January 2015 debut
Nonexistence Reality NR
mind definition ≡ NR worldview
NR World View channel
@2015nrwv
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Our) Merely being of and by itself, without reflection, is fully a statement of philosophy.
This site however is for you for whom philosophy is but also in and of the heart.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(A) Belief is the foundation of every mind no less. Thus does belief, philosophy and metaphysics come before physics, even as some would proclaim otherwise.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Why mind?
Today we "see everything as existence" – we "posit existential status" to every element of our correspondent knowledge. We do not allow-for any conception of "what it is" to exist in general, independent of particular existence. This pre-interpretation – this "existential fixation" – blinkers us.
This consideration of mind's nature...
...is not about the interrelation between nor ancestry of things that already are.
(causation, things-in-terms-of-other-things)
(knowledge, what and how, science)
...is about why things are in the first instance, regardless of what they are.
(intrinsic propensity, the essence of being in general)
"what it is" to be is "what it is" to have a mind and to know.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This site presents an explicit capturing of the idea that there is no Absolute.
There is however the unknowable, and this can be symbolized.
We need the unknowable...
...because an imperfect preconception thereof forms the very foundation of our individual minds.
This same preconception forms the very framework by which mind knows the world.
That energy, space and time are all around and in us does not imply that they exist.
It is a delusion no less to see these concepts as corresponding in any sense, to existence of any sort.
The archetype for these unknowables is here called nonexistence.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
abstract
nonexistence-reality.org (NRworldview.org) presents a rational and naturalistic worldview which abstracts the nature of mind. Nonexistence reality (NR) is the name of this worldview. Our currently dominant worldview is here called existence reality (ER). In contrast with the existence-basis of the ER universe, the basis for the NR universe is nonexistence (N) which is defined as the ability to exist. N is the essence of random interaction and change. The NR unit of existence is called a thing. Thing is defined in terms of N - as this ability to exist bootstrapping its non-being into being (a thing) by way of self-organization.
Thus for NR the word creation as verb is the event of self-organization, and existing is not a "state" but rather this same creation event ongoing. Thus a thing is a special case of N - it is "embodied change," that thru self-organization continually changes back to itself, in time and space, and so does not change. Through self-organization nonexistence is thus "tied-up into existence." This is the intrinsic wave nature of existence.
The body of all things ("every thing together") in the NR universe forms a unitary polytree. The body of mind is composed of ideas. Ideas are mind-things. Ideas are as real as an atom of gold. NR mind is defined as that part of the existence polytree whose root is the idea of N. Thus mind is a simulated universe based upon the simulated ability to exist. As such, mind has a simulated wave nature supported by EEG brain waves.
Nonexistence N is an archetype, and the ideas of energy, space and time are dimensions of archetypal N. Thus energy, space and time do not exist except as idea of mind; and we know the world in their terms, expressed as a realistic self. NR self is defined as the idiosyncratic ability to exist - more than who we are it is who we can be. We know the world in terms of our ability to be; we "realize our selves."
Thus the existing body of an NR mind (all its ideas, mind-content) is its universe unfolded: its "mind-identity" along with its knowledge. The ideas that constitute a mind's knowledge and perception of the external world literally transcend the brain boundary; these ideas "tie mind to world." And learning and consciousness is new creation in the ongoing universe-simulation which is every mind. In discovering mind the NR universe has passed thru a singularity, on the mind-side of which is universe-self-knowledge, now including the NR worldview as such.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
– philosophy of mind – process philosophy – metaphysics – world view – belief –
– a physical mechanism for all existence in the universe –
– wave physics – thermodynamics – self-organization – creation – the existence polytree –
– a unified theory of everything including mind –
– cosmology – mathematics – psychology – neuroscience –
– existence definition and analysis –
– formal definitions of mind, self and consciousness –
motivated by a consideration of the nature of mind from a naturalist perspective
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This website presents a new view of the world in which mind is both recognized and formally defined. This is to say that this particular worldview is integral to this nature of mind. Moreover this view is a synthesis of (its) particular natures of mind and existence – of mind as but part of and vis-à-vis the rest of existence, and of wave mechanics and the concept of self-organization. Within this view these heretofore usually separate considerations are inextricably linked.
This new worldview is here called nonexistence reality, to be abbreviated NR. NR is specifically an epistemologically rational approach to the nature of mind, as opposed to one empirically derived. NR was not and is not inspired by theology – on the contrary as a naturalist approach there might ostensibly be zero room for the divine. This was the initial approach; NR was not created to bolster pre-existing beliefs. NR has absolutely zero room for creationism or for intelligent design, or an Absolute or Supreme Being who by way of an invisible hand bestows any of creation, life or order – or mind for that matter – otherwise absent in this world. And NR is specifically neither Idealism nor Pantheism (Please see an encyclopedia).
However NR is specifically theistic in that it requires explicit recognition of and belief in an unobservable non-thing as the very quintessence of the NR universe. This non-thing is here called nonexistence, and is abbreviated with the letter N. N is not God by another much less endearing name: This idea of N explicitly does not correspond to anything. It does not represent “some-non-thing-new,” but rather in formal definition becomes an archetype that underpins old ideas already very familiar to us. As such, N represents not by every current account a reinterpretation of energy, space and time but a removal of the ambiguity currently tolerated in the ultimate meaning of these concepts.
As regards the nature of mind, the NR concept of nonexistence N is literally the “way we see.” This unambiguous interpretation of energy, time and space cannot be derived or categorically proven or disproven, from first principles as it were; it can only be believed or not. A side-aim of NR is to make it clear that belief and concomitant choice, recognized or not, is an unavoidable and central element of our every view of the world. As an archetype the N concept is in spirit close to that of eternal mystery in Christianity and to Tathata or “thusness” in Mahayana Buddhism.
NR will be defined in part by contrast with our age-old prevailing worldview, here called existence reality, to be abbreviated ER. Whereas NR holds the above-mentioned explicit belief, ER harbors an implicit and unrecognized opposite defining belief. From the standpoint of NR this ER belief is a misbelief, which is fundamentally the reason why the mind has remained such an enigma to ER, as will become clear.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
– ER and NR: two different universes –
– it’s all about existence and its diametrical opposite, nonexistence –
Does “nonexistence reality” sound like an oxymoron? This is because our English language was constructed within an existence reality ER:
• ER informal, common, self-referential definition of:
existence: all that exists – being – all that is (real) – “everything”
For ER, the word existence does not define “what it is” to exist in general. Existence is simply posited as everything, without exception, period. So this everything leaves nothing for what is not, period.
Conversely for nonexistence reality NR, existence is “not everything,” per se. NR’s totality of existence is a unitary polytree of NR things (see an encyclopedia for the definition of a polytree, from graph theory):
• NR terminology: A thing is the unit of existence.
– Just like the Greek atomos, a thing is a whole indivisible; a thing-divided is no longer a thing, and ceases to exist.
An idea is the unit of existence of the mind; a mind-thing; mind content.
NR will formally define thing a little later. Thing has a specific definition in the terms of nonexistence. And “every thing is” only insofar as it-is-by-this-definition.
