For There To Be One There Must Be Another

For There To Be One There Must
Be Another

SUMMARY: A set of three logical laws underlies the foundations of everything, describing
dependent and independent existence and giving rise to math via the concept of quantity.
A)
B)
C)
In English:
A)  If there exists A then
there exists B
B)  There exists C
C)  It will always be that if
there exists A and B or
if there exists A or B,
then there exists C
à∃A

⊃
∃B

∃C

(à(∃(A

B))
⟥
∧
∨
à(∃(A

B)))
∨
⊃
∃C

A = 2
Note:
∃=
1
unit
of
quan4ty

B = 1 C = 3
A = 2
B = 1
C = 3
a = 3
b = 4
c = 5

This presentation is a fun thought exercise built from
the ground up, paying no Mind to what is considered
acceptable or not by what science and philosophy have
said throughout the past. The world used to be flat,
and the sun used to spin around us, so every now and
then it’s good to throw all assumed knowledge out the
window.
This presentation exists solely to spark new thoughts,
and is purposely incomplete by nature because – hey –
what fun is a riddle if you’re given all the answers
straight up? J

If the assumption is taken that consciousness exists at a
fundamental level, it must be placed into the same
scientific hierarchy encompassing the ontology of the Unity
of Science. Just assume it exists.
Consciousness
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
Essentially, all sciences above basic biology are in the scientific realm of consciousness,
as they are the study of the conscious behavior of higher animals and human beings.
But it is all connected, starting from the bottom. There was no “sudden leap” where
things appeared out of thin air, unentangled with the ontological layers below.

We can expand on the ontology to see how the different
parts are connected in their functions. The connection is
important, since each realm needs the others to exist.
Realm Form
Consciousness Force
Biology Matter
Chemistry Matter
Physics Force
Placing all matter into the realms of chemistry and biology is a
semantic question. We could also say that basic particles belong
to physics and their compounds in chemistry and biology. But
that’s semantics, let’s go with the above for simplicity.

Every force needs an equal and opposing force. At a
primary level, fundamental consciousness confirms the
existence of physical forces.
Realm Form
Consciousness Force
Biology Matter
Chemistry Matter
Physics Force
After all, if there were nothing conscious around the Universe
anywhere, would the initial physical force exist in the first place,
and would any of this be relevant in any shape or form? Sounds
silly to us. But we’ll get to existence soon.
Example: a physical force
needs matter to be
transmitted…
…and the receiving conscious
force needs matter to decode
the message. At the
fundamental level, this is a
gravitational wave shifting
spacetime itself. The other
way, it’s fully coherent light in
the form of a laser zapping
straight through it.

Everything is connected in science, so we can expand on
the ontology to consider how the realms interact. To
consider how everything is connected, remember the
importance of quantum entanglement and how space-time
rips apart without it at a certain point. Google them, as
these are very important pieces of knowledge.
Realm Form Language
Consciousness Force ???
Biology Matter Laws of biology
Chemistry Matter Laws of chemistry
Physics Force Laws of physics
The natural laws can all be interpreted in the conscious realm.
On a fundamental level, the Universal language is
mathematics, which is how we make sense of the natural laws.

But if everything is connected, would it not suggest that
there must be an underlying foundation from which the
common languages of natural laws are born? And how are
they propagated?

The mediums to propagate one force to the other are
visible throughout nature.
Realm Form Propagation Language
Consciousness Force Forces of Logic ???
Biology Matter Biological
compounds
Laws of biology
Chemistry Matter Chemical
compounds
Laws of chemistry
Physics Force Forces of Physics Laws of physics
Matter is simply the medium for the delivery of forces.

The propagation and language of consciousness requires
more focus. Since everything is connected in the
framework of science, and we understand everything
through mathematics and logic, these should be
fundamentally connected.
Consciousness Force Logical forces ???
compounds
Laws of biology
compounds
Laws of chemistry
Physics Force Physical forces Laws of physics
What are the foundations for keeping the above connected?
Or, perhaps a better term, entangled?

As conscious beings, the human mind must be of use to
understand the connection of everything that we perceive.
The physical Universe creates us, but for it to exist in any
relevant sense to us, we must, in turn, create it through our
perception.

Reality
System-1 could be viewed as the involuntary result of physical
evolution (reality), whereas system-2 drives the voluntary rational
perception of everything evolution has delivered for us and what
we’d like to turn the future into (perception and imagination)
Dual system theory paints a picture of the human mind
where system-1 governs our involuntary/intuitive action
and system-2 our voluntary/rational action
Perception
and
imagination

Reality
In short, our consciousness conjures our perception of reality at any instant and our imagination
helps shape it towards our liking in the future. Reality has created us at this instant, but we create it
through our collective perception of it at the same instant. By exercising free will, we shape reality
towards our liking, and this defines the future. The future is probabilistic based on natural and
conscious tendencies – determinism (past) and indeterminism (future) are the two extremes.
Reality is the end result of physical evolution, static at any instant. But as
conscious beings are born and mature, our perception and imagination have an
impact on reality through the choices that we make. Again – just go with the
thought that consciousness is fundamental. We can’t prove it, neither can you, so
just go with it.
Perception
and
imagination

…and perceived by conscious forces, creating each other. The
next instant is shaped by the sum of actions of conscious forces
impacting in the physical realm in an endless back-and-forth of
continuous creation.
At every instant, the reality around us is created
constructively from physical forces…
Realm
Consciousness
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
Realm
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Consciousness

If this dual nature of constant creation of instants holds,
then we still face the question posed earlier: what holds it
all together, how is it all entangled?
Realm
Consciousness
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
Realm
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Consciousness

