The Philosophy of Human Flourishing [pt. 1]: The Tautological Nature of Reality

The nature of our reality begins with physical existence.  In this life, we remember nothing before we were born and remember nothing from after our death.  Therefore, it is necessary for any proper philosophical theory to answer the question of existence first, before we proceed to any further questions we derive from life itself.  Our physical existence begins and is contained in the physical world.  The physical world, understood through our empirical observation of it, is universal in that as more people observe something existing in it, the higher likelihood the object observed actually exists and the less likely that the observation was error or the observer deluded; this fact is why observation also acts as the basis of the scientific method.  Since anything living (that we can observe) must operate in the physical world and since the scientific method has worked correctly in providing new information about the physical world; the physical world must be universal to all things living.  If the physical world was not universal, the scientific method would not work correctly as we would all observe different features of different worlds and could not build consensus: thus, since the scientific method works, the physical world is universal.  The physical world is also subjective since an individual observation of the physical world often varies between different individuals.  One person may see red, where a colorblind person may see brown, where a blind person could see nothing at all.  In order to be objective, something must be true independent of empirical observation.  A tautology would be an example of an objective structure.  If all of humanity was blind (as is some species of cave dwelling insects) you could not convince people that there exists an objective truth of color, you could only convince them that there exists a universal-empirical construct called the electro-magnetic spectrum.  And you could only convince them of this fact through objective lines of argumentation (since empirical observation is not an option because of blindness).  The human ability to observe sense data is the basis of our physical reality, and what makes our physical reality subjective.

As the physical world is both universal and subjective, there must exist both something objective and something relative to give these terms meaning.  As the subjective relies on empirical observation of the physical world to be deemed universally true, the objective is true independent of empirical observation of the physical world.  Given this definition, it is true to state that in order for a logical proposition to be objectively true, it must (the proposition) be relative in terms of the definitions of terms.  For example, the tautology A=A could hold a different meaning relativistically depending on the context and meaning of the term or variable ‘A’.  Objective truth uses relativity to provide meaning and context, just as universal truth uses subjectivity for meaning and context.  Thus, it is true to state that there exists two kinds of truth, objective truth (truth outside of material) and universal truth (truth of material).

Since the conclusion has now been reached that all subjective observations of the world (provided through sense data) are only true once they have been established to be universal, the question arises: what exists objectively (apart from a subjective observation)?  In other words, I am asking the question: what is sense data before it has been processed and turned into the physical world by the human mind?  The physical world will always be understood through our lense of subjectivity and observational flaws while we are alive.  We can act and observe the results of our choices in no other world, thus we only have the ability to create a model of the informative (objective) world — this is how we understand and process universal (scientific) truth (through applied logic and mathematics).  The informational logic we record as universal truth is an ever expanding (incomplete) model of the informative (objective) world of pure sense data.  The information from which we create our physical (subjective) reality is sense data, abstract thought is used to reinterpret our physical world back into its pure form of logic.   Sense data is understood as logic, therefore, both sense data and logic are two different understandings (universal and objective) of the same term.  Thus we have an identity: ‘sense data’ = ‘logic’.

When arriving to this fundamental tautology of existence, that ‘sense data’ = ‘logic’, we can then treat this as our axiom on which to construct a philosophy.  The world of sense data, being logical information, accounts for everything we subjectively observe in the physical world (including our bodies).  However, this is not to say that what you see is sense data, instead, the world we operate in is merely a representation or interpretation of sense data — there exists a world outside of what is sensible to us, a world of infinite complexity.  Even our bodies have no true physical existence, we are merely a complex logical operation of sense data that reinterprets this data into a subjective world that we are then recreated into; this understanding of our subjective existence can be called our body, compared to our objective (logical) existence of soul.  Everything we see, touch, hear, smell, and taste is part of our subjective interpretation of objective sense data, this subjective interpretation is completely isolated to our soul or objective body.  However, we should not mistake this idealism to be science denialism, rather every mathematical or logical theory which we merely apply to the physical world can now be shown to have an objective existence for itself.  For example, evolution can be understood as a phenomenon of the objective (informational) world which allows us to have a more complete understanding of the subjective (physical) world: Is it not easier to think of logical information evolving (memetic evolution) as compared to the evolution of material matter — that the objective logic has to change before a new evolutionary adaptation be physically observational?  This tautological reality is also why we experience free-will.  Free-will does not have an objective existence, instead it is a result of the subjective interpretation of objective information.  Since all physical (subjective) observations are the result of objective logical processes that we reinterpret, the objective informational change will occur before we reinterpret the information into our subjective reality — this gives us the feeling (since we felt the action occur first) that we have control over aspects of reality, in actuality, the acting man does not.  In this sense, free-will does not exist in objective reality, but is an important illusion of our subjective reality.

As an illusion may exist within the subjective and physical world (an illusion being: ‘something within subjective reality that does not exist in the objective reality’), something may exist within the objective reality that does not exist within the subjective reality; this is called a paradox.  Hypothetically, since scientists have limited time to devote to the discovery of universal truth, the objective reality contains an almost infinite amount of things that would seem paradoxical if discovered by modern scientists.  Since empirical observation and logic can be used to determine facts about the real reality from subjective experience, as scientists solve paradoxes (assuming all paradoxes can be solved -- they can't) informational reality will begin to approach real reality in terms of completeness.  Interestingly enough, and probably to the chagrin of our modern ‘scientific community’, the informational reality holds the most real existence or 'absolute' -- the structure that transcends all things.  For, if our physical and subjective reality is a mere veil and illusion preventing us from seeing a continuous, infinite and informational objective reality of which we are an infinitesimal part of, then this incomprehensible 'real' existence is responsible for all things we understand through the methods of empiricism and logic.  Thus, if this 'real' informational reality is responsible for all things we know and understand then it must be the absolute.

A form is the informational existence of a structure interpreted through sense data.  When one recognizes an object by its form he is not recognizing the object, instead he recognizes the particular end his mind has allocated to the object: an end on a set of larger value preferences. This end is fundamental to all persons who interpret the item and call it by the term common to its end — in this way communication is possible.  The tautology of the mind (that ‘sense data = logic’) could continue ad infinitum, as this tautology enables definitions of subjective perception and existence.  For example, to give this objective tautology a relative context, a bridge is defined by the action of using it for ‘bridging’ (joining multiple previously separated elements).  If a person used a tree as a bridge to cross a ditch, the tree would be a ‘bridge’, however, if the same person used a tree to fashion a weapon for war, the tree would be a ‘weapon’.  Similarly, if the tree remained a tree (its form original), then the tree would be defined based on its natural state (a subjective interpretation of its form), and not based on our subjective use for it (just our examination of it).  In this way, the tree can be a ‘tree’ for the naturalist, a ‘weapon’ for the soldier, and a ‘bridge’ for the bridge builder without a contradiction.  The form results from our mapping of objective logic into our subjective experience, and therefore the various ends of our actions (stored in our mind) are applied to subjective interpretations; in other words, the form is a specific perception of the tautology that “sense data = logic”.  In this way, the form is a construct of our mind that allows us to associate our ends (value-preferences) with physical means (capital) for the intent of manifesting the ends in reality.


[I plan to write pt. 2 of this series on morality and aesthetics and exit metaphysics.]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Social Guilt as Social Parasitism

On Orthodoxy and Religion