Nonexistence is formally defined right here:
• NR Formal Definition #1: nonexistence, N: The ability to exist.
N is the archetype for the ability to exist.
NR’s nonexistence N is not simply an absence, negation or “denial” of existence. N the concept, N the idea, N the mind-thing exists, period. By definition, N in fact does not; there is nothing in or of the world external to any mind that corresponds to this idea.
N is the concept for change, chaos and random interaction – for the potential to exist.
Whereas ER sees its universe and its existence as equivalent, in contrast the NR universe is more than its existence polytree: it is the totality of its existence polytree plus N – the ability to exist.
In the context of the phrases “existence reality” and “nonexistence reality” the word reality means “fundamental reality,” that is, the “basis of the universe.”
Thus ER and NR describe two different universes, with two bases or fundamental realities, existence and N respectively:
• ER-defining tenet: Fundamental reality is existence.
• NR-defining tenet: Fundamental reality is nonexistence.
Thus, in the context of NR the words reality and existence are not synonymous. Thus “nonexistence reality” is not an oxymoron.
Creationists and materialists share the ER worldview, albeit with clearly different existence-bases: For creationists it is the Supreme Being. For materialists it is first or otherwise “basic component” existence. Insofar as everything else is seen as fully explainable in its (causal) terms, this first stuff figuratively “under stands” us. It is sometimes called the fundamental building blocks of nature. Here it will be referred to as first-basic existence. Its ontological status – what it is exactly, “really” – is still an open question.
On the other hand, the N-basis of the NR universe does not reside at a bottom or anywhere for that matter. It is all energy, space and time; it is “now,” we are wholly in and of it. This is not just metaphor. As will be shown, as dimensions of nonexistence the ideas of energy, space and time represent different aspects of and orientations towards archetypal N, the ability to exist.
– the concepts of energy, space and time are not what we see but how we see –
For NR, creation and annihilation as events are ongoing all around and in us. More than this, creation (aka becoming) and existing (aka being) are one and the same: A thing is by sole virtue of its continuous self-creation. Thus to know creation is to know how a thing exists. The NR formal shared definition for both central ideas of creation and thing will follow shortly. Both N and creation can be symbolically represented and then manipulated mathematically. A creation operator is defined. It can be applied to N and (pre-existing) things, exactly as other familiar mathematical operators such as squaring and square root are applied of numbers:
As regards the concept of N, there is precedent in mathematics and engineering for assigning a symbol to represent something that does not exist. It is called the imaginary unit, represented by the letter i. The imaginary unit denotes the square root of negative-one. This number i does not exist, yet it can be symbolically manipulated in equations, factored into and out of them, and “made real” by the squaring operation (i-squared = -1). In an exactly analogous fashion, N as denoting nonexistence can be made real by the creation operation. This operation is not in reality applied by a creator, but is self-applied by nonexistence “its-non-being.” This creation operator will be utilized later under what NR calls existence analysis.
Thus N, creation and thing can be symbolically represented and employed in math equations in precisely the way that energy, time and space are already so widely employed. That energy, time and space are interpreted as dimensions of N of course in no way invalidated the huge body of scientific knowledge and engineering that employs them. Seeing them in this light does however open the door to the NR conception of mind.
NR mind will in turn be defined as but one more NR thing, that is-by-the-definition-of-creation-and-thing, to follow. As such, mind is fundamentally no different than all other NR things in the NR universe (the existence polytree), such as the protons in the nucleus of an iron atom.
Thus NR mind is very ordinary existence, no more and no less. Yet what NR mind represents in-and-as existence makes it extraordinary.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
– ER and NR: two different types of truth –
A subtle yet most important point: Mind can be seen as part of our world – the whole-world-including-mind. But the words can be are underlined because this is not “really truly so,” regardless of our view. Specifically, it is not this way from our broadly prevailing ER. The ER worldview does not “see itself.” Approximately:
There is just “the world, out there.” Our rational, scientific understandings progress to ever more closely correspond to the de-facto world. Truthfulness is measured in the degree of this correspondence: There is no view of the world, per se, but only the world mirrored in correspondently true knowledge.
This is the correspondence theory of truth. (see an encyclopedia)
This “un-view” sees a slow but steady uncovering of mind’s “true underlying nature” – to the highly questioned extent that mind has any uniquely defining nature in the first instance. – All this standing-under to occur completely within a now long established (scientific) framework of knowledge.
NR is on the other hand a coherence theory of truth (see an encyclopedia). This means that this worldview only “makes sense” from within itself as a whole taken together. As a coherency NR cannot be “inferred or derived,” from the outside as it were. From within this coherency the above correspondence narrative is seen as faulty, and the question of mind becomes much, much more interesting.
The recent Philae 67P comet landing (November 2014) is more than just a remarkable technological achievement. The landing represents a splendid realization of the age-old human dream to reach out to worlds ever so distant and so different. With technology and systems that we human minds have created we have physically touched a world virtually unchanged since the time billions of years ago when earth was formed. If our early hominid ancestors only knew what their descendants would eventually create they would be bewildered yet proud indeed.
For us here now the comet landing is not an awe-experience without both (1) our beholding minds here on earth, and (2) the actual landing far away on 67P. In this sense the subjective wonderment ideas that we consider to be entirely “within our heads” are but part of a knowledge-reality that transcends the vast and empty space between us and the comet. It is in this sense that through knowledge and awe we are “at one” with the distant and yes intrepid Philae lander. You may take these words as mere metaphor or simply bad poetry, but our wonderment never occurs in isolation from the external world however perceived. An account of the nature of mind should recognize this transcendent reality. NR shows us how we can see mind, including human mind, here, as us beholders and reflectors, as every bit as remarkable as what is “out there.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
– selfstanding: seeing mind “depends on how we look at it” –
…Like the Cheshire Cat when its disappearance is only to us who but for how we see cannot.
Let it be clear that until the end of the ability to exist, we will never see or otherwise theoretically derive a mind from the building blocks of nature (first-basic existence). Yet in general, seeing – identification – remains always the critical first stage towards comprehension.
So, before we even know what mind is or is not, we must say that mind is, period.
• NR premise #1: Monism: The NR universe is monistic. It is not a duality, plurality or pantheism.
• NR premise #2: Ideas (mind-things) are part of (one totality of) existence: Ideas exist, period.
It is not correspondently provable from first or outside facts that ours is a monistic universe, and that ideas are part of existence. NR as a coherency means that these premises must here at the outset be accepted (as coherently true), then it remains to form the coherent worldview in which these premises hold. This approach is very important.
A monistic naturalist perspective means the following for NR: How can we see our thinking and knowing – our minds – as being a natural product of the universe (and not as a gift from God)? Implications: When one talks about mind as a natural outcome and existent part of the universe, then insofar as we – “we minds” – are (able) to understand the universe, then we are talking about the universe understanding itself via mind, its creation no more and no less. In other words the universe is self-understanding – this begs for the word selfstanding:
• NR terminology: selfstanding: a noun, denoting a coherence theory of truth – a coherency of ideas, propositions or beliefs.
selfstand: a verb, meaning to comprehend a selfstanding.
