Ideas and Axioms

Just to clarify the previous post–what did I mean by being dead or alive just being different states, thus life (and death) are just ideas. This comes from a bunch of previous posts, where I realized that death just involves the breaking of certain ordered sequences of particles. One ordering gives us life and consciousness, but when we die, no particles are lost or gained–it’s just a different ordering that no longer sustains consciousness and thinking and actions directed by the brain. When I realized this, I determined that this would show that life is nothing more than an idea–a construction that sustains life behaviors. Since ideas have different levels of realization (eg, the three I mentioned, those that are realized in a physical system, those that are abstracted in an intelligence’s brain, and those that haven’t been set in either), this would imply that consciousness is an idea–and so is the physical system that realizes the idea of me.

It is such a human desire, probably based in his survival instinct of not wanting to die, to wish that life was more than just an idea–but the contrarian part of me says that a lot of things that people wish for but don’t observe become religions of hope and faith. With enough consensus, a lot of people can establish a doctrine that by sheer weight of documentation can give it an apparent reality in this existence that doesn’t match the behavior of the ideas in the physical realization of our existence. A less wordy way to put that is that religions are ideas, and very often (not provable, though) represent wishful thinking rather than real consequences of the realized idea of our existence. That is, they are ideas realized only in an intelligence’s mind and do not reflect reality.

However, in this post I want to just focus on this direction of life is just an idea in a physical system that provides the particles and interactions that consistently support it. I could spend some time defining what I mean by life and consciousness–you can see some of that earlier in this blog–but really, it doesn’t matter how it is defined. What I think matters a lot more is that ideas are constructions of constructions, a recursive process that should provide deep understanding of our existence if we can determine a starting point. As I’ve recently mentioned, our physical existence is just an idea as well, perhaps a system from nothing or some other field aggregating effect. The question of what sustains life seems to fall out of the consistency of application of rules to a system–a system is more physical the more consistently rules apply to the system.

For example, in our universe, electrons apparently have the same mass and charge throughout a universe who’s count of electrons is beyond immense. What is it that is enforcing that consistency? If you believe the twist ring theory I’ve worked my way through in this blog, it results from the connection ratio of electrostatic and magnetic (Lorentz) forces. But that just pushes it back another step–what establishes that ratio? In spite of all my work that shows that God is not necessary to define a system that emerges from nothing (see my previous posts on scale-less systems, which show that something will emerge from nothing provided there is no boundary–infinitely large or small), there appears to be a rule being enforced in this existence that assures the mass of an electron and the ratio of the Lorentz forces. And, as I’ve discussed previously, if this rule is an axiom, and there is more than one, this cannot arise from nothing. God, in some form, would have to exist to create a system with distinguishable rules).

However, if the universe came from nothing as a result of a single rule, it still seems to imply that God has to enforce the rule. That’s why I call the mass of an electron the God rule–if ideas are realizable, whether by abstraction in an intellect’s mind or as a physical permutation of particles and energies, on a system with a consistency of an axiom, something has to enforce that consistency. It could be an intelligence or a machine, but it appears to be axiomatic that axioms are not axioms. The fact that ideas exist in any number and extent of realization seems to counter the something from nothing existence.

Our consciousness is an idea, and the fact that there is a system of ideas who’s realization has eventually (over the life of this universe) has led to the creation of an intellect that can see that it is in a system of ideas has created a new category of ideas. We had the unrealized ideas, the abstracted ideas, the physically realized ideas (which could conceivably just be an abstracted idea in some intellect’s mind), and now the idea that is realized in such a way that within its realization is an idea that observes the realized idea of existence. This idea (observer) is capable of storing some subset of all possible abstractions in its brain, one of which would be the transcending understanding of what the idea of a system of ideas really is–and the transcending understanding of what axioms, if any, are real. This idea, which includes the storage of transcending ideas, is a new form of idea all by itself–what can I say such an idea, that life, would be? Could it find a path to immortality or God?

Dunno. Time for bed.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: