Guest guest Posted September 23, 2005 Report Share Posted September 23, 2005 Hi anders, I'm glad that you are back. I'm also glad to see GG Steve ( German Greek Steve) posting again. Now, Al, when you wrote noumenon, do you have any idea what you wrote about? When you write about your fear, I'm sure that you know how fear feels like, but when you write about noumenon, are you writing just about a verbal definition, or something you have felt? How does noumenon feel different than peace? What is the point of throwing words around like noumenon, or soul, or the tenth dimension of string theory, if your brain only knows them as labels designating a blank space in the mind? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2005 Report Share Posted September 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote: > Hi anders, > I'm glad that you are back. I'm also glad > to see GG Steve ( German Greek Steve) > posting again. Now, Al, when you wrote > noumenon, do you have any idea what > you wrote about? When you write about > your fear, I'm sure that you know how fear > feels like, but when you write about noumenon, > are you writing just about a verbal definition, or > something you have felt? How does noumenon > feel different than peace? What is the point of > throwing words around like noumenon, or soul, > or the tenth dimension of string theory, if your > brain only knows them as labels designating a > blank space in the mind? > > Pete Hi Pete! I feel that there must be Noumenon as a fundamental ground of being, and I can only try to explain what I mean in an intellectual way. I think science has got stuck in some strange complicated ideas. First of all, why not look at time as simply being change and not some extra dimension. Also, dimensions cannot really be separate from each other. True orthogonal dimensions are a myth. Ultimately everything is connected. If something was really separate (such as one dimension totally separate from another dimension), then it would not have any relation to anything else and therefore not be a part of that very same existence! So there can only be one " dimension " . If there is only one dimension, how can we experience 3 dimensions? Imagine that we use a computer to simulate a virtual 3D reality. How many dimensions are needed to model the program running on the computer? The answer is of course: one dimension! I suggest that science start looking at models that use only one dimension to describe all of existence; a digital model in one dimension, very much like a computer program. The first axiom is such model could be: I. Everything is connected into one wholeness. This is the one " dimension " needed to explain existence as a whole. This is the " glue " that holds every seemingly separate phenomenon together. We could call this one ground of existence Noumenon (to borrow from the philosophy of Kant). The second axiom could be: II. Within Noumenon exists seemingly separate aspects, which we can call Phenomena. The simplest way to model phenomena is as binary information. Noumenon is the context within which Phenomena exist. As an illustration, we can think of Noumenon as a configuration space or as the universal " computer " and Phenomena as the binary information representing that configuration space. This is the simplest model of existence possible. Binary information existing within a one-dimensional configuration space. Making a map from this simple model into a more elaborate model explaining the manifested universe is perhaps not an easy task, but as a fundamental model there is no doubt that this simple model is non-redundant and if possible could serve as a good foundation for further more elaborate theories. Instead of here trying to map spacetime and matter using this model we can begin with a bottom-top-down approach. The fundamental property of existence is not the manifested universe but instead pure information. We can think of Noumenon as the configuration space of all possible combinations of binary information. This means that Noumenon is timeless, so how can there be time? One hypothesis is that the manifested universe is a subset within Noumenon, i.e. a subset of all possible combinations of binary information. We call this subset complexity. What is complexity? The definition we will use here is that complexity is order; from the simplest form of order to the most complex form of order. Some scientific definitions of complexity make a distinction between simple order and complexity, but here we include simple order as being complexity. So complexity is a timeless subset within Noumenon. How can there then be change in the universe? The manifested universe is the subset of complexity in relation to the entire configuration space of Noumenon. This relation: complexity <-> non-complexity is a timeless yet open-ended relation. This relation just is, but the relation also never ends, because the configuration space is infinite. This means that even thought complexity is a timeless subset, the experience of being part of this timeless subset is a never ending journey. Complexity has an arrow going from the simplest form of order to the most complex form of order. This is the same as the arrow of evolution and also the same as the arrow of time. We are moving from the simplest form of order in the form of the Big Bang to an open-ended infinitely complex form of order (the future). This model presented so far contains both the most fundamental form of bottom-up (the simple model of Noumenon and Phenomena) and the highest top-down approach (complexity unfolding). al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.