All things have a negative side. Every light casts a shadow. One can feel that they don’t entertain a thought, but you can’t avoid entertaining negatives. They are an inherent part of the equation that allows you to arrive at positives.
Is the medium the same thing as the information?
Is the map the territory or information about the territory? The map is neither of those things.
But the medium can shape and change the perception of the information. We have to distinguish between perception as we know it and perception of a more elementary level.
How information is ordered is an inherent part of the information? Like commas in a sentence? The order, yes, but not the medium. Everything we perceive is structured according to the same basic principles. I think even orthodox science would agree with this, yes?
Such principles are basic to science, yes. Isn’t that amazing? Literally everything we can possibly perceive is structured in a coherent, intelligible way, almost like a language. In order for this structure to be as universal as it is, there would have to be some previously existing context for it, yes?
With the exception of the fiscal cliff negotiations, of course, little either coherent or intelligible there. Indeed. Perhaps the height of orthodox human thought and social perception, but this breakdown takes place at the fringe of something rather than the heart of anything. The impulses that lead to atomic emergence operate on a level of pure information for lack of a better word.
I ponder “pure information.” Pure information would be the “sense” of a thing, it’s spirit. In fact, when I talk about spirits this is actually what I am talking about.
Would that be similar to “being itself” or “being in itself”? Being is a subroutine of the previous “machine language”, and from any one script a vast number of models are run, sort of like the universal protocols used on the internet.
I was thinking that “being” might be prior to “information”…
Being is a manifestation of spirit? Yes, and the reason I shift the concept of being to a later stage is that it implies a defined state whereas the source code that gave rise to any being has no single defined state. It is more like a dynamic computational process, an algorithm.
Without “order” then? With a recursive form of order, isomorphic in nature. Any specific being emerges in a specific context. Your being takes form based on the things that you are not, quantum collapse. So in the early phases of the process, you have an awareness of things as complex event matrices.
Are you saying that I am what I am because I cannot be otherwise? You are what you are because you have agreed according to protocol to not be otherwise, and you continue to observe the same communications protocol while you change. Math has to confine itself to it’s own set of rules. Like in programming, you can’t insert nonsense characters just because you feel like it and expect the program to work.
You have to respect the systematic order or the order or the system.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.