Process Metaphysics and Computational Paradigm (#1367)

Process Metaphysics and Computational Paradigm (#1367)

Thanks for the feedback on my website. You also raise some interesting points, such as...

> there can only be one <> 'primary'
> cause and effect chain in a universe to avoid chaotic behaviour.

By this I assume you means that all the complex high level phenomena seem to originate from a single low level foundation - call it the unified vacuum, Brahman, God, or whatever.

However quantum physics seems to indicate that the underlying process is not "continuously acting" but it is 'constantly' acting. I.e. it is analogous to the frames in a movie, the frames or instances of existential experience are discrete (dis-continuous) but they keep coming in a constant flow. The planck scale of quantum physics indicates that this universe has a frame-rate of about 1.859 x 10^43 frames per second so it is difficult to encounter the 'granularity' of time, but on the quantum scale this granularity can have significant effects.

You also say:
> The Energy Universe 'co-creative cause and effect chain' is
> event driven <>

That is very true, the idea of "time as a dimension" and a continuum at that, is only a descriptive convenience that has assisted in the development of certain mathematical scientific models, such as Newtonian physics and relativistic physics. But in the quantum realm and in deeply metaphysical contexts this descriptive method breaks down and time comes to seem more like an ongoing process, a 'happening', it is event driven and it proceeds in discrete iterations, just like a finite state automata. When considering the 'whole' there is no separate metric by which to measure the passing moments so there is no 'time' as such, but only a stream of "occassions of experience", as Alfred North Whitehead called them. That is why my own mathematics is founded on the use of finite state automata, which acts as an information process that 'simulates' an experiential construct or virtual reality (which we then experience and come to call the "physical universe").

Are you aware of the fields of process philosophy and process physics, they have developed the idea of reality as inherently 'process' driven and all the 'objects' that we perceive are steady states within the coherent flux of processes, like whirl pools in a stream. Process physics, in particular has developed detailed models of the underlying information process based upon iterative neural networks. The motivtion for this arose because the fundamental equations of quantum field theory gave rise to equations identical to those required to model the behaviour of neural networks. This is very suggestive of concepts such as that the universe is like a dream happening within some cosmic consciousness.

In my own analogies I describe the physical universe as being like a virtual reality computer game happening within a cosmic computer. This opens the issue up to detailed analysis using computer science, information theory and system theory. In this context I then model the type of "simulation algorithm" or "reality generative process" that is required to manifest a virtual reality with properties similar to those of this physical universe. These include a quantum vaccum, relativistic effects, system theoretic properties, information theoretic event driven interactions, individual subjective experience, and so on.

You say:
> for a faithful metaphysical event modelling, you have
> to launch a species spirit co-creative activity in a
> separate event driven universe and then model a
> co-creative re-entry in the secondary cause and effect
> chain back into this universe to species human, something
> that a single continuous function by itself cannot handle.

The language that you use is unfamiliar to me. Thus I will translate it a little into my own language so we can check if we are understanding each other...

In my mind you seem to be saying that the experienced phenomena alone are not enough to explain the metaphysical foundations of reality, just as a computer game character may experience a world of people places and things, but underlying this is an abstract computational context that manifests all the perceived phenomena but which cannot be explained in terms of those phenomena.

This distinction between "in the game" or "of the game", I refer to as empirical and transcendent. Empirical implies that it a construct of sensory experience and transcendent implies that it underlies and sustains the empirical context. E.g. a novel being read by a human being is a transcendent process that manifests an imaginative story- world (empirical context). Within that story-world events occur and characters exist, but these characters partly exist as beings in the empirical story-world (species human) and also partly exist as literary constructs within the book itself (species spirit). Thus any manifest form exists in both empirical and transcendent levels. At least that is roughly how I interpret your terms "species human" and "species spirit". They describe the difference between appearance and essence.

Now regarding your phrase "co-creative activity in a separate event driven universe", that is what I would refer to as the transcendent computational process or the transcendent virtual-reality generative process. Metaphorically speaking, it is the 'similator' that underlies this 'simulation'. The exploration of the nature of this simulator is the core aspect of my work and there are on my website computer implementations of the mathematics which produce coherent virtual realities, thus showing that the mathematical principles are coherent and that they do operate as a "reality generative process". It is also a powerful computational technology that I hope will find some useful applications. There are no patents or copyright - I think this meme (idea) deserves to be free.

You then say "then model a co-creative re-entry in the secondary cause and effect chain back into this universe to species human" which I interpret as you saying that once we have a model of the transcendent information process, we can then explore what kinds of virtual worlds arise from this transcendent process. By then comparing the resulting virtual universe with observations of our own universe we can then refine the models and work toward a deeper understanding of both the transcendent and empirical contexts.

That is the general process of my work and the preliminary explorations have already made theoretical contact with the Planck scale of this physical universe, thereby suggesting the deeper role and meaning of many of the fundamental constants of physics such as Planck's constant, the speed of light, the universal gravitational constant, etc. As well as shedding light on concepts such as information, energy, time, unified vaccum, mass, etc. The discrete nature of the transcendent information gives rise to quantum phenomena and the finite nature of the transcendent information gives rise to relativistic phenomena - both of these arise naturally.

Furthermore, this model of transcendent and empirical reality is inherently event driven and discontinuous, i.e. iterative.

You said regarding the concepts on my website that:
> The only problem that I had was with the extension of
> a continuous function to the metaphysical.

I'm not sure what you mean by this; to the best of my knowledge there is no reliance on any continuous functions - EVERYTHING is finite, discrete and based on iterative processes (finite state automata). These are essential properties of the mathematics. The process is an event driven phenomenon operating within a closed, semantic self- excited circuit. I.e. the information flows, it is perceived, interpreted and flows on as response, this is a distributed phenomenon without any centralised point of control, each system engages with the universe as an individual. As the information percolates through the networks of systems this organises the systems into collectives, or patterns. These patterns are higher level systems and they have no intrinsic meaning, but semantic associations arise, thus meaning arises through their operation within some context, like in the "Game of Life". In this way the circuit is both the medium of interaction and also that which interacts, hence it is self-excited. The higher levels form out of these semantically meaningful patterns, relations and ongoing processes of interaction - hence the universe is co-creative.

These general models also accord with ancient metaphysical analogies from Vedanta (underlies yoga, hinduism and buddhism), Kabbalah (underlies judaism, mystic christianity and sufism) and also with Taoism (which is the most process oriented spiritual paradigm that I know of).

Does any of the above relate to your comments P? These are subtle subjects, far removed from everyday experience and conceptual habits, plus there are so many potential analogies and ways of imagining and describing these concepts that often I sense that people talk about similar things without realising, and also talk about unrelated things without realising. It is good to compare analogies and to develop translations or bridges between ways of thinking.