Reality by Nicholas Hosein (my new book)

[Ostronomos]

I am writing a new book based on all my insights over the years. Here is the introductory material:

Chapter 1

Reality as Objective Matter

Our human nature instills us with the conviction that we are nothing more than material bodies or automatons carrying about our daily lives in a deterministic (in the Physics sense) manner. We are split by the dichotomy of our dual natures to act according to good and evil, dark and light, divine and diabolical. But are we truly 100% material objects? Our subjective reality would say otherwise. Assuming that it is more than an illusion. That it has content. By what mechanism do we function by, mere instinct or something more? What is the extent of our subjective world? Would the idea of panpsychism be interlinked with the nature of one's being? What is our relationship to reality as a whole?

When we look at something, can we conclude that it is reality? If so, does it take into account the source and mechanism of the observation itself? Of course, one may answer "no, it does not" upon a moment's thought. And one would be correct. As we have burning questions as to the nature of the source of our consciousness. In Philosophy, this is framed as the Hard Problem of Consciousness and seeks to answer what the source of consciousness is and why we have qualia. By shifting our focus from inward consciousness to the objective reality, we forget that we are the source of what we see before us. This means that there is a split between observer and observed, subjective and objective. But in reality this divide does not exist. Simply because there is only one reality and therefore one medium under which the subjective and objective can possibly exist, else there be no transitional stimulus and response between both worlds.

Addressing our earlier question, when we observe the essence of matter, do we observe reality in its entirety? Or are we observing a lower level of reality to which further reduction or broadening can be made? If you answered the latter, you would be correct. Just as observation and measurement are known to collapse the wavefunction in Quantum Mechanics, it would thus imply that consciousness is absolutely essential to the creation of the universe, thus making us prime characters of reality. So while we may observe an objective reality of material objects, it is no more fundamental than the subjective reality of consciousness. There is said to be a universal wavefunction. The nature of this wavefunction as a mathematical model by which universal properties are theoretically said to be attributed to was posited as a way to explain the initial conditions of Big Bang cosmology in the absence of an observer within the universe. This argument takes the perspective of the Copenhagen interpretation, which, if correct, would support the idea that consciousness and not matter is fundamental. But taking a unbiased approach in this argument would be wisest, as duality is still quite prevalent in the point of view from which I write. The split in reality between subjective and objective seems to hold neither as primary and the other as secondary. And since the subjective world is an immaterial essence, it would immediately imply that reality consists of an immaterial essence. But the true test of whether or not this essence can be regarded as a valid reality unto itself would lie in whether or not it can occupy an external existence to our bodies. In other words, does the universe itself have an immaterial essence that may be identified as God? And if so, where, or at what level, does the reality of matter occupy? Can we now conclude that there is more to reality than what we see before us?

[Ostronomos]

One famous phenomenon of Quantum weirdness can be seen in the mysterious double slit experiment. Basically, a single photon splits into two particles and interferes with itself as though it were also a wave until observation collapses it into a single particle again.  This phenomenon necessitates a relationship between the observer's consciousness and the particle. In other words, the particle exists as something that can be described by a ghostly  cloud of probability until observation collapses its wavefunction. Upon careful consideration, one will see that this implies that consciousness plays an essential role in the creation of reality. Whereas before it was believed that consciousness is a passive property or illusion of the brain. But what does this proven phenomenon have to say about illusory constructs of consciousness such as the ego and its relationship to death of the body? Does it suggest that since matter is not the ultimate truth, that our consciousness continues after the death of the body despite the fact that we could be living in an ego stimulated hallucination?

[Zinjanthropos]

Well Ostro, I hope a good number of people are willing to take your word as gospel, you become a cultural phenomenon, get interviewed on Oprah, Langan asks for your advice, MENSA takes notice, the gf reappears, Sciforums begs for your return, and the bank account swells.

Unfortunately my sofa doesn't  need a book to compensate for a missing leg anymore so I don't see me standing in line at a book signing session at Chapters. I think reality will set in but not in a way that would please you. Good luck anyways.

[Ostronomos]

Well Ostro, I hope a good number of people are willing to take your word as gospel, you become a cultural phenomenon, get interviewed on Oprah, Langan asks for your advice, MENSA takes notice, the gf reappears, Sciforums begs for your return, and the bank account swells.

Unfortunately my sofa doesn't  need a book to compensate for a missing leg anymore so I don't see me standing in line at a book signing session at Chapters. I think reality will set in but not in a way that would please you. Good luck anyways.

Are you surreptitiously denouncing my first attempt at a book with sarcasm? If so, I would not recommend your quick haste. Does the book so far capture your attention? Would you be willing to read more?

[Syne]

I'm not willing to read past the first paragraph. Partially because the first sentence is nonsense, completely divorced from the experience of "our human nature", and partially because I know you've got delusions of grandeur (or just smoke too much pot), where you think everything you say is gold, regardless of reality.

[Ostronomos]

I'm not willing to read past the first paragraph. Partially because the first sentence is nonsense, completely divorced from the experience of "our human nature", and partially because I know you've got delusions of grandeur (or just smoke too much pot), where you think everything you say is gold, regardless of reality.

I see you are quite befitting as a member of the "Open-minded department".

[Syne]

I'm not willing to read past the first paragraph. Partially because the first sentence is nonsense, completely divorced from the experience of "our human nature", and partially because I know you've got delusions of grandeur (or just smoke too much pot), where you think everything you say is gold, regardless of reality.

I see you are quite befitting as a member of the "Open-minded department".

If you believe anything, you'll fall for everything.

[Ostronomos]

Accessing the divine gives a person an epistemological advantage. However, why is it that experience by the subjects are highly selective? Could it be a glitch in the Matrix? As the author of this book, I endorse the concept of a deistic god, one who does not interfere in the evolution of the universe. But rather can only intercept it and thus provide evidence for its existence on occasion. Thereby allowing a kind of "Self-generative freedom" that gives reality and its inhabitants their own independent volition. This however raises questions about the intent of such a God. Why, if God is supposedly loving, doesn't He come forth and declare His existence so that the veil is lifted for all and sundry to see. Unfortunately, such knowledge is not entitled for anyone and everyone. Not because it is decidedly willed as such, but because it is forbidden by the laws of Physics or what can be termed the "deistic principle". The deistic principle is a principle allowing for the self-generative freedom and fairness of the inhabitants of reality to assume. This is not to say that God cannot interfere, but that it requires that certain conditions be met by those inhabitants who are capable of meeting them. It is the deistic principle of nature to forbid God from constantly occupying a place in our lives and so we have atheists, believers and agnostics who are all uncertain as to the question of his existence. Again, not everyone is entitled to the answer to such questions. But history is rife with clues as to the status of such a God. It seems that due to the sparse evidence His existence is inconsequential to our lives. But this is not so, because if we knew of His existence, a whole world of knowledge would be open to us. Existential questions would be answered. And the way we carry about our lives would change, including the way we regard each other and our relative place in the universe. Such answers to metaphysical questions may have no technological applications (except maybe for artificial intelligence) but rather empower us relatively to humanity and may even unite us. Questions regarding whether or not certain actions are moral or not will be personally considered in a greater scope. We will finally understand our relative place in the world. And our minds would contain knowledge regarding the value of our lives and the metaphysical shape of our intent.

[Ostronomos]

The Conspansive Duality, "whoa" said Neo

It is said that the universe is expanding on a one way trip outwardly. But if there is nothing outside of it, what is it expanding into? This is clearly a logical error. In actuality the universe is two way. As it appears to expand from the material perspective it would appear to contract from the cosmic perspective. The universe has nothing to expand into due to its intrinsic self-containment. Instead it must create its own inward scales of extension and metric distance. And objects would appear to shrink from the cosmic perspective. This is not a popular view among mainstream science. It was formulated by blue collar cosmologist Christopher Michael Langan. Consider that the universe is so incredibly vast that there is nothing which can contain it from without. A system such as this must therefore grow in a two way direction instead of a one way direction. This raises its complexity to a high level. Spacetime would grow itself into itself due to self-containment. The logic behind self-containment is simple. If the universe is nothing other than itself, it must therefore contain itself. And so external growth is not an option. The existence of nothingness from which the universe is born, can be thought of as a Quantum vacuum in which there is no space, time or matter, literally nothing. When a potential is generated, the mere possibility of its existence ensures that it becomes inevitable. The cancellation of this nothingness spontaneously creates the universe by the negation of nothingness. In other words, in order to exist, the universe must select itself from nothing and create its own means of maintenance, evolution and self-generation. This nothingness can be thought of as pure potential or an active medium of possibilities some of which are self-contradictory and thus negates itself from existing. The sudden instantaneous creation of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang is a matter that continues to elude scientists. What occurred before the first 10^-49 seconds of creation is unknown. Regressing to this point and encountering a wall that can only be broken down by a theory on Quantum gravity would suggest that bringing to bear answers from metaphysics would shed light on the problem. Since it is at this point that Physics breaks down. Ideas on the extension contraction duality are limitless.

[Zinjanthropos]

I think the easiest book to write is a philosophical text.  

Case in point:: Believe it or not, this guy once took a college philosophy course. Lectures were boring as hell but I loved the smaller seminar groups. Professor H led my group and he got around to telling us he was writing a book, blah, blah, blah. I asked him why it was taking so long and mentioned that a book on philosophy could be written during a weekend. He scoffed, I laughed, he challenged and I wrote the book on a weekend. It was a huge hit with the philosophy department, they talked about it for weeks on end, maybe they still use it.. Top marks for you know who.

It was simple really. I took a stack of blank typing paper, 50 sheets in all. On the the first page was the title, ? in this case. That was followed by 48 blank pages. On page 50 was typed the letter I followed by a period (.). A one word book, 50 pages long(48 of them blank) complete with a question mark for a title, the 50th page containing a capital I plus a period for the ending.

The most popular analysis was that the title represented every question that could ever be asked with a lot of emphasis on the beginning, the blank pages was the sum of our knowledge (again centred around beginning), 'I' was the self and the period represented the one thing the physical self knows ...... it will end.

One symbol, one word and one punctuation mark was all that was needed.