Science

A Brief History of Creation - Part Two

Learn Science on mps-science.com. A Brief History of Creation - Part Two article will help answer your questions on Science.We at mps-science.com specialize in Science. Science at mps-science.com provides the most up to date news and articles. If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

We said that the indefinite could be anything, as long as it is not specified (not defined). However, if we nevertheless tried to define 'nothing' (the indefinite), what would we get then? Since 'nothing' is non-definable, it is transparent as the object of our inquiry. So when we initiation to define it, all we have is what we put into it, which is the process of definition. 'Nothing' stayed nothing, we didn't define it, only made the process of definition explicit. 'Nothing' gains meaning when we fail to define it; but having tried, we are left with a bonus, a something, which is our process of defining 'nothing.' Creation of something from nothing is not a function of defining something, but a function of attempting to define 'nothing.' And then, if that process of definition - which is an existence - looks back at its origins, if this process of defining investigates into its own genesis, then what does it see? It sees itself. It sees the process of definition - self-reference.

If there is nothing external to perception, then this process of definition is the overall wholeness, the creator of meaning when it can relate to itself. However, to have meaning, the process of definition has to be defined; this definition would be a self-referential quasi-infinite and continuous process of establishing bound that create the indefinite above that establishes boundary creating the indefinite farther that establishes borders... which means, wholeness would continuously and forever fail to define itself while succeeding to define something - aught but itself.

Of course, both the totally defined and the totally indefinite are idealized notions that would be inconsistent with the Holophanic loop logic, nor can they be found in nature. The totally indefinite would be the total meaningless nothing, the kind of non-being that cannot be fathomed if we would think close it, it would ere be something. On the other hand, there can be no total definition either. I have used the term uncertainty of sameness to describe the logical impossibility of total definition. A defined entity can be said to have reached sameness -- it is the same as itself -- which means that it is, it exists as something definite, no matter which parameters defined it. However, no sooner does our object gain sameness than the uncertainty of sameness raises its ugly head. Could it have been defined differently? Yes, of course. Could it have auxiliary parameters? Yes, of course. Could it have been defined more precisely? Yes, of course. This uncertainty of sameness is the indefinite included in the definition, which is the result of including the tools of definition in the definition. Since 'a' can only be defined as 'a' with meaning if it implies 'not-a' (the indefinite the great hereafter the border of the definition), and since 'a' can only have meaning as 'a' being as how it is different from everything else (the everything else is the indefinite what is fated the borders, which obviously gives meaning to 'a'), the meaning of 'a' depends on 'not-a.'

When the meaning of something depends on the indefinite, on what our defined object is not, then this indefinite is necessarily included in the process of definition. This logical implication that perception of meaning is only possible if and only if the indefinite is included within the perception is the reason why the 19th years on end dream of a consistent and complete epigrammatic system with only well defined (explicit) empty signs had to fail (see more throughout that in my article, The Loop Logic). In spite of the fact that logic is the fundament of algorithms and computer science, it had neither the hoping nor the power to be connected to the real world precisely being its propositions were so anemic regarding meaning. In the effort to exclude any hint of the indefinite, logical inference was confined to a two-level type of world of true and false and lacking any correlation with life and experiencing. However, including the indefinite in the process of definition not only makes the loop logic the fundament of existence, but determines the necessity of existence. With the parentage of Holophany, Heidegger's question, 'Why is there something at all, rather than nothing?' becomes irrelevant. When existence is relations, and relating is the act of perceiving, and perceiving is the process of definition, then existence is the overall lawfulness, the isomorphous lawfulness of the process of definition - the loop of Creation. What is spirit perceived, what is topical stabilized, which significance is brought to the foreground from the disorderly inconspicuous of the indefinite, depends on the non-linear rules of complex interactions. Thus the loop logic emphasizes the creation of essents rather than their interactions.

Is there a lawfulness responsible for any and every existence? An electron and a dog are very different creatures; so what invisible lawfulness is responsible for the existence of both? What kind of lawfulness would fulfill such demands? The be of use is, isomorphism -- the same logical inner structure in entirely different representations. Whether an electron, a dog or the weather, each could be a different realization of the same inner logical structure. Creation of something is the creation of meaning, which is an act of definition. The act of definition attempting to define itself is consciousness. So consciousness, or the soul if you wish, is not some invisible copy of our body in arms our identity, but the lawfulness of Creation expressed as our individual qualitative essence. Of course, it has been endlessly stated that we are God, that we are parts of God, and similar phrases. This is true, but true in the sense that God is the lawfulness that unfolds Creation, and this lawfulness is inherent in all creation including the creatures therein. It could be argued, that a soul, a person is more than mere definitions and intellect. If this logic is the logic of either and everything, then it should be able to delineate the logical structure of experience as well. Indeed.

