Truth is unconditional love. Both share the same descriptives. When truth merges with our consciousness (awareness) it does so without us having to think about it. It can even just pop into our consciousness, and does so when we were not, or no longer, seeking it.

How can something unreal/untrue have meaning?
Whatever meaning the self attaches to it is fantasy and so is the attached meaning. It becomes meaningless due to its own deception. To claim something untrue/unreal as having meaning is the same as saying nothing is something. — Invisibilis

You appear to be conflating two different perceptions of ‘truth’. Unconditional love is a relation to all possible information, even if it’s untrue or unreal. ‘Truth value’ refers to a perceived potentiality in relation to possible information. So it’s a conditional relation, limited by our subjective awareness or consciousness.

To love unconditionally, the relation as possible information matters regardless of truth value, and therefore has meaning - even if we never grasp what that meaning is ourselves. To dismiss something as untrue/unreal, on the other hand, is to exclude possible information in relation to a subjective perception of potential - to say that something is ‘nothing’, despite information that it matters to someone/something, even if only existing as a possibility.

Truth as unconditional love is the awareness that I may not experience something as true from my limited perspective, but if it is experienced as true from your perspective, then it is at least possible. Its truth is then relative to my relationship with you.

I don't see how information is directly and necessarily related to any monotonic change in entropy. I see info as being more about the binding of data values in a certain configuration as a property of something. — Sir Philo Sophia

Carlo Rovelli’s book ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’ contains a chapter called ‘Information’ which I think best describes where I’m coming from in relation to information and entropy. It seems he refers to it more recently as relative information, which might help to clear up the confusion:

In nature, variables are not independent; for instance, in any magnet, the two ends have opposite polarities. Knowing one amounts to knowing the other. So we can say that each end “has information” about the other. There is nothing mental in this; it is just a way of saying that there is a necessary relation between the polarities of the two ends. We say that there is "relative information" between two systems anytime the state of one is constrained by the state of the other. In this precise sense, physical systems may be said to have information about one another, with no need for a mind to play any role. Such "relative information" is ubiquitous in nature: The color of the light carries information about the object the light has bounced from; a virus has information about the cell it may attach; and neurons have information about one another. Since the world is a knit tangle of interacting events, it teams with relative information. When this information is exploited for survival, extensively elaborated by our brain, and maybe coded in a language understood by a community, it becomes mental, and it acquires the semantic weight that we commonly attribute to the notion of information. But the basic ingredient is down there in the physical world: physical correlation between distinct variables. The physical world is not a set of self-absorbed entities that do their selfish things. It is a tightly knitted net of relative information, where everybody’s state reflects somebody else’s state. We understand physical, chemical, biological, social, political, astrophysical, and cosmological systems in terms of these nets of relations, not in terms of individual behavior. Physical relative information is a powerful basic concept for describing the world. Before “energy,” “matter,” or even “entity.” — Carlo Rovelli

The process of re-conceptualising the classical world, of three-dimensions in time, into Rovelli’s four-dimensional ‘knit tangle of interacting events’ lends itself to re-configuring for one, two and three-dimensional universe concepts, as well as five and six-dimensional conceptualisations of the potential and possible information we obtain from our subjective experiences. What Rovelli neglects, though, is the relevance of chemical relations, and how they contribute to the qualitative or non-spatial information in the universe at each dimensional level.

information on something might reduce your uncertainty/entropy wrt to knowing that something, which may at the same time increase your uncertainty/entropy (e.g., if the info contradicts many more facts/info you thought were true of that something). So, in this context, please explain by example how you find, by definition "Information is the resolution of uncertainty’". — Sir Philo Sophia

It’s the ‘wrt’ that complicates the relationship between entropy and information. Information from interacting with a particular ‘apple’ experience, for instance, reduces your uncertainty wrt that apple, which may at the same time appear to increase your uncertainty wrt knowing the concept ‘apple’. Which is ‘reality’, though - the interaction with experience, or the concept we refer to in our minds to predict an interaction?

I think you are defining the meaning of a philosopher's life, not human life. At the risk of sounding like a reductionist, the genetically programmed, thus default, meaning of life is to develop and employ a cognitive framework sufficient to acquire and use information to build enough knowledge on how to gain enough food and shelter sustenance to survive good and long enough to acquire a mate and reproduce. The rest is icing on the human cake, so to speak (in metaphors).

So, the premise of this thread is talking about the icing, think the self-actualization in Maslow's pyramid, not not the primal cake (survival). After survival is fulfilled, then the meaning of that post-survival life can step up once in Maslow's pyramid, where info is used to serve more comfort, personal entropy reduction needs, but that is not the primal meaning of life, by any stretch.

eager to hear any solid counter examples/arguments. — Sir Philo Sophia

You’re right, you do sound like a reductionist (still, I won’t hold it against you :razz: ). Personally, I don’t buy the ‘default’ program of life as survival and procreation, as defined by classical evolutionary theory. And I no longer subscribe to Maslow’s pyramid. This might sound like I’ve gone off the reservation, but I have put a lot of thought into this, and I certainly wouldn’t overlook these very reasonable theories flippantly. But they are still theories, after all. I’m not clever enough to disprove them, but I see them as close approximations of reality based on a reasonable conceptualisation of available information - a bit like Ptolemy’s universe, which served us well for over a thousand years. I’m only suggesting that an alternative way of looking at the information seems IMHO to be less prone to anomaly, and is therefore worth exploring.

In Thomas Nagel’s book ‘Mind and the Cosmos’, he argues against the capacity of Darwinian evolutionary theory, materialism/naturalism and reductionism to provide a satisfactory account of consciousness and human intelligibility in particular. Equally unsatisfied with theories of intelligent design, Nagel suggests an alternative, yet to be formulated, and sets out what such a theory would need to accomplish. This is what I’m working on.

To me, human evolution and success don’t fit the model of maximising survival, species benefit and genetic proliferation at all. The idea that the universe is geared for life, and this life, having accomplished a very different goal of survival, then acquires a new and different motivation again towards comfort and entropy reduction, is patched together rather than a comprehensive understanding of the unfolding universe from a singularity.

The way I see it, the human organism has evolved to maximise entropy reduction, not survival, etc. In fact, the traits that enable our survival do so only via this capacity for entropy reduction. And when you look at the process of quantum particles to material physics to chemistry to life to humanity to all of our ‘progress’, that same impetus - to reduce entropy, by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration or by ignorance, isolation and exclusion - underlies it all.

I think you are defining the meaning of a philosopher's life, not human life. At the risk of sounding like a reductionist, the genetically programmed, thus default, meaning of life is to develop and employ a cognitive framework sufficient to acquire and use information to build enough knowledge on how to gain enough food and shelter sustenance to survive good and long enough to acquire a mate and reproduce. The rest is icing on the human cake, so to speak (in metaphors).

So, the premise of this thread is talking about the icing, think the self-actualization in Maslow's pyramid, not not the primal cake (survival). After survival is fulfilled, then the meaning of that post-survival life can step up once in Maslow's pyramid, where info is used to serve more comfort, personal entropy reduction needs, but that is not the primal meaning of life, by any stretch.

eager to hear any solid counter examples/arguments. — Sir Philo Sophia

Yes, you do sound like a reductionist (still, I won’t hold it against you). Personally, I don’t buy the ‘default’ program of life as survival and procreation, as defined by classical evolutionary theory. And I no longer subscribe to Maslow’s pyramid. I have put a lot of thought into this, and I certainly wouldn’t overlook these very reasonable theories flippantly. But they are still theories, after all. I’m not clever enough to formally disprove them, but they’re only close approximations of reality based on a reasonable conceptualisation of available information - a bit like Ptolemy’s universe, which served us well for over a thousand years. I’m only suggesting that an alternative way of looking at the information seems IMHO to be less prone to anomaly.

In Thomas Nagel’s book ‘Mind and Cosmos’, he argues against the capacity of Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, naturalism and reductionism to provide a satisfactory account of consciousness and human intelligibility in particular. Equally unsatisfied with theories of intelligent design, Nagel suggests an alternative, yet to be formulated, and sets out what such a theory would need to accomplish.

To me, human evolution and success don’t fit the model of maximising survival, species benefit and genetic proliferation at all. The idea that the universe has either been ‘designed’ for life or has simply fluked it, and this life, having accomplished its own goal of survival, then acquires a new and different motivation towards comfort and entropy reduction, is patched together rather than a comprehensive understanding of the unfolding universe from a singularity.

The way I see it, the human organism has evolved to maximise entropy reduction, not survival, etc. The traits that enable our survival do so only via this capacity for entropy reduction. And when you look at the process of quantum particles to material physics to chemistry to life to humanity to all of our ‘progress’, that same impetus - to reduce entropy, by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration or by ignorance, isolation and exclusion - underlies it all.

I applaud where you are trying to go with this, but I have to respectfully disagree with your model/ideas on that. For one thing, I'm not seeing 'utility' as being necessarily based on 'meaning'. I see it more based on pattern matching and degrees of causal correlations.

That is, I do not think that meaning or intelligibility is primal when it comes to building knowledge. I expect utility is much more primal because it requires less energy/work/knowledge to enable us to reduce/increase certain entropy as desired to achieve desired outcomes. — Sir Philo Sophia

I appreciate the thought you’re putting in to challenging my theories here. It has been productive for me. And I can see where you’re coming from, and why it makes sense from your position.

I recognise that the way we tend to think of ‘meaning’ is tied into the process of defining concepts in order to express how we relate to information across experience. In that respect, comprehension is required for ‘meaning’ as definition. But when I talk about ‘meaning’, I’m referring more to pure relation, to what matters, prior to intelligibility. I recognise that this can be confusing, but for me, meaning isn’t definition, so it isn’t about comprehension: definition is a reduction of information/meaning to perceived potentiality and then to a linguistic system enabling others to relate to this potentiality, which points once again to meaning: what matters. I hope this clears up where I’m coming from.

For example, quantum particles and their behavior is completely intelligible and has almost no meaning to us; however, we can develop and detect statistical (math) generalizations that predict their observed behavior good enough to use them in useful devices/methods or to predict when/where they may occur with what likelihood and at what energy level, all w/ little to know understanding of what they really are about. — Sir Philo Sophia

Before we understood anything about quantum particles, we were aware of information that made a difference to atoms. We knew only that this information meant something to our understanding of atomic structure, even if we didn’t know what that relation was or what we could use it for. It was an anomaly, a difference pointing to the possibility of something that previously didn’t matter. But once it mattered, then we looked for how it related to what we already relate to: how this difference related to other interactions.

So I disagree that quantum particles have almost no meaning to us. We struggle to define that meaning because the relations of quantum particles are potential, irreducible; but whatever quantum particles are, they matter to us, and they did so long before we could prove their potential existence using mathematics.

The way I see it, information is meaning is relation - the difference that makes a difference. I agree with you that information doesn’t need to be understood. It matters that it relates to something - it means something to someone or something - and then we determine its relation to us (utility, value, significance) by first relating to that relation as possible meaning (as something that matters), and then reducing it to perceived potentiality.

As another example, consider a pattern/event/object 'A' is observed and found to occur semi-periodically; however, 'A' is not understood in any way and has no intrinsic meaning, we can only detect its occurrence (think like a sub-atomic particle in an accelerator collision). We notice that most of the time shortly after pattern 'A' is observed occurring a desirable, yet otherwise completely temporally unpredictable, resource/object 'B' will be available for a brief moment. Having knowledge of this causal association we prepare ourselves to take advantage of 'B', and right after detecting 'A" we were, finally, able to acquire 'B'. Pattern 'A' is like a sign, we don't have to know what the sign says or means, we just have to uniquely recognize the occurrence of that pattern which we don't at all understand (i.e., pure pattern matching, no comprehension or meaning needed).

what do you say about that? — Sir Philo Sophia

A couple of points regarding this example, in light of my explanation of ‘meaning’ above.

Firstly, because I see meaning as relation itself, I don’t believe there is any particular ‘intrinsic meaning’ to anything. Everything matters, but it often matters differently to you than it does to me, and so while everything has possible meaning, that meaning is only definable within a linguistic/logical/mathematical system as a reduction of available information.

Secondly, it is in our initial awareness of ‘B’ that it first has meaning for us - that is, it exists in relation to our relation to ‘A’, and this existence matters. It’s really only a possible relation - the supposed ‘causality’ is relative to the perceived potentiality of ‘A’. We don’t observe ‘A’ as an actual object - we have information about the relative potential of ‘A’ - and the more information we gain by diversifying our relation to this relative potential, the more we increase the possibility of ‘B’, whose perceived potentiality can only be determined at this point relative to the perceived potential of ‘A’.

I hope I’m explaining this okay - the basic idea from my position is that the meaning of ‘B’ is its relation to the meaning of ‘A’, which is reducible to its perceived potential, which is undefined.

Yes, it is the self which is limited, and not the truth. Whenever self looks for truth, and/or expresses it, it is limited by its own limitations. Truth cannot be limited. There is no such thing as a half/part/limited truth, for it then becomes a deception, and not a truth. Truth is the only reality, and what is not true is unreal. The best the limited self can express only seems true and real.

A true human being is a consciousness of honesty, where truth expresses itself onto our thoughts and feelings. The self had no part in creating the thoughts and feelings to make it seem true and real. When truth reveals itself, uncensored, onto our thoughts and feelings, it is understood without reason or logic attached. It is doubtless, obvious, fearless, and restorative. It even heals what limitations the self has at that time. — Invisibilis

Truth cannot be limited, sure - but it cannot ‘express itself’. This is a misunderstanding. We can relate to truth only by relating honestly with the universe, beyond reason and logic, and beyond all limitations.

Yet limitations are not deception - the only way that truth can be expressed is reduced through our limitations - language, action, art, etc - the choices we CAN make in our interactions with the world to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. If this is your understanding of ‘truth’, then it IS limited, and I would argue that meaning is beyond that, encompassing ALL possibility: inclusive of what is also untrue, unreal, pure imagination...

What are the exclusion implied? — Invisibilis

To ‘experience truth’ implies a limitation in how to relate to truth. To ‘express it as a true human being’ implies a limitation in how to express it. Both of these limitations are anthropic: the full ‘meaning of life’ is inclusive of alternative relations to truth than ‘experience’, as well as alternative expressions of truth than ‘as a true human being’, whatever you believe that to be.

Consider a well-respected and popular high school teacher who is very active and visible in leadership roles and community service. You could ask him to stand up before a group of unruly teens, his peers or complete strangers in almost any situation, and he’ll conduct himself with confidence and soon have the situation well in hand. He’s never been described as shy or quiet. People seem to naturally gravitate towards him, they find him knowledgeable, capable, friendly and willing to help, and he easily gains their respect.

Most people that meet him would disagree that he’s an introvert. But if you get to know him, you’d realise that he often prefers to keep to himself, his hobbies and social groups all involve solitary activity or at least require limited numbers, he has no interest in trends or popular opinion at all, and he ‘naturally’ gravitates away from crowds or people in general.

Introversion/extroversion is often seen as a dichotomy at the level of certain psychological behaviour, but it’s more fluid than that. Not all introverts are shy and disconnected, for instance, and not all extroverts aim to be the life of the party. The distinction occurs at a much deeper level than volition, allowing for far more variation and change than people might think. What is ‘intrinsic’ in my view is not any psychological behaviour, but a one-dimensional qualitative distinction in where we perceive potential in the world.

While it’s the potential for attention and connection that energises extroverts, it’s the potential for collaboration and achievement that energises introverts. In this way they complement each other, but in a way that often works like an electromagnetic force. Extroverts are drawn towards the quiet achievement of introverts, who back away from this attention and ‘trivial’ connection. Inversely, extroverts back away from a need for unheralded action, which draws introverts like a vacuum to make productive connections. So an introverted child living in a loving house full of extroverts learns to be highly capable, confident and conversational, or an extroverted child who grows up isolated and abused learns to be shy, reserved and limited in their perceived capacity to connect with the world.

The way I see it, all patterns of behaviour are changeable - we are capable of self-reflection beyond volition to evaluate and adjust the conceptual and value structures we employ in determining our own potential in relation to the world and initiating action. In the same way that we can increase and adjust potential interactions in physics to create a more effective action, we can also increase and adjust our own perceived potentiality in how we conceptualise psychological patterns such as ‘introverted’ or ‘shy’, for instance. So, an introvert is capable of developing more awareness and diverse connection with the world, and an extrovert is capable of achieving a deeper connection and collaboration with the world.

The true human being is true. Where is the limit of truth. — Invisibilis

What is a ‘false human being’? The limit of ‘truth’ is in exclusions implied by the potential of its expression.

That’s the significance of human life, as we experience it. The ‘meaning of life’ is broader than that: to pursue the ‘truth’ and express it in how we relate to the universe, regardless of the limitations of ‘being human’.

