# Descarte’s Self-Reference

Here’s one way of expressing the use of Godel’s theorem as it applies to my theory of information spaces.  Remember, I’ve hypothesized that every computer, including the human brain, implies two information spaces.  One that precedes the machine, and one that follows from it.  Let’s call the information space that precedes the human brain “the mind,” and that which follows, “intelligence.”

Given: reality is relative.

Reality varies with a couple of parameters, most notably scale.  Start with a human-sized observer.  According to the Minkowski space-time model, at an given moment,

an observer is sitting in the middle of a spherical universe bounded by the speed of light. As we look at larger scales, the nature of reality changes.  Two observers in the same frame of reference who can communicate will form a shared reality.  All observers travelling in the same frame of reference will define another layer of reality.  The visible universe, which can contain multiple frames of reference, represents another layer of reality.  It goes from there, and we don’t know how many higher realities there might be.  As we get smaller, the nature of reality likewise changes, most notably when we reach the sub-atomic level.

Given: no system can contain its initial conditions.

This is Godel’s theorem applied to the model of information dynamics.

It follows:  The mind that can conceive multiple layers of reality, precedes reality.

Godel’s theorem proceeds in an infinite iteration.  So we hypothesize the concept of “one-mind,” which consists of the mind that precedes every possible layer of reality.

It should follow, then, that:

1.  One-mind is the only thing that exists, at all.
2. Direct experience of the one-mind is the apotheosis.
3. Life is the process of apotheosis.

Neat.  Among other things, you can substitute other words for “one-mind.”  Like, say, “consciousness.”  And you will come to the same conclusion.

You could likewise substitute, say, “love.”  Or, “intelligence,” actually.

But, a couple of things follow from that. Among them, that apotheosis is inevitable. In fact, it’s perfectly inevitable.  If it’s perfectly inevitable, then apotheosis is the only possible state.  What, then, is life?  If life is the process of apotheosis, isn’t death that, too?  What then is the difference between life and death?

In fact, you could substitute the word “life” for “one-mind” and it kind of makes sense.

If you think about it, you can substitute any word at all for “one-mind,” or for any of those words, and still come up with a statement that sounds equally mystical and profound.  You could make up words.  Like, say, “yin” and “yang.”   Substitute those words for “life” and “death,” and it still sounds right nifty.

The tricky part is the infinity function implied in the concept of “no-mind.” To illustrate, let’s use the Jungian term “The Self” instead of “one-mind.”  The Jungian model of the mind, carried out to the cosmic level, sounds like this:

1.  The Self is the only thing that exists.
2. Full integration of The Self is the apotheosis.
3. Life is the process of apotheosis.

Jung might be proud, but  here’s the problem.  If The Self is infinite, then all references are to the self.

Descartes — the ultimate Zen master — would be even prouder.  “I think, therefore I am” is actually a right pithy description of this paradox.  His response to a snarky college sophomore who discovered the cartesian fallacy would be, “No **** Sherlock, that’s what I said.”

If the set of all information is infinite, then dividing that set into two sets, results in two sets of infinite size.  If we assume information precedes matter, we will inevitably find an infinite amount of data to prove, or disprove our postulate, as we will it.  This, I think, might account for the observer effect.  Which, believe me, does not explain the observer effect, at all.

It’s a paradox.  Reality is a hall of mirrors, where “you” are the person as opposed to the reflection.  But in the hall of mirrors, you can’t figure out which one is “you.”  The only way you can make any sense of it  is to pick a spot — like, say birth.  Or moment of conception.  It doesn’t matter; pick a spot.  Call that “the beginning of you” and roll with it.

Another way of looking at it is, essence and existence form a paradox that is perfectly circular.  Existence is defined as picking a point on the circle, and calling that “the beginning,” and pretending that it bounds one end of a straight line, instead of a circle.

I think, when we study consciousness, we will prove what we seek  to find. I suspect consciousness is a perfectly abstract concept.  A concept that is perfectly abstract cannot be described.  You cannot define consciousness, you can only be conscious.  Life means pretending that you are conscious, or not.  You can pretend that you are conscious when you are alive, and then are rendered unconscious when you die.  Or you can pretend you are in a state of unconsciousness in life, and that at the moment of death you become conscious.  And either way, you will be right.  Substitute “intend” for “pretend,” and I wind up saying the precise right thing, but it sounds spookier, and more profound.

So.  What to do?

Cool thing is, I think the human imagination is good enough to where you can actually pick the level of reality you want to live in.  You can live in the Newtonian world if you want, or you can kick it up a notch or two, or maybe even kick it down a notch or two I suppose.

I think the thing is, to be true to yourself.  Pick a set of operating assumptions that will allow you to function at the level of reality you choose to play in.  If you don’t like that game, stop whining.  Play a different game.

The post-modernists who say you are trapped in a Newtonian universe governed by the laws of thermodynamics are playing word games with you.  It’s a word game they can’t possibly lose, or win.  Kick it up a notch if you don’t like it.  Screw em.  It’s your reality. Those dopes can’t prove me wrong, either.

Embracing duality is the key to getting up to the next level.  I’m quite sure I’m correct about this, but I’m too lazy to walk you through it right now, maybe next time.  I’ll just say  for now that Einstein taught us this: reality will always appear to consist of space, time, matter and energy from your perspective.  When you say, “it is what it is,” you are locking yourself into that perspective.  Saying “it is what it is” makes you a slave to time.  The key to your freedom is to embrace duality.  Take that one step, and you are free.

Take that one step, and you are free to enjoy life.

## One thought on “Descarte’s Self-Reference”

1. Anonymous

This is real deep stuff. Love it.

Like