Anything that has meaning has to be defined, which places it somewhere on the scale midst the continuous and the discrete, needle the indefinite and the definite. The indefinite, continuous, infinite tends in the direction of the meaningless, whereas the meaningful is at best imprecise. Experience is the process of attempting to define the indefinite. When we try to put under arrest an experience in a description, we are with truth defining our set forward at defining the indefinite. The experience is continuous whereas its description, the definition is discrete. Just as we can never define wholeness, we can never define experience. Any description, any definition, is by nature discrete, whereas the net experience is continuous. So when we have an experience or perception and we turn aware of of having that experience, then we give it meaning by defining what it is. By doing this we create a discrete replica of the experience, yet the experience remains continuous and non-definable, non-discretizable. Experience is connected to learning. The person encounters something new. How do we know that something is new? being it is inconsistent with our system. So when we interact with it, we have to integrate it, to change it into our system. If we met something that was not new to the system, then our system would recognize it as part of itself. When that recognition does not occur, the system is interacting with something new. That is the impact. The system adjusts to include the new - that is the change. One's selfhood is the path of changes following one's experiences.

Our knowledge of the experience - whatever it might be that we experience - makes it exist for us. We could say, one only experiences when one is wise to of experiencing. How do we know that we are behind the curtain of experiencing something? By experiencing it, we experience the feeling of experiencing. In this sense, experience and sense impression of the experience, experiencing the response of the experience, in effect appreciative of of experiencing the perception of the experience, etc. is an infinitely continuous chain, which is what defines what experience is (not the interpretation of a specific experience, but experience in its general sense). And that's the definition of experience: an infinite loop of the process of statuesque aware.

When 'nothing' is the limit of both the totally indefinite and the totally defined, then that's like a periphery of going from something to nothing to something to nothing, etc. The 'going' here means perception. 'Nothing' is only a notion that has meaning if it has been perceived, in fact, a paradox. If it really is 'nothing,' then it cannot be defined, and hence, it has no meaning. Yet if I relate to it, then it is something. So whenever I relate to 'nothing,' whenever I say, Creation of something from nothing, that 'nothing' has meaning for me, and hence, it is significance -- it is something just like any other something. That is, the structure of 'nothing' is the same structure as that of something. Essentially, something from nothing is formation, not Creation, since nothing is also something. Then what is Creation? Creation is rather the creation of nothing from something, seeing that Creation is the process of definition, and when we define, we create the indefinite life to come the definition, which at its limit is nothing, and only then can we have something from nothing... Oh yes, the loop. A true loop is only such if it contains its own source. If nothing can be proven to exist external to perception, then logic must be a loop, and existence is a logical necessity inferred by the loop.

Including the indefinite in the process of definition has far reaching consequences. It means that the tools of the definition are necessarily included in the definition. It means that meaning can only occur when there is both definition and also experience. It means that consciousness (whether it succeeds to define or not) must be part of science or any so-called objective endeavor. It means that any and all perception includes experience. The interaction with the indefinite, the experience, is what gives meaning to the defined. Perception, meaningful definition, can only occur in a highly flexible complex system that can learn and change. That's the difference mid us and an electron, which only has fixed relations, and consequently, limited interactions. An electron invariably succeeds in defining, or it would be more correct to say, it can only interact with what it succeeds in defining. If it encounters the indefinite, it assumes a state of superposition.

Where is God in the loop of Creation? If we wanted to define God, the totality, we could not define God, for by the act of definition we would create the beyond, what is extra God, which contradicts God's totality. Therefore, no definition of God would do justice to God, and every such definition would truncate God's wholeness. If God is indefinable, then God is indefinite. If God is indefinite, then I create God by the implication of the act of definition - any definition, seeing every definition creates the beyond, the indefinite the unknown the outskirts of the definition. In that sense, this is consistent with the statement that I create God by my perception (definition). This does not say that I perceive God, but that my perception implies the existence of the indefinite (God). This means that if I perceive a dog, this perception implies the existence of God. If I perceive that I perceive, then that implies the existence of God. If I perceive dust, a table, an idea, whatever, then that implies the existence of God. If I experience, then that implies the existence of God. That's considering any existence implies the existence of God. And that's cause any existence is such if it relates or is related to, if it has meaning, if even partially it has been defined, which means, its mere definition implies the indefinite the good hereafter the border of the definition, it implies God, the indefinable. So one cannot directly perceive God (perhaps that is why it was stated in the Bible that no one could see God's face and live = exist - 'no man shall see me and live...' - Exodus 33: 20), but only know all but God by implication, which means, the implication of the indefinite - God - is what nature meaning to any existence.

However, 'God' does not equal 'indefinite,' but the process that implies the existence of the indefinite is what could be said to be God, since that's the process of Creation. This is the process of Creation that both creates something, existence, and also nothing, the indefinite. This is why this logic is a loop. © Clara Szalai


Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle. - Diet & Weight Loss Secrets of Bodybuilders and Fitness Models: #1 Best Selling Diet & Fitness E-Book In Internet History!
CashCreation 99.9% Automated Income. - Up to $300 per day 99.9% Automatically in 15 Minutes with CashCreation.Com.


Article Index: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30

More Articles: