Chapter 64: Unfolding Descartes’ ‘I Think, Therefore I Am’ and thus Answering Heidegger’s: “Why are There Things that Are Rather than Nothing?”, Fundamental Relativity, Why the Michelson-Morley Experiment and ‘Of Politicians and Philosophers’.

 

http://darrylpenney.com

 

Abstract: Descartes’ statement ‘I think, therefore I am’ is unfolded into its major attractors and is shown not to contain ‘hidden treasures’, but has to be applauded as a serious attempt at the subject that has remained quoted and unassailed for hundreds of years. A concise nine-word answer to Martin Heidegger’s nine-word question: “Why are there things that are rather than nothing?” is given and is contained in the attractors of Descartes’ statement, and an appeal is made for a politician and to philosophers (if they can agree with each other by using a mathematics of concepts) to help solve today’s big problems because both are ‘generalists’. Fundamental relativity between the speed of light and observers is discussed and shows why the Michelson-Morley results occurred and thus removes an assumption from the Special Theory of Relativity.

 

Decartes’ statement that ‘I think, therefore I am’, keeps popping up and yet no one seems to be able to do much with it, except that it perhaps symbolises the start of modern Philosophy. In the preceding chapters we have progressed in the Mathematics of the Mind to such an extent that we can now define the statement sufficiently to place it in perspective, bearing in mind that the concepts used have been expanded/explained previously.

 

I have read that many people do not believe that Decartes’ statement is pertinent or correct, and in fact, in the second chapter that I wrote, (Chapter 7: A Mathematics of the Mind) I used it in reverse! That was over 60 chapters ago and my ideas have developed to the point that I am confident that I can put it into perspective. I said “‘I think, therefore I am’, reads more like advertising copy than a major theory”, and I am pleased to say that I feel vindicated and have ‘unfolded’ it into its major attractors below, so that the readers can make what they will of it.

 

The options from ‘I am’: I exist, I do not exist, I have a reality where I may or may not exist, I do not have a reality, I am dead and have no reality, but have a reality to those eating me.

 

I exist: in real space, but this leads to complications of ‘what is real space?, ‘there must be a god to create the space’! etc.

 

I do not exist: is a much simpler concept and more likely according to Occams’ razor, that is itself a simple solution of the Mathematics of the Mind and applicable in (probably) most solutions.

 

I have a reality where I may or may not exist: reality requires continuity over the whole space and if continuity does not exist, magic can happen that does not obey the laws of reality of ourselves. We have a defence in reality that we will (probably) survive the day, but who knows about tomorrow? Reality is an equilibrium where we have the defences to survive long enough to reproduce if we are lucky and the fittest reproduce more often. This leads to the requirement that (eventually) everything can be consumed and recycled. Notice that the probability of existence (space) allows a reality because it is continuous from 0 to 1 and allows certainty of existence at 1.

 

I do not have a reality: then you will become someone’s dinner because you will not know that they are stalking you. The increase in size of organisms in the Cambrian led to lensed eyes evolving and that rapidly ensured that most predators and prey evolved defences or teeth of hard material. This increase in body-size also saw the creation of consciousness as the brain size increased and that increased the complexity of life.

 

I am dead and have no reality, but have a reality to those eating me: this reaffirms the above that everything has to be recycled eventually and links in to the fact that reality has to be continuous and further, that every organism has the same reality, unless it has a separate niche. To simplify, everything has to be renewed else the world ‘clogs’ up, and in the extreme, continental drift renews resources through melting, heating and releasing them through volcanic action.

 

The options from ‘I think’ are: I do not think, I think iterationally, I think consciously and iterationally (herd), I think consciously and iterationally (settled family, hunter/gatherer, dwelling), I think consciously (settled farmer), I think consciously (mathematics of concepts).

 

I do not think: the ‘big bang’ was required to create a quantity (of 1) of something that has two states that we call energy/mass and mass has a necessary attraction (that we call gravity) because we need it for our universe (out of the multiverse) to function. This means that suns and planets form, but energy leads to simple ‘thoughts’ because entanglement (Conservation of Energy) means that particles obey laws, logically.

 

I think iterationally: the first Law of Life contains (principally) componentization, iteration and time passing, as well as interactions with the other two laws and is part of P world. This state of affairs followed until the hunter/gatherer era ended.

 

I think consciously and iterationally (herd): from above, this increase in size saw the creation of consciousness because the cells, which have to be small because of the evolved specialized cell-walls formed multi-celled organisms that could achieve consciousness by creating a mind that was necessary to control the speeded-up ‘world of sight’. This ‘contract’ between the cells led to the placebo/nocebo continuum in multi-celled organisms.

 

I think consciously and iterationally (settled family, hunter/gatherer, dwelling): the first primates, 65 million years ago, from whom we are descended started ‘farming’ their territory by eating and grooming the fruits, leaves, insects, bark etc. especially around the dwelling area leading to a wide-ranging diet that we should be eating today.

 

I think consciously (settled farmer): the Natufian hunter/gatherers became farmers, their height dropped by 4 inches and the variety in their diets dropped from 150 varieties to 7 or 8 over 2000 years.

 

I think consciously (mathematics of concepts): it has been put forward in this book that the optimum method of achieving anti ageing is to use transport/travel to eat 60 plus varieties of food a day as well as state of mind and exercise (second Law of Life). Further, the state of mind is crucial to re-set the death orgene and ensure the correct exercise to increase the likelihood of living longer.

 

The options from ‘therefore’ are: ‘I think, therefore I am’, and ‘I am, therefore I think’.

 

‘I think, therefore I am’: the fifth dimension is composed of CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) and reality is what we perceive to be our surroundings and those surroundings are only perceived when we measure them, otherwise they are indeterminate. Thus the act of measuring, that requires seeing/hearing/feeling and recording produces a reality that we operate within, and that measurement may be unachievable (as a limit to an iteration), but it is still a measurement of a concept.

 

‘I am, therefore I think’: from chapter 7, ‘is a consequence of the structure of the brain, which has special quantum mechanical effects built into its structure to produce creativity, thinking etc. and uses the logic upon which the universe is built’, that is, the fifth dimension (CEM).

 

The Mathematics of the Mind is a means of placing concepts for decision by iteration or a mind/brain, and the over-arching idea is to make a unanimous decision and prevent arguments between people. The above lays out the most relevant attractors that refer to Decartes’ statement, and it is up to the reader to determine if the statement has value, apart from the historic, or that the attractors have the merit. The attractors do contain the answer to Martin Heidegger’s question: “Why are there things that are rather than nothing?”. In other words, Decartes’ statement and Heidegger’s question are related, but that is not surprising because entanglement ensures that everything is related to everything else.

 

Philosophy seems to use the space-time and logic of world O and certain derivations that require world P cannot be treated adequately, whereas I have tendered to start in world P and move into world O and certain concepts become clearer, especially fundamental physics and the social sciences because mathematics is only a special case of the mathematics of concepts. It might be easier to think of this as ‘top down’ that ‘hides’ the basic laws, versus the ‘bottom up’ that naturally leads to the full ‘picture’.

 

This previous paragraph tends to ‘gloss-over’ a critical point, so, I will spend some time discussing it. Einstein used space-time for the Special Theory of Relativity, even though it was known that there was a fifth dimension in the 1920s that needed to exist to support light waves and the theory, that concerns the relativity between the measurements of two observers, requires a Lorentz transformation. The basic/real relativity is between that, that is being measured and the observer and leads to the reasons behind the Michelson-Morley experiment for the speed of light (that the speed is the same in all directions) that is part of the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement).

