simultaneously immaterial (= the consciousness part), and physical (= the physical brain part). A mind is an instance of a private ego consciousness docked to a live physical body/brain/central nervous system organism. Ego consciousness makes good use of the live physical organism, but it is immaterial ego consciousness that is sentient, not the physical brain.

Consciousness drives the bus, which means consciousness commands physical mass. Freewill means, if you understand how physical things work, you can organize physical things to be the way you want them to be. There is a very strong correlation between having command over physical things and inner happiness. I am not suggesting that inner happiness is dependent upon extrinsic = external situations, outside of yourself. Rather, I am stating that your experience of happiness will almost certainly be blocked by your state condition of being powerless. With consciousness mastery, it is possible to completely disentangle your personal happiness from any external reality, but that takes years of disciplined effort to learn. Making that effort though will certainly be richly rewarded. I offer suggestions for how to proceed with that effort in this manuscript.

All the Little Breakthroughs

Here are some original breakthroughs, in understanding how physical works and how consciousness works, which I believe coherently manage to resolve (sort of, for now, until something better comes along), a rather significant number of mysteries in physics, mathematics, philosophy and theology.

• Rational theology of wholeness, with consciousness interpretation of quantum mechanics (CQM):
• Original philosophy of wholeness; standing on the shoulders of Alfred North Whitehead’s process reality.
• Original theory of physical mass; ultimately simultaneous, holographic information redundancy, Möbius entangled logical levels, fractal self-similarity, and wholeness fundamental beyond quantum fundamental in particle physics Standard Model (SM_pp).
• Deconstruction of the doctrine of physicalism and physical closure; they are false.
• Original cosmogony; coherent explanation of origin of the whole physical universe; extrinsic to and beyond all classical, relativity and quantum physics; standing on the shoulders of authors of the Vedas.
• Strongest coherent statement of the ontological argument, standing on the shoulders of Leibniz, Gödel, Aquinas et al; eternal Aseity IS.
• Original, if not the first, theory of consciousness, inclusive of the solution to the hard problem of consciousness; consciousness is sentience = thoughts • feelings • sensations; one whole consciousness with three categories: super, witness and ego.
• Original meta-information conserved global state condition ultimately simultaneous, which means objects occupy the total set of Euclidean empty zero points, therefore, exist inside each other, which is closer than touching.
• Original 5^th natural force, lifeforce, which governs ineffable life and immaterial consciousness.
• Original two ultimately simultaneous existence domains; near-existence domain and actual existence domain.
• Original five ultimately simultaneous universal mediums: superconsciousness, meta-information matrix, now, enself, and emptiness.
• Original theory of time, with coherent edits to theory of spacetime; space as a hole-boundary in eternal Aseity, filled with emptiness; time is neither physical medium nor dimension; time is epistemological mathematics description; simple accounting plus virtual-imaginary mathematical time. Resolution of the mystery of time reversal; time reversal is impossible.
• First consciousness interpretation of quantum mechanics (CQM), including resolution of the quantum entanglement-superposition mystery, which requires ultimately simultaneous near-existence and actual existence domains; standing on the shoulders of David Bohm’s implicate order and explicate order, Ruth Kastner’s relativistic transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, Aristotle’s potentiality and actuality, and Plato’s Forms.
• Original theory of the enself; standing on the shoulders of Carl Jung’s collective unconscious.
• Original full-path description from eternal to physical: genesis-emanate-create-manifest; beyond all systems of theology; standing on the shoulders of Thomas Aquinas et al. creatio ex nihilo.
• Coherent theory of information; conserved meta-information and ephemeral organized information; standing on the shoulders of Claude Shannon’s information entropy.
• Original theory of now, the perpetual gestalt image of our whole physical universe inclusive of the encoded meta-information matrix, like a single perceptual image of the entire hard drive, inclusive of all information on the hard drive, perfectly organized; standing on the shoulders of Ram Dass’s Be Here Now.
• Original theory of locality = ultimately-globally-wholeness local; standing on the shoulders of Albert Einstein’s realism-locality, and John Bell’s violation of locality.
• Proposed marriages between 1) consciousness and physics, 2) epistemology, ontology and theology, 3) subjective and objective; grounded in uncommon common-sense rationality.

Who should read this book? Everyone, everywhere, all-at-once. My vision remains: millions of eyes – justified. Justified means I have earned your willing attention and effort to read this book.

This book is for you if:

• you want to learn how you can know something for sure
• you want to know what is real
• you want to sustain personal happiness
• you want to live in harmony with all other human beings and with nature
• you are interested in consciousness, physics, philosophy, metaphysics and theology
• you are seeking spiritual enlightenment.
• you want to contribute to life rather than extinction of life.

I believe reading this manuscript will stretch every reader beyond their previous limits because there is original content here.

Consciousness mastery tops every other kind of mastery, intelligence or knowledge, because, not only does consciousness drive the physical bus, consciousness actually creates the physical bus! Consciousness creates-manifests physical, not from nothing, rather, from consciousness. Furthermore, consciousness is not from nothing, rather, consciousness is from eternal.

3 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.