The word selfstanding will henceforth serve to highlight the central concept of coherency: NR is not stood-under by theory; NR selfstands.
• NR premise #zero: The nature of the NR universe is such that it is capable of selfstanding.
This is to say, the nature of the universe is such that it is able to know, reconceive, discover, recreate and reflect, imagine and see itself – wholly within and by itself. This perspective is very important.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
– NR = existence defined, in general –
A monistic NR presents a way of seeing not only nuclear (atomic) and grey (brain) matters but also mind matter (ideas, mind content) – as equally real and extant:
If all things (that exist) are to be uniformly selfstood then this conception will rest in a priori knowledge about the nature of existence-in-general rather than knowledge about particular things (first-basic existence).
Although an iron atom and the idea of an apple are materially and relatively very different, they are fundamentally the same in that they exist. They exist according to a definition of creation and thing, the unit of existence, shortly to be given.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
– “all creation” forms a unitary dynamic polytree –
The structure of every universe: a dynamic polytree
For NR there is but one existence, not a dualistic two-within-one – not mind-and-matter – but simply matter including mind-matter. Each thing in the polytree is in the terms and causal character of other (more basic and pre-existing) things lower in its tree. Although everything has its own distinct relative nature, every thing is “equally real.” There are no “grades” of existence; every thing that exists is, period. Every thing is a whole indivisible. Foundational and root things – the things that “stand under” – these first-basic things of the polytree include gravity, basic atomic parts and forces of interaction. Creation and annihilation are everywhere and in every thing ongoing: The tree is constantly getting and losing branches, twigs and leaves, including here on earth lives and minds.
• NR Formal Definition #2: creation environment: A non-isolated thermodynamic system with a flux of N flowing through it.
The boundaries of a creations environment are arbitrarily delineated. Lines are drawn where in reality there are none. Boundaries are useful and required for study purposes but like almost all boundaries we define in any study these can be misleading: no matter how artificial is a boundary there is the temptation to posit qualitative disunion between the sides.
The NR universe as a whole is a creation environment, with the first-basic things including gravity waves and the other fundamental forces forming in the tremendous N-flux (energy) of the Big Bang.
Earth is an arbitrarily delineated part of the existence polytree. The surface and oceans have a flux of N passing through, from the sun and geothermal. Life on earth constitutes existence. Each individual is existence (a thing) and part thereof.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
– Simply Why? Why the world? Of existence in general, why “bother” becoming? Or being? –
• NR central concept: self-organization: the quintessence of becoming and being.
The godless-why for NR existence is self-organization, along with its sister-concepts self-sustenance, self-propagation and self-generation. (See a dictionary or an encyclopedia.)
– The universe exists because of bootstrapping –
Self-organization is not simply a pattern emerging out of a creation environment. Rather, self-organization is the quintessence of existence in the NR universe, as the thing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
– Every thing is, by virtue alone of ongoing self-organization –
• NR idea of nonexistence N, in review:
The ability – the potential – to be. N exists solely as an idea that corresponds to no thing of any sort. There is nothing in or of the world external to any mind that corresponds to this idea.
N is the archetype for the ideas of energy, space and time. Because none of these concepts exist, they cannot be perceived, but rather are the terms by which we perceive.
• NR idea of thing, in review:
The unit of being.
Whereas the word ‘atom’ names a particular class of thing, the NR thing does not represent any particular thing in nature; it represents every single thing (that exists): “Everything is a thing.”
Creation is the discrete event by which a thing comes to be and continues in being. This event does not happen at an “instant” in time, but over its wave length and period. This event is defined recursively:
• NR Formal Definition #3: creation: A quantum of nonexistence N and an ordering of a finite number of thinglets that self-organizes.
– a thinglet is a thing.
• NR identity: creation ≡ thing.
• NR identity: self-organization ≡ self-creation ≡ creation ≡ thing.
– becoming and being are one and the same thing –
An event (creation) and the unit of existence (thing) are one and the same. Things are not caused to exist. Things are their own intrinsic propensity to exist. Thus creation implies self-creation. Creation is spawned by N. In a fashion analogous to radioactive decay, the exact period of new creation cannot be predicted. N moves thinglets in a random fashion. By purest chance, there arranges a time-space order of thinglets that organizes (sustains) itself. A new thing now is (extant). Thus existence is born in and of nonexistence.
– thing is at the same instant both (1) the diametrical opposite of N, and (2) but a special case of N –
– existence is but a special case of nonexistence –
The closely coupled concepts of nonexistence and thing constitute the two poles of the NR bipolar selfstanding of existence. The thing, as the very unit of existence, is essentially a special case of nonexistence. This is very important: existence is a special case of N; existence is N that bootstraps its-non-being into being via self-organization.
It is not a contradiction to say on the one hand that the thing and N are diametrical opposites, and on the other hand that the thing is but a special case of N. The pivot point is the special case of N that by chance organizes itself, and in so doing turns N into the polar opposite - a thing, solely by virtue of its self-organization. Again, existence is nonexistence that is caught in a self-organizing and sustaining cycle.
At one pole: N-that-does-not-organize-itself is not. And at the other pole: N-that-does-organize-itself is (a thing).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
– every universe has a wave nature –
The inherent wave nature of existence
• NR identity: a wave ≡ self-organization ≡ creation ≡ thing. – becoming a wave is being –
A subtle and important point: For over a century now quantum theory has captured the wave properties of matter. But at no time does there seem to have been serious postulation as to why this wave nature. This is to say, amongst particle and astrophysicists then and now, the question of why-wave-nature does not seem to have been front and center following on the heels of what-wave-nature. Existence is described as having a wave nature, but as for why? Is this “just the way it is?” “Or happens to be?” Why not why? Suffice here that not asking why is missing an opportunity to explore and possibly say something about the nature of universes in general.
For NR the question of why-wave-nature is of central importance. For NR wave nature is seen as intrinsic and pre-given. This is to say, every universe that ever was or will ever be, has a wave nature: Every nature is a wave nature, period.
The NR definition of creation implies that things must have a wave nature: things are waves: no thing would be if it were not a wave. And vice versa: the thing is the definition of the wave. That is, a thing is an entity that organizes and keeps itself, and this is what a wave does. To be a wave is to exist.
Things are waves; with particular quanta of time (period), space (wavelength) and energy (change) tied-up.
No thing comes to exist thence to “freely coast in being.” No thing is a static particle – there is no such thing. Self-organization is by definition continuous and ongoing. It is a process as the word is defined in process philosophy (see an encyclopedia). It implies movement-in-space and change-in-time. Within itself a thing is all change:
Via cyclic change over the breadth of its wave space and over the period of its wave time, a thing continually recreates itself. As such, space and time are “tied-up and consumed” by it.
Again, a thing continually changes in a chance cycle back to itself, and so effectively does not change. In other words, through change a thing cancels out its own change: thing-continuity is a function of continuous self-recreation.