Back at work, so I’ve got less time to devote to this, unfortunately...

There's an important point to be made here. I am not talking about volition. What I'm referring to is intrinsic psychological behavior that relates to one's natural state of being or genetics. Psychological homeostasis basically means I can try to change many things, but certain core things I cannot change. — 3017amen

I’m just cautious of assertions that some things cannot change. I do recognise that certain brain structures are more or less stable at the level of genetics, but psychological homeostasis is only a relative stability - as you seem to have demonstrated in your own shift to becoming less ‘introverted’. I’m not convinced that any psychological behaviour is unchangeable in itself, although conceptualised behaviour patterns require more self-conscious or at least meaningful effort over time to shift. I think we need to be careful what we label as ‘natural’ or ‘intrinsic’, even beyond the level of volition - as Feldman-Barrett demonstrates with emotions.

And what is your theory behind such a fear? — 3017amen

The way I see it, the universe has evolved each level of awareness, connection and collaboration through the ‘courage’ of only a minute percentage of its capacity. The rest have ignored, isolated or excluded information beyond their limited awareness of the universe. Dark matter, the atomic nucleus, mineral ore and single-cell organisms are examples of these limitations manifest at other levels of awareness. At the level of self-consciousness, this manifests as fear of perceived potential.

As humans, we develop an awareness of potential in the world, including our own as participants. We can perceive the potential of future interactions, and then determine and initiate our own actions to increase or reduce this potential, perceived in relation to our own. We also have the capacity to ignore, isolate or exclude information about this potential in how we conceptualise the world. This means that we maximise our perceived potential only in a world with less potential than our own - a world that we perceive as controlled, stable and knowable, and that more or less revolves around our existence. But to achieve this necessarily limits our awareness, connection and collaboration with the potential of the universe that isn’t and doesn’t.

Our capacity for love corresponds to this capacity for awareness, connection and collaboration. We limit this capacity in order to distinguish and maximise our perceived ‘individual’ potential in relation to the perceived potential of our world. But potentiality doesn’t consist of distinct entities - that’s only how we perceive it.

I disagree. You omit utility. There is no meaning w/o some sense of utility. A mere ontology of info/data does not create knowledge if you have not gained any actionable path to beneficially use it. I look forward to your stab at your definitions re what I pose above, which will help ground all of our lose semantics here. — Sir Philo Sophia

Utility is the reduction of information from meaning to knowledge via conceptual systems. Determining an actionable path to beneficially use information is a process that ignores, isolates or excludes possible information according to a subjective perception of potentiality. Yes, it’s a necessary process for utilising knowledge at a subjective level, but no, it isn’t necessary for meaning.

Some rough thoughts on definitions:

Information: ‘the resolution of uncertainty’ Is a simplified definition of information, although it invariably leads to a demonisation of entropy and a subsequent rejection of this uncertainty. The difference, as I see it, is in recognising that much of the potential and possible information we have about the world - particularly in relation to our qualitative or chemical relations - are currently irreducible with any accuracy to the same extent as quantitative data. Without a system of reducing information that resolves this uncertainty of qualitative information in subjective experience, we cannot come close to an accurate understanding of the universe. The main error (IMHO) is in the dichotomy of qualitative vs quantitative information, separating ‘mental’ from ‘actual’.

Data: a value signifying a quantitative reduction of potential information. An altimeter measures altitude as a difference in atmospheric pressure in relation to a measurement relative to the volume of certain mercury molecules at a particular relative temperature (ie. molecular velocity, or difference in potential distance in relation to direction over time) and a distance relative to the centre of the earth (sea level). So the ‘abstraction’ of data such as the height of Mount Everest is, well, relative.

Knowledge: Information reduced to relative value/potential structures. We integrate information into our conceptual system by determining its relative utility or potential as new information. A priori knowledge refers to information as a relation existing beyond or at the outer limits of any linguistic/logical or other value system or structure, by which any information may be reduced to ‘knowledge’. The relative potential of a priori knowledge is perceived as infinite: there is no uncertainty of meaning because any possible meaning is limited by the potentiality of the linguistic/logical structure itself.

Mine is not a mainstream theory. I am challenging the current understanding of ‘information’ to be inclusive of meaning without utility and honest about its uncertainty/diversity, as well as clearing up this confusion about the path of abstraction (as described in the quote you offered). Data ‘emerges’ from information via a process of reduction and interpretation, as does knowledge and wisdom and consciousness and life and love and the universe itself.