 

To simplify that, in a simple probability space a+b=1 which requires relativity (no absolutes), and if observers b and c measure the speed of light (no matter if b and c are moving or accelerating with respect to each other) then a+b=a+c=1 and observer/measurement b and c must have the same measurement/value, and that is the Michelson-Morley experiment. The relation between b and c is the Special Theory of Relativity. An alternate explanation is that a+b=1 means that there is no reference point and the reading must be the same for each observer. This also removes an assumption from the Special Theory of Relativity.

 

There are two ‘worlds’, the universe (P) and the human world (O) defined by their use of units, and this has been discussed previously as the interdependent three Laws of Life, where the first is in world P and the other two are in world O. Philosophy uses world O in its investigations, but finds certain problems are intractable, and I believe that is because they don’t recognise world P, and Decartes’ statement is a case in point. It has taken a lot of examination, above, because it is not specific, and I will give another example.

 

From chapter 63: ‘ON DARING TO THINK ILLOGICAL THOUGHTS IN OLD AGE ….

I pull Heidegger’s Introduction to Metaphysics out of my shoulder bag. This is the tome that opens with the stupifier, “Why are there things that are rather than nothing?” … Martin Heidegger was a twentieth-century German existentialist … is asking us to confront the idea that existence itself can be called into question and this, he believes, is the ultimate philosophical question. (Travels with Epicurus, Daniel Klein, p 113)

 

‘Heidegger states that the question is “unfathomable”. First he tells us that this question is fundamental to all philosophy, and then he tells us that we are never going to get it anyhow. Something perverse in that.’ (p 114) ‘In old age I do seem to be able to get occasional glimpses that appear to transcend logic. I dare to think illogical thoughts.’ (p 115) ‘Maybe the positivists were right, after all: the reason that I cannot think about this stuff is because it is utter nonsense.’ (p 117) ‘I feel enriched, in part because I have trod where I dared not tread as a young man. The old man has mellowed to metaphysics.’ (p 118)

 

‘“Why are there things that are rather than nothing?” … is the ultimate philosophical question’ can be answered simply by what I think is the most important statement: ‘Determination evolved a reality out of the possibility of existence’. Whether this is a philosophical answer I don’t know because Philosophy does not recognise world P, the Mathematics of the Mind nor the Logic of the Half-truth, at the moment.

 

I have stayed away from philosophy because I don’t understand it, and I am tempted to believe that philosophers ‘enjoy’ the fact that very few people understand philosophy, but I believe that they are using world O concepts and trying to apply them to world P. The time has come to challenge them to, quite literally, help save the world because the idea of using the mathematics of concepts is to get everyone to agree and use ridicule on those that do not agree because their motives become apparent.

 

A ‘haggle’ of philosophers could be used to denote a collection of philosophers because they are commonly considered to argue among themselves, and I can believe this because they are using a non-general mathematics in a ‘similar’ way that mathematics is a special case of the Mathematics of the Mind, philosophers are using the special case of world O, but not world P concepts. I might add that physicists were caught-out, also, and mathematicians took the easy (unique) stuff.

 

The world’s problems, in my opinion, have been caused by the ‘smoke and mirrors’ of NOT using a general mathematics of concepts. Well, its here, and we need someone such as a politician or a ‘haggle’ of philosophers (that can all agree) to solve the world’s problems. Why do I mention politicians and philosophers together when politicians are often considered (somewhat) corrupt and philosophers can (very seldomly) agree? I must admit that they are strange ‘bedfellows’, but that is the power behind the Mathematics of the Mind. Politicians link the second and third Laws of Life and so do philosophers, until they recognise world P and take their rightful place over the three Laws.

 

As a ‘proof’, philosophy is the original ‘generalist’ and ‘over-arches’ every discipline, but it can’t do it, at the moment, because the First Law of Life is in world P and philosophers don’t recognise it! If I seem to be going around in circles, that is entanglement and shows a theory to be good/useful and (Surprise! Surprise!) the Theory of Theories is a solution in the manner of the Mathematics of the Mind!