What is the Creation Loop? How is something out of nothing?
Despite the fact that it is impossible to prove that something exists out of our perception, since any such proof would involve our perception (I observed it, heard it, thought about it, calculated it, etc.), science deals with the so-called objective a reality "out there", beyond our perception, which claims to describe Nature objectively (as if there is a Nature or reality beyond our perception). The shocking impact of The Matrix was exactly the right possibility that what we thought was reality was just our perception; however, this was presented through a depiction of actual reality, with the perceived reality being a computer simulation. Many who toy with the idea that we might actually be computer simulations are sidetracked by questions like who could create such software and what hardware would be required to perform such a feat. While such questions presuppose that reality is our perception, they also axiomatically presuppose the existence of an objective deterministic world "out there" that nevertheless must be responsible for how we perceive our reality. This is the major mistake of emphasizing technology and algorithms instead of trying to reveal the nature of reality and the structure of creation. As will be shown below, the required paradigm shift from "perception is our reality fixed in the objective world" to "perception is reality without the need for an objective world 'out there'" is provided by a dynamic logical structure.
To say that it is impossible to prove the existence of anything beyond our perception is not to say that nothing is beyond perception, only that if something exists, then whatever it is indeterminate. One could argue that the existence of physical laws, the universal perception that an apple falls to the ground, is evidence of objective reality. However, this universal agreement is also our perception. One might argue that if we cannot decide what to perceive, and everyone perceives the same physical reality, then there must be some regularity that determines how we perceive, and therefore this regularity could be external to our perception. However, this regularity, as we will see later, is the exact regularity that creates perception, a process of definition that is not external to perception (this process creates the perceived and which then gives meaning to this process - the loop - but more on that later). One could argue that hitting a knee on a table—whether we believe in the table or not—is going to hurt. The table is external to our body, but not to our perception. So what is perception? It is relating, the process of defining, defining and thereby giving meaning to what has been perceived.
So what is this definition process? It creates boundaries within which perception gains meaning. The word "definition" comes from the Latin define, which means finite or limited. Any definition necessarily implies what the definition does not or is otherwise stated to mean, whatever is defined explicitly includes the meaning by implicitly excluding everything else. So to define means to place the defined object within the boundaries that by default create something beyond the boundaries of the definition. What is something beyond the defined? It implicitly excluded everything else, or in other words, indeterminate. The paramount importance of incorporating the indefinite into a consistent logical structure cannot be overemphasized. The indeterminate in itself is a paradox, and its incorporation into the logical structure of polyphonic gives rise to the loop of Creation, where the dynamic structure of paradoxes is both the creative force of existence and the proof of the necessity of existence.
To better understand the impulse of Creation, let's look at indeterminacy and paradoxes. What does "indeterminate" mean? Anything unless specified (undefined); anything that appears both within and beyond the boundaries of the definition, thereby rendering the boundary redundant, meaning no boundary, no definition. If we were to try to define the term "indefinite" after all, then it is a paradox, because if we succeed, then it is defined, which contradicts its meaning - its indeterminacy - and the word "indefinite" means that it cannot be defined. This is an example of a paradox which basically means that if it is what it is, then it is not what it is, but if it is not what it is, then it is what it is. A paradox is a creature that consists of a structure (as defined, a dynamic process on the way to stabilization) that contradicts its meaning (what it is, a stabilized entity). Paradox characterizes the movement between its structure and meaning, where the structure implies that its meaning contradicts its structure, and vice versa.
Another example of a paradox would be "completeness". Wholeness (completeness, infinity, limitlessness) can only be wholeness if we find a way to define it so that it includes everything and nothing beyond it. However, if we define a whole, then in order for it to be meaningful, it must be bounded by the walls of the definition, which implies that there is something beyond that boundary, in which case it is not a whole. Or, in more formal language, a whole is a whole only if it is not a whole, which is an inconsistency. If we are satisfied with this, then we have completed the definition of completeness. However, if we try to include what was created by our earlier definition within the boundaries of our next attempt to define wholeness, then we get a new definition of wholeness which, by the very structure of the defining process, creates a new overlap. In this case, the process of defining integrity will be consistent but incomplete, and integrity will remain indeterminate.
THE END...
You must be logged in to post a comment.