If we are conscious, entangled into the fabric of the
Universe by some common foundation, then we should
return to where we are most likely to understand this
foundation: our perception of the Universe.
Theoretically two humans could be in “perfect agreement” if they had the exact same
life experience to acquire an identical set of cognitive knowledge and emotional
affect. Of course, we are always at some incomplete level of agreement in reality, but
theoretically perfect agreement could exist.
Understanding = cognition + affect

If two humans understand each other perfectly, is it not the
same as, say, the fusion of two atoms that do so perfectly
naturally? There is a natural logic to the fusion of two
atoms, and a language to describe it. Humans argue with
logic, and communicate in a human language, but the
underlying premise is no different when they come
together in a theoretically perfect conscious agreement.

compounds
Laws of biology
compounds
Laws of chemistry
The foundations of logic and math would lead to the
theoretic possibility of perfect conscious agreement

If we are to consider a foundational combination of logic
and math, it must start with the most fundamental of
questions: existence. We hold that existence can only be
considered as a belief system with two parts:
Essentially, this says that existence needs to consider
dependence and independence. Can something exist without
the existence of something else? What would verify it? Can
something exist independently? Can it verify itself?
1)  Do you believe in the existence of yourself?
2)  Do you believe in the existence of everyone and everything
around you?

Let us try and codify dependence and independence:
For the term “dependent” to exist, it must leave room for the
term “independent” to exist as well. One cannot exist without
the other, as otherwise “dependent” would itself be
“independent”.
a) IF there exists A THEN there exists B
(definition of dependence and its verification by its two parts A
and B)
b) there exists C
(definition of independence)
c) it will always be such that IF there exists A AND B or IF there
exists A OR B THEN there exists C
(verification of independence by its one part C – C exists under
all conditions and, thus, is effectively independent)

Let us consider the steps used to build a, b, and c:
There is a clear paradox with the independence of C – it actually needs
A and/or B to exist. But it is practically independent once it has come to
be. This suggests that the default “Universal setting” is to believe in
existence and say that A exists, which leads to C.
(definition of dependence and its verification by its two parts A
and B)
b) there exists C
(definition of independence)
c) it will always be such that IF there exists A AND B or IF there
exists A OR B THEN there exists C
(verification of independence by its one part C)
We must start with IF, since existence is fundamentally based on belief of it. As we define the existence of A we
define the dependent existence of B. This defines the parts A and B within (a), but also the same logic suggests the
mandatory existence of another logical law (b)
As (a) defined the concept of dependence, we must also define the concept of independence. They must both
exist, since otherwise dependence itself would be independent. If we started with independence in a) we would
get nowhere.
The logical law (b) defines the part C but also logically suggests the existence of the law (c). As we are defining
dependence and independence, the last step needed is for the part C to verify its own existence under all
conditions, which makes it effectively independent.

Let us consider a visual representation in the context of
one thing we can be sure of in life – a beginning A, the
present B, and an end C (or any general outcome):
A
B
C
Life overall Eg.
Conception
A AND B
C
A OR B
C
Eg. Goal-setting. OR
means you get to
choose and exercise
free-will, ie. Stay put
or set a new target to
advance towards

Logic needs to contain elements of math for this to extend
to the ontology. We cannot elude that “there exists” is
called an “existential quantifier”.
Quantity suggests numbers, so let’s assume that every
existential quantifier used gets one “unit of quantity”. We
are very aware that we are stretching existing definitions,
but why not when discussing existence itself? What else
would give birth to quantity than existence itself?

Let us assign units to the below:
(two existential quantifiers means two units of quantity, a = 2)
b) there exists C
(one existential quantifier means one unit of quantity, b = 1)
c) it will always be such that IF there exists A AND B or IF there exists A OR B THEN there exists C
(three existential quantifiers means three units of quantity, c = 3)
2 + 1 = 3 == a + b = c
(trust us, this came from building up from first principles of independence and dependence first,
instead of being a “forced move”. There was a genuine “that’s funny..” moment here. Minsky said
there was logic underneath it all.)

So how does this fit into the ontology described
earlier?
compounds
Laws of biology
compounds
Laws of chemistry
A = 2 B = 1 C = 3

Does physics describe mass and forces related to it, such
as the recently confirmed gravitational waves? Or is mass,
in itself, actually a force (well.. Part of it at least),
represented by matter?
A = 2 B = 1 C = 3

Does chemistry describe the fusion of matter?
A = 2 B = 1 C = 3

Does biology describe the systemic “network-building” of
mass to keep it all from collapsing together immediately?
A = 2
B = 1
C = 3

And do the combination of the aforementioned allow you
to play funny tricks like this to (perhaps) provide a logically
constructed proof of Pythagoras’ Theorem, the most
proven thing in mathematics?
A = 2
B = 1
C = 3
a = 3
b = 4
c = 5

Isn’t there a certain type of mechanics that talks about ‘spin’ all the time? Maybe it isn’t
found underneath physics, but at the exact opposite end of science (see earlier ontology
slides? Could you draw a perfect circle using all the aforementioned, if A, B, and C are
spinning?
A = 2
B = 1
C = 3
a = 3
b = 4
c = 5

If the set of three logical laws of existence could work, then
their negation exists as well. So reality.. And imagination..
In a dual system, confirming each other’s existence with
every outcome C being an outcome in reality? Spinning
round and round? Think about it, and have fun J
Reality & the
physical realm
Consciousness
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
Imagination &
Perception
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Consciousness

For There To Be One There Must Be Another

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (15)

Similaire à For There To Be One There Must Be Another

Similaire à For There To Be One There Must Be Another (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

For There To Be One There Must Be Another