3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 11:57 am
PR!
Thank you for the question. The ground would be the cognitive need for curiosity, or the metaphysical Will to be. A fixed, intrinsic or innate need, a priori. Of course, the qualitative features of self-consciousness allows for things like curiosity as well as things like intuition to manifest. And it does so through the cognitive process of the intellect. Meaning, in this context, consider the logic of causation as a means to an end. In pure reason or logic, if the end goal is to have some level of "certainty", it is not those exclusive 'qualitive' features that will get us there. The complimentary feature to 'quality' then, would be of 'quantity'. As an example, the infamous synthetic a priori cosmological argument would rear its metaphorical head:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
It is a nonsensical argument in my opinion because a begin implies the start of a pattern and a pattern is bound by observation or 'consciousness'. That implies that consciousness necessarily precedes a pattern on a fundamental level.
Quantum Post Selection shows that consciousness can exert physical effects in the past. That implies simply that what one assumes to be 'physical reality' can be changed from the future backwards in time and thus it undermines any potential factor that can be considered 'certainty' as basis for causality. Therefore, it would also disprove Kant's reasoning.
3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 11:57 amIn consciousness, from a physical/meta-physical vantage point, we have both quantity and quality (of the foregoing cognitive process) working for us, respectively. The quantity is the object, the quality is the subject. The trick is to transcend both the subject-object dichotomy to effect some level of "certainty". Kind of like the ToE where QM and relativity can be integrated and resolved (?).
No, I would not agree with that. Certainty as a concept is merely
sought after by a human within the context of his/her interests.
If a human finds satisfaction in a certain level of usability, for example the result of repeatabaility
in time, then that is merely an utilitarian concept and not a fundamental concept. A human may be happy with an utilitarian concept, but that's 'for as long as it lasts'.
3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 11:57 amWith respect to backward causation, yes, I'm familiar with that phenomenon. At it's core, it does not only imply a logically structured determined universe of cause and effect and its related laws, but more specifically an indetermined one suggesting through analogy that both free-will and determinism can co-exist (compatibilism). Of course, there is some debate over such an inference... .
I do not believe that it is that simple. How can it be said that determinism is applicable why indeterminism is applicable? Isn't the mere potential for indeterminism evidence that anything is indetermined? What's left is an
experience but how can the nature of that be judged in order to arrive at certainty?
3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 11:57 amNonetheless, you raise a very intriguing possibility. One way to envision this, could be the ability to step outside the block universe model of spacetime... . Is the quantum pigeon hole reminiscent of the Hawking informational paradox?
The block Universe concept implies that all time and all space is predetermined. Atla is a proponent of that idea.
Atla wrote: ↑January 8th, 2022, 8:44 am
If time goes in a circle (which it logically should), we can have a temporally ordered series of events with no beginning or end. No point on a circle is the beginning or the end, yet the circle is finite.
psyreporter wrote: ↑February 6th, 2022, 5:21 am
Can you explain in detail the ground upon which you believe that time being of finite substance within a circle shape makes 'sense'?
Because then there is no need for change, there is only the illusion of change as it should be. The past doesn't have to magically disappear, the future doesn't have to magically appear out of nothing. Past present and future are equally real, and can form a complete, circular chain of events.
In practive this probably means that the universe is an "unchanging perpetuum mobile", a block universe of circular dimensions. So eventually our region of the the universe will start to contract and collapse back into a singularity, which is one and the same singularity at the same point in time as the Big Bang was. It's completely counterintuitive that a distant point in our futurte is a distant point in our past, but the only picture that makes perfect logical sense.
Block universe theory block-universe.jpg (17.05 KiB) Viewed 1443 times
My suggestion would be that there is more then what can be considered 'Being' while in the same time that does not imply anything with regard relevance to the scope of 'meaningfulness'.