Information can be acquired through the process of interpretation: one example is by relating to information which has been reduced to potential knowledge and then reduced again via shared conceptual systems to significant sounds or shapes on a page, or reduced even further through a manufactured processing system into, say, binary code to be transmitted in an electrical circuit and then interpreted back through a processing system into sounds or shapes on a screen, to be interpreted by an observer into an experience of potential knowledge (according to shared conceptual systems) which enables us to approach a possible shared meaning. From there, we integrate the information into our own conceptual systems by relating that possible meaning to our own perception of potentiality, which manifests the difference as useful knowledge or new information.

Each dimensional level of reduction or interpretation is a relation that is prone to certain levels of uncertainty/entropy/misunderstanding/noise/diversity - understanding this uncertainty at each dimensional level enables us to allow and adjust for it as part of the processing or relational system we are continually refining. The greatest levels of uncertainty obviously occur at these higher dimensional levels of potentiality and possibility, and we’re continually refining our strategies to recognise, allow for and thereby resolve this uncertainty. But the biggest hurdles are in acknowledging and allowing for the uncertainty and diversity of qualitative information and the inaccuracy of value/conceptual structures by which we reduce the information from our relations to each other.

that state of being you describe is not related to information. that is empathy. Empathy is not info, or knowledge most often is emotive, which suppresses all the conflicting info which would break the (often blind) empathy. — Sir Philo Sophia

Well, then you appear to have a limited understanding of what information is, but you’re not alone. Information is ‘the difference that makes a difference’. The complexity of the process that relates information to produce empathy is six-dimensional: it takes into account the conflicting info and finds meaning in relating anyway, regardless of potential conflict.

my friend, you are talking about wisdom, so you are completely off topic. recall the topic is 'Information - The Meaning Of Life In a Nutshell', nothing to do with knowledge or wisdom. So, I think you went off topic b/c the poster (et. al.) are talking about the raw consumption of information, not any consideration for its utility in making useful knowledge (let alone wisdom). The poster (et. al.) say that endless information accumulation alone is the meaning, goal, and happiness of human life. You (like me), looking towards wisdom, seem to believe otherwise? — Sir Philo Sophia

Not off-topic at all. It’s all information, including knowledge and wisdom. My first post here made a specific argument against the OP:

But I would argue that relation is meaning is information. We can approach an awareness of meaning itself only through our relation to the world at the level of possibility - even though we’re unable to distinguish that meaning from anything. Then we make use of it by discarding what lacks ‘perceived potential’. We manifest this information, this ‘difference that makes a difference’, as knowledge, understanding and wisdom by reading, interpreting or otherwise relating to information within subjective structures of value/significance/potential. — Possibility

I hope that clears up my position.

OK, lets take your (et. al.) line of logic/thinking further. Then, in your (et. al.) terms a modern, top supercomputer has achieved a greater meaning in life because it has accumulated (and can access) more information than any human could in his/her lifetime. So, our a modern, top supercomputers are the epitome of, and superior to, humanity in that they far surpass humans in what you (et. al.) say is the key (if not only) metric of human purpose/happiness? You can't have it both ways... pick one... — Sir Philo Sophia

There is no quantity or value to meaning except when limited by our perception, so it makes no sense to say anyone or anything ‘achieves a greater meaning in life’, objectively speaking.

Accumulating and accessing information is not what I mean by relating, either. It’s possible for a program to accumulate and access information in a complex process that far surpasses a human’s mental capacity. But the supercomputer cannot relate to that information at any level, only facilitate a program to produce a result. We can structure the program in a way that simulates relations between quantitative values according to a complex binary logic, but it not only has no access to any qualitative values, but it also has no awareness, no relationship to the process that produced its result - the program at any one time IS the result of its process and nothing else.

So the most a supercomputer can achieve at any one time is the transmission of a final quantitative value, to which it cannot relate.

That's bullshit; in the technical sense - it's junk thinking indicating a lack of comprehension, wilful or otherwise. — Banno

In what technical sense? Infinity is historically a philosophical concept, representing an unbounded limit in relation to value/potential - whether quantitative OR qualitative.