So, it is not that atomic matter, electromagnetic radiation, gravity, biological life and mind all chance to have a wave nature. Rather, these things necessarily and inherently have a wave nature, by virtue alone of their existing through self-organization.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Of central import is this concept of the inherent and necessary wave nature of things as the quintessence of their very being regardless of their particular being.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thing Propagation
Thing propagation refers to a thing not vis-à-vis an existent medium but rather vis-à-vis nonexistence N. That is, the “medium” for a thing-wave is N and as with a standing wave the concept of dimensional conveyance or lack thereof is ancillary. As in the image of Tathata, a thing exists in a sea or flux of N and without this sea there is no thing. The thing is at one with the sea. Like the water flowing through a pond midway down a stream, the stream and the pond are the same “fluid,” yet the pond traps a quantum of fluid which is the essence of its being. In this sense, the stream (N, the medium) is as much flowing or moving through the pond (thing, the wave), as vice versa. In this way, a given unit of existence is not forever the “same nonexistence” – not frozen as it were: the nonexistence that “fills” and is the pond is constantly replenished. And if the stream dries-up so too does the pond. This is the meaning of what is here called thing propagation.
Thing Oscillation
A thing – a self-sustaining entity – effectively oscillates. An entity that organizes itself cannot be static and unchanging; otherwise it cannot act towards itself. Because a thing, as but a special case of nonexistence, is changing and yet “coming back” to itself, it is essentially cycling or oscillating.
The concepts of time and space will be discussed shortly. However, insofar as time is a relative measure of change, then by conventional definition a thing completes one oscillation in a quantity of time called its period. The shorter the period the more “particle-like” is a thing – that is, the more likely it is to be perceived as a particle. In reality there is no such thing as a particle – a static, frozen, non-oscillating thing. The wave-particle duality of matter rests in perception only: The particle side of this duality is a particle perception; it is a perception-thing (that exists): a “particle” is an object of perception. Perception will be discussed in the existence analysis section.
The thing can be considered a model for wholeness. For the sake of studying its “anatomy,” a number of boundaries can be drawn through a thing – artificial and arbitrary boundaries where in fact there are none. With these boundaries drawn through it, a thing can be viewed as a progression, consisting of a series of phases, each of which generates, through change, the next phase in the series, until the “last” phase generates the “first,” and the cycle – one oscillation or period – is complete. To make this conception realistic the idea of the integral in calculus is now applied: The quantum of time “captured” by each phase is decreased asymptotically towards zero, and the number of phases is concomitantly increased towards infinity. This is the reality of a thing: a contiguous, non-divisible, seamless whole. To break a thing at any point in its cycle is to annihilate it, and to release the quantum of nonexistence that it embodies. This quantum can be seen as a measure of the existence that was embodied in the whole, and was not accounted for by the parts alone: the whole is more (existence) than the sum of its parts.
Each phase in the above outline can be symbolically represented by a point in “N-dimensional” space, as an order of thinglets in this space. But in its oscillation a thing is also an order in time, that is, an order in or of change. Thus the sequential ordering of phases in time is as important as the spatial order of thinglets for each phase. Therefore, the word order in the context of NR always has this compound meaning. To speak of spatial or temporal order in isolation from its complement is to misrepresent the thing as a whole.
Visualizing the quantum of nonexistence captured and embodied by a thing
Best simply think of a hydrocarbon or wood-fibre molecule. Or consider further the above “phase-anatomy” outline of thing:
In a given creation environment the N-flux outflow is equal to the inflow. But if creation occurs then a quantum of N is thereafter “directed within” the new thing, as part of its ongoing “self-making.” This quantum “disappears” from the net N-outflow over time. Using the pinball motion analogy, whereas non-self-organizing random motion scatters and “hits the boundaries of the environment” (whereby outflow = inflow), thing-motion is directed “into itself,” the motion being “efficiently transferred” phase-to-phase within. This internally directed motion is the thing’s quantum of being.
The ontological status of order
Nonexistence is the random interaction and ordering of things such that creation may or may not occur. If creation does occur then the order becomes a part of the new thing. But creation most often does not occur, in which case there is still ordering although there is no new thing. In this case the order does not self-sustain: through change it will alter and not come back to itself. This also happens when a thing annihilates: the order then ceases to be part of a self-organizing whole and commences scatter and decay. The nature of skeletons will be mentioned in the existence analysis section. In summary, order is not existence in and of itself, and although all things have order, there can be order not a part of any thing. Therefore NR sees the distinction between the words order and thing as important. Again in review: The thing is the unit of existence. The ordering of the thinglets that are a part of a thing does not constitute existence in and of itself. All that exists is the thing, which is the ordering of the thinglets plus a quantum of nonexistence, all of which together self-organizes.
Character
A thing, as but a special case of nonexistence, is still interacting with other things but because it is preserving itself then this interaction is no longer completely random. Therefore the thing is described as having character, in the same way that we say a person has character. Character only gains meaning within the context of a specific interaction. It is defined equally in terms of the thing and the other things with which it interacts. Having character is another way of saying that a thing is a factor of influence in the environment.
Determinism
Nonexistence by its-non-being is not deterministic. But because things have character, nonexistence moves them necessarily in accordance with this character, and thus deterministically.
In this sense, determinism is the price that existence pays for existing. The thing can be seen as a “unit of predictability.” These units of predictability are the building blocks – the ancestral thinglets – for new things in the existence multitree. Every thing exists necessarily in the terms and character of its ancestors.
Interaction between thinglets and things (ancestors and descendants)
The character of the individual members of a randomly selected group of things determines how they interact. With initial conditions unknown or otherwise not specified, there are a large number of such pinball-effect interactions possible between the members of this group. But in a given creation environment, if one of these essentially random interactions by chance generates itself then creation has occurred, and the things of the group have become ordered thinglets, restricted in their range of interactions not by the new thing of which they are now a part, but cooperatively as a group: the thinglets are in a collaboration with each other – a collaboration that is the propagation of the thing as a whole. The deterministic pinball-effect series of interactions between the thinglets is now in oscillation.
Thus a thing is an ordering of its preexisting thinglets, moving, interacting, but it is more: It is also the quantum of nonexistence by which they continue to move, interact and collaborate in a self-generating cycle. Without this quantum there is no self-organizing interaction of thinglets and hence no thing. And if the thinglets are not collaboratively propagating then the quantum dissipates and again the thing is not.
re: Mathematical modelling of the inherent elasticity and resiliency of things (as always being subject to perturbation and possible annihilation).
Questions: Does the wave frequency of a thing typically change after initial creation? In other words, is the frequency of initial creation typically not the natural or low-N (energy) frequency for its ongoing creation?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
– biological life is firstly, primarily a life cycle – a wave –
re: Life’s evolution, fitness and survival as aspects of NR creation and being. Boundary study is important.
Does subjecting a creation environment to a cyclical perturbation affect the creation rate?
If so, what is the relationship between this perturbation frequency and the creation rate?
(Species) Lifecycle is primarily; the individual secondary. Need it be said, by definition life is not annihilation or discontinuation (that is, death); self-organization involves “being fit” and surviving, conditions studied by Darwin et al. As such, reproduction is quintessential to this cycle. Thus it inaccurate to think of life as firstly “an individual,” as in the case of first life specifically as protocell, with reproduction somehow “tacked on” afterwards. It is of course the other way around: first life in the primordial soup was a wave – a continuation – the cycle. Commonly, “individual” (the “cell”) is our perception of the cycle; it is what we see of it:
“Individual” perception is to the lifecycle what our particle-perception is to the atom, whose primary nature is wave.
