On the assumption that someone is following my little forays into the structure of reality, I offer here a meta-discussion of the process. If these essays of mine on the subjects of space, time, free will, and such are to make sense, you must assume that I understand contemporary thought. Perhaps there is sufficient justification for this requirement in that I will not review the standard discussions whenever a point of mine relates to them. More important is the impetus for this search. There are concepts which are self-reinforcing in apparent validity, and yet which lead tautologically to self-contradictory conclusions. When one asks questions within the framework of such concepts, the only logically possible paths preclude arrival at valid answers. Physical causality is the core concept on which we have constructed scientific understanding of a material universe, with spectacular success. This explanation is necessarily deterministic. Only chance – randomness – can exist outside cause and effect. Absent chance, if one knows the initial conditions, one knows the eventual outcome of everything. Mind, awareness, consciousness, self-awareness, will, and personal responsibility can not be explained in this conceptual framework. To attempt it is to find ones self reduced to determinism - leading to fatalism - or reduced to pure caprice. Mind, explained thus, can only interact with its environment mechanically. I think that physical causality is a self-reinforcing logical error. I aim to think my way out of this box. Yet it is inseparable from my conceptual world, and it is demonstrably not false. To succeed I must transcend our fundamental understanding of ourselves and our environment, while not denying the truth of it. To do so I must deny common sense while proceeding with such rigor that I do not simply make capricious contrary assumptions. In considering the ideas I will generate, I will necessarily follow trains of thought which appear to flout, or be unaware of, or misunderstand, or oversimplify, common rational science. This is the second reason the reader must assume that I know whereof I speak. It wont be obvious. These logical excursions must be followed to their conclusions without second-guessing their fundamental logical principles. Retrospective examination often will, however, expose their flaws.
Posted on: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 02:04:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015