I will concede that it’s more likely both or neither - that it refers beyond the outer limit of value/potential - although in mathematics it’s more representative of this boundless outer limit itself. But to define infinity as a supposedly quantifiable concept would be inaccurate: this is usually accepted by mathematicians, at least in a conceptual sense.

If an ancient had 5 hens...and one went missing, I suspect he would not just say..."I had many yesterday and I have many today, so no problem." — Frank Apisa

Piraha is a documented and currently spoken language that has relative terms roughly translated as ‘one’, ‘two’ and ‘many’ - but no terms for more exact numbers. From the studies conducted, it’s fair to say that some would not have noticed the missing hen, while others would.

I agree with you here. The idea is that infinity is not a quantitative concept (definable in relation to a numerical value), but a qualitative one. All qualitative and quantitative concepts are defined by their perceived potential.

So, according to your (and the original poster’s) idea, a teenager spending all day on facebook consuming endless information of relationships between trivia and social gossip is fulfilling the meaning of life (yet they have a higher rate of suicides), but a Buddhist monk that prays and meditates all day, day in and day out, consuming little to no information of the world or its relationships, is not fulfilling the meaning of life? — Sir Philo Sophia

A good question. There is a difference between consuming information and relating to information. This teenager you describe is fulfilling the ‘meaning of life’ not in consuming the information but in relating their experience of this information to others. Those at high risk of suicide are failing to relate to others in any meaningful way - they have isolated themselves from the world in many respects, and are no more fulfilling this meaning of life than a Buddhist monk who does nothing but pray or meditate all day, every day.

Those Buddhist monks who are fulfilling the meaning of life are those who take on disciples, who write, speak or otherwise share their experiences of prayer and meditation, who strive to render Buddhist teachings relevant to the world and its relationships NOW and in the future - and you can’t do that by completely isolating yourself from the world. Buddha’s life wasn’t a path to follow, but a map to help us understand how to more accurately relate to information in life. It’s not the only source of this kind of meta-information that’s been misinterpreted over the years, and it’s certainly not meant to be the only source of information.

The more we relate to information, the more meaning that information has. The more information we exclude, the further we get from this ‘meaning of life’, and the more limited our capacity in the world.
— Possibility
Not true. Do you really think an idiot savant consuming with photographic memory all info and relationships is the meaning/purpose of human life? I’d argue that consuming and recording meaningless relationships of information reduces your net meaning/knowledge b/c of your very limited capacity, bandwidth, and time to continually process and sift through the ton of meaningless info to behold the little meaningful relationships of information. That is, the better you reject meaningless information and meaningless relationships of information the greater your ability to determine what is the meaning of the truly relevant relationships of information to produce meaningful knowledge to employ at your command. Any definition of meaning and information and life that is not throttle by our very finite mental faculties is certainly not practical as to the meaning of most, if not all, people’s lives. — Sir Philo Sophia

I don’t think you can exclude an ‘idiot savant’ from an opportunity to fulfil the meaning of life in their own unique way. If their capacity to engage in what you see as ‘meaningful’ relationships with information is impaired, does that make their life less meaningful? Not everyone can be a philosopher - our aim is not to be everything to the world within ourselves, but to contribute our incomplete selves to the world. The ‘meaning of life’ is not an individual achievement, but a collaborative one.

We lament the historical rejection of information judged ‘meaningless’ at the time far more than we’re bemoaning the glut of information now available. From the tragic loss of biodiversity or destroyed manuscripts, lost languages, histories and cultures, to forgotten traditional medicines and ancient remedies - the value of information realised too late to retrieve it from the destruction of colonialism, religion and fear (among others) is up there among the biggest regrets of human progress.

I’m not saying we all have to consume as much information as possible - you seem to think of information as only data or words, but that’s not what I’m referring to. We relate to information, for example, simply by looking a homeless person in the eye and acknowledging them as a fellow human being who happens to be down on his luck. That we often ignore this as ‘meaningless’ information is an example of the many and varied ways that we miss the ‘meaning of life’ - which isn’t about what is ‘practical’ as to a definition of one person’s life.

I agree that we all have finite mental faculties, and that we cannot possibly integrate even a minute percentage of available information from the universe into our physical system in the time available to us. What we can do instead is relate to those systems around us that have already integrated information in such a way that we don’t need to have it all or do it all or be it all ourselves. This is what humans are physically, mentally and potentially optimised to do: relate to every level of existence, from the binary of sub-atomic potentiality to the pure relation of agape. The meaning of life is about relating to information - finding optimal ways to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration.