Irrespective of our particular knowledge thereof, there has evolved relatively distinct stages in some lifecycles which are “easy” to identify with/as individual, including the more complex (multicellular) including primates. More to the point, as regards mind and our perception of life, that we readily equate life with individuals (that in our case we call persons) is an artificial delineation of the species as a whole. This delineation distorts and obscures the essence. NR’s existence analysis will also be useful for studying life.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
– NR mind: that part of existence based upon the idea of nonexistence –
• NR Formal Definition #4: mind: A subtree of the existence polytree, the root thinglet of which is a simulation of archetypal N.
– This simulation is an idea here called mindspacetime (MST for short).
The creation of MST, the N-archetype simulation, marks the genesis of every mind, the birth of an individual (human or other animal) and the beginning of its awareness of the world.
– the NR universe has in NR mind self-discovered its own fundamental reality –
NR mind is N creating the idea of N: In a nutshell this is what makes the mind remarkable:
Just as the basis of the NR universe is the ability to exist, N; so the basis of NR mind is the simulated ability to exist, MST.
Thus an NR mind is a simulated universe within the greater whole.
– a basic thinglet – a part – of every idea is MST –
Like all things, every idea – every mind-thing – is but a special case of nonexistence N.
At the same time, every idea is but a special case of the idea of N, MST.
– NR mind is at the same time both a simulated creation environment and a real creation environment –
Put into a yet-smaller kernel, MST is a special-special case of the N: it is N-becoming-thing-simulating-N.
– mind is N becoming a simulation of its-non-being –
– mind is the ability to exist becoming a simulation of the ability to exist –
Through the creation of MST the NR universe effectively passes through a singularity, on the (other) mind-side of which a new simulated NR universe starts to unfold. This mind-universe could in principle support another singularity and the birth of yet another nested universe.
– NR mind represents NR universe self-knowledge –
N, the ability to exist, self-made-real in MST becomes as the basis of NR mind the ability to be aware and to know.
– knowledge is existence in the simulated universe of NR mind –
– thinking and “making sense” imply active self-organization and creation –
Awareness is synonymous with mind. Mind is not a mere accommodative automaton knee-jerk-processing the stimuli from the body’s sensory organs. The base of every mind is the MST simulation; the mind “answers to this ability to exist,” literally, and not to the outside world. Thus the mind actively reprocesses or assimilates the outside stimuli in the terms of MST and its representative selves (see below). This is what it means for mind to “make sense” of its simulated-real world.
Thus mind is existence but does not correspond to existence; it corresponds to N-basis-reality as simulated by MST and represented by NR self, each mind’s unique ability to exist. NR self is defined forthwith:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
– who we are is who we are able to be –
• NR Formal Definition #5: self: noun: The idiosyncratic, personal ability to exist.
– An “individually unique” representation of MST.
NR self is fundamentally potential. NR mind is a separate, simulated universe unfolding in terms of MST. NR self is an emergent body of ideas – an existent, “applied and personal” representation of MST: Although self is almost always stated in terms of “who we are” (identity as such), self is really more about “who we can be” (ability, potential). In contrast with the openness and generality of MST, NR self is a limiting yet realistic body of ideas about potential and capability to do and be, expressed in the “life-terms” of our personal energies, spaces, places and times – all these concepts themselves being potentials, as will be discussed in the section about the dimensions of nonexistence, to follow.
– NR self is not (static) identity, but potential to do and be –
– NR self is the acting, limiting agent of the intrinsically infinite existence potential of NR mind –
– every life as a whole is a realization of self –
Within the complex world of each our minds we can and do have multiple selves, and obscured ones: We may not recognize or know all or even any of our selves. Like all ideas these selves can evolve with time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
– brainwaves are a signature of mind –
– any animal with brainwave oscillation as measured by an electroencephalogram will have a mind –
– as a corollary, any machine that is to have a mind will require brainwaves, either analog or digitally simulated –
Brain as a creation environment and a platform for mind
Brain pre-exists mind, and brain and mind are relatively different things. In exactly the same way that the extraction of “individual” out of a life cycle is artificial, so for NR the line of distinction drawn between grey matter and mind matter is misleading.
Here is a sketch:
Evolution has demonstrated a survival advantage to creatures with minds. And for minds we need not mere neural networks (ganglia) but brains with waves. Through evolutionary selection genes code the low-level brain to make a physiological electrical wave oscillation starting before birth. The brain is thus a wave generator; it “sets the stage” for mind by establishing the wave beat for self-organization.
(The ideas in the next section about the dimensions of nonexistence are helpful for the following part of the sketch.)
MST is in identity with these brainwaves. In this sense MST is a “hard-coded” idea. Thus, as “electrically embodying change,” MST then starts to normalize sensory constants – the space and time consuming feeds from the senses. A relevant concept here is that of object permanence from child psychology. Stillness and position can only be detected vis-à-vis movement. Stillness and its diametrically opposite concept of movement are ideas of space and time together. A seed-eating bird can only detect the position and stillness of a seed on the ground by continuously moving its head: the permanence is detected vis-à-vis the movement of its eyes. In an analogous fashion, for a brain with waves the space-time movement is internalized in the brainwave oscillation, MST. Thereby the permanence of objects can soon be conceptualized vis-à-vis this foundational constant change.
The creation environment does not remain static. The mind grows and “ties it up” into ideas (mind content). This environment is “helpless against” trying to normalize and make sense of ever-continuous stimuli, in the ever-growing body of mind and self. (See the section about the aging of a creation environment.)
– brain is part of a physical creation environment supporting the simulated creation environment of NR mind –
Underscoring the fact that the brain-mind boundary is artificial as regards mind and its knowledge, a large number of the ideas constituting mind literally transcends the brain and reaches into the world, in the existence which is our knowledge thereof. (See the section on existence analysis.) Like existence as a whole the brain’s neural synaptic structure is a polytree. Particular strengthened synaptic connections are thinglets of brain-transcending perception-existence and rational knowledge existence.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Question: – concerning the origins of life, in a geothermal feature or inland pool:
For evolutionary biologists or geologists:
As posited above regarding mind’s origin in each individual brain, the brain provides an electrical wave oscillation of a certain rough frequency that is “useful for common ideas and perceptions expected of each species,” in each specific case “as is best for its survival.” This “externally-provided” frequency becomes in the neurons the mind-founding idea MST.
Is it possible that in a likewise fashion regarding the origin of biological life, that the heated pool could be subject to an accompanying steady “base frequency,” either electrical or mechanical (of sound) in form, externally provided by some geologic pulsation source? This pulsation would have an oscillating wave effect upon the chemistry of the prebiotic soup. The frequency of this “chemical wave” then becomes exactly the lifecycle frequency of first life as protocell or prokaryote? That is, the self-organization of life, as an NR thing fundamentally happening over a wave length and period, is “kick-started” by a geophysical-origin oscillation in the pool chemistry? The protocell forms with a lifecycle in resonance with this oscillation, as in some sense a normalization, internalization or “capturing” of the space-time variation?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The dimensions of nonexistence: energy, space and time
A newborn child and most of us adults in the course of our daily routine do not think about these abstract ideas per se. Whereas a child grows its comprehension of the world within a mindspacetime and nascent self, we adults use more abstract conceptions of space and time as “tools” in the planning and execution of our daily lives.
Evidently the abstract ideas of energy, time and space are very useful, and our world makes a lot of sense in their terms, even as we don’t know or care necessarily what they really mean. As a trifurcation of the archetype N, they can be selfstood as different aspects of and orientations towards it. But these differences are essentially manufactured and do not reflect any fundamental reality. In our everyday world these ideas create a convincing surround, but ultimately the distinctions between them tend to collapse into each other – into N.
How can we selfstand the triune concepts of energy, time and space as variations on the concept of nonexistence?
Consider energy as the ability to exist. If energy does not tie its-non-being up into existence then it may perform work. This energy has “defaulted” to the narrower and familiar high school physics definition thereof, as the ability to do work. And if energy does not perform work then it defaults again: it dissipates as heat. Thus although our perceptions of particular work and heat do exist as mind-transcending ideas, the work and heat do not of themselves exist. (See again the section on existence analysis.) Firewood is sometimes referred to as energy. In this context the word energy means potential energy – fuel. Of course, firewood exists. The molecules of wood fiber are NR things; they are potential ability to exist. (And in addition to embodying chemical energy the molecules do have mass-energy over and above the mass of the atoms of which they are composed.) Burning the wood releases the ability to exist, which may default to the ability to do work, or just warmth. The burning is the annihilation of the things that are the molecules. Thus thing-energy (rest or potential energy) is the antithesis of energy, and yet these are one and the same.
Question: Can mathematicians or cosmologists estimate of the mass of the NR existence polytree, expressed as a percentage mass over and above the established mass estimate for the ER universe, which includes only first-basic things in its calculation?
Consider time as the ability to exist. If time does not tie its-non-being up into existence then it changes the relationship between things, in keeping with their character. Every thing is essentially time (nonexistence, change), and yet, by definition, every thing is timeless: it is without change. Time – the ability to change, the potential to exist – by cycling back to itself via self-organization becomes, as a thing, the essence of non-change. Thus the thing is a special case of time – it is change that continually changes back to itself and so effectively does not change. As an entity that self-sustains, a thing cancels out its own change; it is, by definition, constancy. It is constancy in a sea of change. Through self-organizing change, the thing transcends change; that is, existence transcends time. In our everyday speech, when we say that something exists we imply that it is continuous, permanent and timeless. NR explicitly recognizes the timelessness of existence. Thing-time is the antithesis of time, and yet these are one and the same.
Time is quantified and measured by symbolically equating it with our empirical knowledge of the period of oscillation of a particular thing-wave. Each thing captures its unique quantum of change, via which it becomes constant and unchanging.
Consider space as the ability to exist. It is the ability to occupy; without space there is nothing. Every thing is essentially space (nonexistence, emptiness), and yet every thing is spaceless. Spacelessness specifies a quality, not a quantity; it is not related to size. A thing is spaceless in the sense that it is the antithesis of space: it occupies, fills, consumes and converts space; in the course of one oscillation a thing “maps out” a quantum of wave space. A thing is an impediment to (further) existence; like all the stuff in your garage, it takes up room that might otherwise be occupied by other things. Space – the essence of emptiness and the ability to occupy and fill – effectively becomes, as a thing, the essence of fullness. When a thing is broken apart the quantum of space and room released can be seen as a measure of the existence that it embodied. A thing is fullness and constancy in a sea of emptiness. The thing transcends emptiness; that is, existence transcends space. In our everyday speech, when we say that something exists there is the implication that it is “there,” sustained and space-consuming. NR explicitly recognizes the spacelessness of existence. Thing-space is the antithesis of space, and yet these are one and the same.
In common conception time and space are oriented in opposing directions. Time is an orientation away from things and towards change in the relationship between. Time is “the change around that which is.” On the other hand, space is an orientation away from change and towards vessels and things. Space is “that which is (constant) within change.” The bifurcation of the concept of nonexistence into the concepts of time and space is the conduit by which we might relatively know existence.
Although it is impossible, if the world’s temperature were to drop to absolute zero (zero-N), space would collapse to a singular “nothing” and time would stop: there would be no movement or change; the world would not be. In this way, when there is no energy there is no space nor time. This is not because these are separate de facto things that are in some mutual dependence. Rather energy, time and space are separate concepts; they are different expressions for the concept of the ability to exist.
We cannot exist or become where there is too little or too much nonexistence perceived as energy, time or space. These expressions of the ability to exist must be in balance. We need energy to exist, and yet not too much energy: fire is the giver of life, and yet if we get too close we will be burned. We need time to exist, and yet not too much time: only through time and change can we become, and yet we seek to slow our time, to give us a sense of place. We need space to exist, and yet not too much space: only in space can we stretch our wings and test ourselves, and yet we must remain reasonably close to the ground.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
– not all of what we see is existent, but our seeing is –
Existence analysis
Existence analysis is a tool for the identification and analysis of the existence and equally the lack thereof, in both the objective world and in our minds, bases upon NR’s definition of creation/thing.
– Where is the existence? –
It is precisely the complexity of the existence polytree, including especially the complexity of mind content, which makes this task challenging in even ostensibly simple cases. It is posited that a great deal of the convolution in many fields including animal psychology and behavioral study arises out of a primary failure to accurately identify the existence in the perceived phenomena.
Accurate knowledge involves primarily the accurate identification of existence – the existence in and of our initially raw perceptions. The perception-thing itself, that is the “how we see,” is modified such that its content (the object, the “what”) comes closer to the external existence that is its part.
Also, a central part of recognizing where there is existence is recognizing where there is not existence.
• NR Formal Definition #6: perception: noun: An NR idea that extends beyond grey matter.
Here, an outline of existence analysis will be set forth in the context of perception. The idea of correspondence has already been set aside, replaced by the idea that it is actual existence that ties mind to the world. Our perceptions do not mirror the world; rather, they are part of it; they literally cross over the material borders of our brains and pass through the external (perceived) world. Although there is a world of relative difference between the atoms in an apple and a perception of same, both things – atoms and perceptions – are equally real.
Empirical knowledge and perception: Order named and made real.
As discussed earlier, although the order in the world does not have ontological status “by itself,” the idea of order does.
The order that constitutes an NR thing is a space-time order – part of its wave. Whilst patently misrepresenting the thing as a whole, it is instructive to discuss the space and time dimensions of order separately from each other. First the spatial dimension, to be followed by the time dimension.
Every perception consists of a collaborating, ordered set of thinglets. It is useful to draw an arbitrary boundary through this set, thereby subdividing it into two suborders. For this discussion the boundary will be the outside edge of grey matter, cover by the skull bone. The suborder within the brain is NR self, and that external to brain will be the object of perception, or simply object:
• NR Formal Definition #7: object: Perception suborder that is external to self.
– The content of a perception: “What we see.”
Thus the idea of object only gains its meaning in the context of perception. By definition, a perception always has one unique object. The word perception implies object-perception, and the word object implies object-of-perception. For existence analysis, we know the world as objects, and in terms of NR self.
In a real sense, to perceive order is to become one (perception) with the order. Thus we can never know things as they are in themselves; our knowledge or perception of things is itself a thing. This relationship can be denoted by the following notation:
object-perception is thing((self + external suborder)),
i.e. “object description”
In usage, the word object in “object-perception” is replaced with the common or generic name of the object (for example, “pencil”).
“Thing((included order))” is a creation operator, which “self-applies” a quantum of nonexistence plus self-organization to the included order.
Further in usage, the word self is replaced by the common name of the perceiver (for example, “visual artist”). And finally, “object description” is the description of the object as perceived (for example, “grey line instead of blue”). All together:
pencil perception is thing((visual artist + small stick with eraser on the end),
i.e. “grey line instead of blue”
As another example, consider a particular rock:
rock perception is thing((neophyte + “shiny gold-coloured brittle clump”)),
i.e. “!! Gold !!”
Or alternatively,
rock perception is thing((geologist + “shiny gold-coloured brittle clump”)),
i.e. “fool’s gold (iron sulphide)”
The self is a major factor of influence in this as in any perception. Consider more closely the rock perception. A rock is an ordering (a “clump”) of minerals. The clump does not constitute existence, over and above the existence that is the mineral atoms and molecules themselves. What does exist in this case, in addition to the molecules, is our perception of them. This perception is itself a thing((self + clump)) is rock perception. Thus the external order that is the clump of molecules becomes a suborder as part of the rock perception. The rock perception is “just as real as” the molecules themselves; it is an “abstraction upon” them – it is but a descendent level in the existence polytree. At a yet more abstract (cognitive) level, one might leave the rock on the table, walk away and say, “Without doubt, that rock is located back there on the table.” Again, the molecules exist, as does our rock conception, our “rock memory” and when we are looking at the rock, our rock perception. But the clump, which is suborder of the rock perception, does not by itself constitute existence.
Order in the world may be suborder of an external thing before it becomes suborder of a perception. This preexisting thing is called the object-thing, or simply the objective.
Using the creation operator again,
objective is thing((external suborder))
Consider an atom. It is an object-thing, which is thing((neutrons + protons + electrons + nuclear forces)). Our perception - our conception - of the objective is not the objective itself. It is clear that we cannot know the atom-thing directly. Our perception is itself a thing((self + technology + atom-thing)) is atom perception. The atom of perception (the object) depends upon who we are, and may be a picture from an electron microscope, or a model of a miniature solar system, or the theory of quantum mechanics, but it is not the atom-thing itself.
Consider once more the pencil as the object of our perception. In this example there is also an objective, the pencil-thing, which is thing((user’s desire to communicate + faculty of language + hand-writing skills + ... + wood and graphite)). The pencil-thing fulfills a general communications and drawing requirement, and in so doing organizes itself. It is important to have the perspective that the pencil-thing sustains itself, as opposed to being sustained or organized by. If the tip of the pencil breaks, it gets sharpened, via the user, because the whole – the pencil-thing – of which the tip is a suborder, maintains its own usefulness. We, as individuals and in this case “users,” do not do or otherwise organize anything, except ourselves. Our brains and bodies are merely a part of many mind-things, each of which organizes itself.
Our perception of the pencil-thing is not the pencil thing itself. Instead, part of the suborder of the pencil-thing becomes suborder of the pencil perception, which itself is thing((ourselves + ... + pencil thing suborder)). The pencil of this perception may be, “a tool for communication,” “something with an eraser on the end,” or “a grey line instead of blue.” It is part of the character of the pencil-thing and it is equally a part of the character of our selves. In the following diagram please note that the colour artist and the user/host may be the same person, although the pencil-thing is still objective and external to the colour artist in this person.
Existence analysis of perception in terms of the time-dimension of order
As discussed earlier, the order that is part of a thing is an order of change as well as an order of space. Precisely speaking, there is no such a thing as a particle, static, unchanging and not consuming time. Rather, a thing only becomes in time. But once born a thing becomes timeless by “locking up” the period of time through which it self-creates. This quantum of time becomes the window that defines its present.
• NR Formal Definition #8: present, or now: The sliding window of time/change that is the period of an NR thing.
Thus each thing has its own unique present. This idea has significance in a discussion about perception, because we commonly think of many objects as static entities. But just as each thing can only (come to) exist in time, it follows that we can only (come to) know in time. For a perception thing, the object is not a function of external reality as it was at an instant, but rather as it was changing throughout the present for the perception itself. This is most clear when we consider the perception of speech and music.
A sound wave is a thing as it relatively propagates through the air. The time ordering of sounds that we recognize as a word or melody does not constitute existence over and above the things that are the sound waves themselves. However, the order of these individual waves becomes suborder of the thing that is the word recognition as a whole, which is thing((self + oral language abilities + ... + train of sound waves as phonemes)), i.e. the heard word “pencil.”
Although it is clear that there is a time/change element to the order of sounds constituting speech, the object of a particular word vocalization reflects the spacelessness and timelessness that is this perception thing itself. In the current example, the object is the singular “pencil.” This singular, indivisible timeless pencil object is a function of external reality as it was changing from the letter “p” through the letter “l”, that is, through the present for the perception itself.
By extension, the grammatical, hierarchical structure of language is also a part of the existence polytree, wherein a time ordering of individually recognized words becomes a part of a single abstract sentential idea, and so on. A similar situation hold for the language of music, wherein a sequence of individual notes is recognized as melody, and in turn composition.
A skeleton is order that is no longer a part of a thing. This order can again become suborder of a new thing – either an objective skeleton-thing and/or a skeleton perception. For example, a skeleton-thing is thing((ourselves + “heritage is important” + skeleton order)) is an antique, which preserves itself, through us. Our antique perception is thing((self + knowledge of sound recording history + sense of vision + ... + antique suborder)), i.e. “1895 phonograph.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The aging of a creation environment
Other things being equal, the amount of nonexistence in a creation environment decreases with age. This is because ongoing new creation is locking-up energy, time and space, which leaves ever less of these existence abilities available for the creation of new things. In practice, a creation environment will reach a point of equilibrium wherein it containing many things but also wherein some unrealized nonexistence remains.
Jean Piaget’s ideas of assimilation and accommodation are meaningful within the NR framework. [Piaget, Jean. As cited in Gleitman, Henry (1981). Psychology. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Pages 349, 350]. NR creation is an act of accommodation. But once existing, things must assimilate the environment because things self-sustain and have a consistent character.
As a creation environment ages it contains more and more things and hence there is more and more assimilation of the environment. Accommodation is proportional to the amount of nonexistence and assimilation is proportional to the number of things in the environment. Therefore the creation environment has a life cycle. When new it is untrained. With time it contains less time, less space, and less unrealized nonexistence. With change it becomes more and more hard-coded and inflexible, like a machine built for a special purpose. It becomes less accommodating and less conducive to creation. It becomes “the solution to its own (identity) problem.” It becomes more like a simple calculator, which is very good at performing an endless variety of math calculations but cannot solve a single non-numeric problem.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
– MST is primary to mind; intelligence and consciousness are secondary –
Intelligence
NR mind is founded upon MST. NR intelligence is defined as the awareness, reprocessing and assimilating capabilities unique to NR mind. A machine with brainwaves and hence a mind may not necessarily be perceived as NR intelligent, but only such a machine can be so.
Self (with) consciousness
Consciousness is not primary to the NR worldview. But finding a way to selfstand it may open the doorway to new perspectives on other aspects of the human condition. The coverage here is not complete. The aim of NR, or of any worldview for that matter, is to objectify that which in the case of consciousness is subjective and experienced, never observed: what would otherwise be an observation or introspection is always swallowed into the subject.
There is currently no solid, simple, formal definition for the term; in its general form it is a catch-all for many aspects of mental life that don’t necessarily share a common basis. The word awareness is used a lot, but this boils down to a flavour of (implied) perception or knowledge.
As a solid beginning, the NR approach here is to formally define the term – to describe a phenomenon particular to NR mind, and to call it consciousness. It is an important point that NR consciousness is exclusively of mind: NR mind is but part of one nature – the unitary existence polytree, and its consciousness is associated with new creation within mind, centred upon NR self (see NR formal definition #5).
– consciousness is a new idea every moment –
– consciousness is new creation ongoing –
– consciousness is self-becoming –
– that is –
– who we are is who we can be, which “consciously becomes” (more of) who we are –
• NR Formal Definition #9: consciousness: NR creation, in NR mind, with NR self as a thinglet.
This is to say, consciousness is NR creation experienced by NR self.
NR consciousness is tied to a succession of beginnings of new ideas – to the first wave cycle of each successive idea’s being: As each idea has only one beginning then to the extent that a particular consciousness is ongoing it follows that it is-or-requires a new idea every moment. To use a motion picture analogy, there is a stop motion animation that supports the active train of consciousness. Each frame of the animation is a new idea that bolsters or reinforces in some sense, in the manner of a side-effect, the active train.
– consciousness is not a “state of being,” but a succession of new creation events –
For example, stare at a family picture on the wall and try to hold the first singular image or memory that it conjures in mind. This cherished image cannot be held central and vivid in the mind’s eye for more than a moment except by continuously (and less consciously) looking-away towards related, supporting memory. Each such “self-intended” looking-away is a tiny new idea. As such the cherished image is a side-effect of these new ideas; it drifts or dissolves away except by virtue of continuous reinforcement through side-allusion.
– consciousness is NR-self-consciousness –
Thus consciousness is creation taking place at the leaves of the mind polytree constituting the ideas of a particular NR self. We can and do have multiple NR selves, and NR consciousness is integrally tied to NR self. That is, without a self there is no consciousness. Whether or not we recognize our separate selves, consciousness is tied to but one of these at any time. Thus, being conscious at one “level” or one particular self implies being unconscious at the others.
The self that is currently conscious can be called the active self. The familiar even popular notions of “changing consciousness” or “fostering a new consciousness” – these can be worthy pursuits which for NR involve creating or nurturing new selves, by fostering or moving to new points of creation in the mind polytree. To change or move our consciousness is to alter our active self, or access and build a different one.
As discussed, the NR self is not derived from the world, but is a potential emergent from MST – a potential in the terms of which we then know the external world: Our selves “direct our gaze outward” and our selves “selectively receive.” Is self in this sense – not derived but as a spearhead of realistic possibilities – the source of our (free) will and volition?
There is some relationship between consciousness and sensory or rational positive feedback: an active, conscious self-conception “makes sense;” it is a “felt nature” receiving affirmation through sensory or other internal feedbacks. If something doesn’t make sense or fit our preconceptions, like for example a magician’s trick, then consciousness falls away; we don’t “feel” or see anything. What happens quickly here is that consciousness moves to a new self, one of bewilderment. Thus consciousness is sustained only to the extent that the active self continues to find sense through and vis-à-vis the second-by-second variation in our day. If however sense is lost, the mind “self-finds” or creates a new self, one perhaps more limiting and realistic, and maybe less bold, yet in any event one that can sustain consciousness.
In activities that are procedural or require concentration or action - we tend to "lose our selves" into these. Here we are "acting and executing" like the aforementioned hard-coded and -wired machines of an infinitely old and fully deterministic creation environment (see the previous section on the aging of a creation environment). To "know what we are doing" means that we are employing already-existing body of mind - our skills. In executing a known procedure, plan or deterministic process we may be very aware and perceptive, and responsive, yet we are not conscious.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Conclusion
There is so very much work yet to do, so many questions and so very much not discussed here. Matters not discussed include the resiliency and elasticity of things, and conditions of annihilation. These matters are related to thing character. There is the estimation of the mass of all matter including mind matter – all the existence of the polytree – a large part of which is dark matter to our prevailing existence reality ER worldview, because it only recognizes a small part of existence – the first-basic things.
Therefore the reason why the mind has for so long remained an enigma is primarily because our prevailing ER cannot grant full existential status to mind. To do so would contravene monism. This for ER entails allowing but one first-basic existence basis for its universe, not a mind duality. ER mind can be studied but it isn’t allowed to “really be.”
For ER and for science, that the concepts of time and space “make so much sense” is taken as tacit verification that these things in some sense exist “out there,” apart from us. But for nonexistence reality NR, this same efficacy affirms the status of nonexistence as central to existence. As the warmth of the campfire against our skin, like the air we breathe we are literally immersed in the potential to exist; it is all around us, impinging upon and traversing our bodies, flooding into our ears and open eyes and filling our minds. And in the simulated NR universe of mind, nonexistence is the ability to think and to know: Thinking is becoming; knowing is being.
A most important point is that irrespective of our worldview, philosophy frames science and not the other way around: Specifically, by the very nature of mind every one of us minds always and necessarily has a view of the world, bases on (unverifiable) belief. This view whatever it be and whether recognized or not, frames all our cognitions including the abstract, physics and science.
The NR world view is saying that the mind cannot be understood as a local phenomenon within a broad pre-established and otherwise uninfluenced frame. Instead mind has to be selfstood in terms that reflect upon our universe, no less. NR should replace ER.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Be it that you the reader consider this NR worldview for the sake of argument and in the tradition of science: When two competing theories are advanced, the one with the greatest explanatory power should hold the day. Although reconceiving “what we see” as “how we see” in our everyday world, the worldview here does not contravene the laws of physics, but rather provides insight into these laws.
– remember consideration for the sake of argument –
As a nonprofit organization nonexistence-reality.org has limited resources. nonexistence-reality.org is not backed by any other organization or any commercial entity. As of launch this January of 2015 nonexistence-reality.org is the sole outlet and voice for the NR worldview. There is a lot of work left to do. This website is nothing by itself. It falls to you the reader to help develop these ideas and introduce them to the world at large.
Thank-you.
John G. Keough, January 21, 2015
Nonexistence reality by John G. Keough is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
NR World View channel
@2015nrwv