I think you are right, connecting with this whole in this manner where everything is explicitly laid out - is impossible. — DanielP

I wouldn’t say it’s ‘impossible’ as such - but it is an improbable possibility. I mention this only as a matter of perspective.

This is more of a subliminal connection - a visualization. Imagine a vast panorama of All - it's literally got everything, nothing is missing, it is ripe, rich, complete, it has no end, and somehow it acts as a singular whole. We can never be that whole, but we could strive to be whole in the unique way we were called to be - with the shining example of wholeness being the infinite whole All. This whole all has left clues of wholeness in the world around us - a whole person, a whole animal or plant, a whole nation, a whole ocean, a whole earth, a whole solar system, whole galaxy, whole universe......and a whole infinite All (that last one is more of a leap of faith). — DanielP

‘Imagine’ is the key here. We imagine the ‘whole’ as a possibility and strive to achieve it in the world by being a unique PART of the whole: not by striving to BE ‘whole’ in ourselves, but by striving to BE our unique interconnectedness with this conceptual ‘whole’.

I think these clues you mention point out not that there is ‘wholeness’ existing in the observable universe but that there isn’t - that wholeness is ONLY achievable AS this possible imagination of an infinite All. A person feels more ‘whole’ only by their connection to others; an animal or plant is a continual process of integrating from the environment and shedding or expelling waste; a nation must be inclusive of its migrants, visitors, exports, historical conceptions and future citizens; an ocean is a process inclusive of weather patterns and rivers...

A closer examination of external ‘boundaries’ to any supposed ‘whole’ in the universe only highlights their indeterminacy and porosity - even their illusory quality - as well as highlighting an unavoidable interconnectedness with whatever we attempt to ignore, isolate or exclude in pursuit of ‘wholeness’. It is at these margins that we find our purpose in imagining the possibility of the whole, and striving towards this possibility by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration where others see only boundaries.

My theory needs to include a phenomenon of an introvert/extrovert dichotomy. Meaning, I think, that an introverted person viz Romantic Love communicates through physical intimacy and/or love making. Maybe not exclusively, but I am thinking about homeostasis or one's default position here. — 3017amen

I can relate to this, but I think it’s more a learned ‘path of least resistance’. I don’t subscribe to ‘default’ positions in reference to human behaviour - it becomes an excuse to act without thinking, which I don’t believe should be an acceptable baseline for humanity. The capacity to be aware of, to evaluate and then redefine a ‘default’ position is part of what makes us human, what sets us apart from other animals.

Introverts are also particularly suited to this detailed inner activity, I think. There’s often a lot more going on beneath the surface than we let on, and one-on-one is where we open up and communicate - but it needn’t be only physical intimacy. Certainly the concept of ‘romantic’ love isolates physical communication, which suits introverts fine because it’s naturally intimate. But I also find a deep and intimate conversation to provide a similar strength of connection with another, which points to our capacity to love beyond the isolating concepts of romance or pragmatism. Social concepts say this can’t be ‘love’ because the connection isn’t observable, like touch or sex or a visibly shared life is - there’s no external evidence of love. But an introvert often recognises this as a loving connection, and can begin to doubt their commitment to another.

I think we have the capacity to sustain deep and intimate connections on a broader scale with the world and with those around us, but we’re hamstrung by these concepts of ‘romantic’ or ‘pragmatic’ love that isolate and exclude opportunities to increase awareness, connection and collaboration - out of fear.

The way I see it, the all is absolutely whole (and infinite) ONLY in the realm of possibility. So one could take the view that a whole world is possible, and that one has a distinct capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration towards that possibility. But in order to become this whole, one needs to integrate how one connects and collaborates with ALL possible relations that could constitute this wholeness, as well as how those relations possibly connect and collaborate with each other. Not as easy as one might think...

So, then are there just two branches needed in sum total of possible world's? — Wallows

No - technically, there are two possible branches for each relational distinction. It depends on the relative (non-spatial) ‘potential distance’ (in respect of R) between possible worlds: the degree to which the two worlds potentially differ with respect to R.

Most theories collapse the distinction between possible and potential by assuming that ALL possible worlds have sufficient potentiality to manifest in relation to our actual world, but it should be obvious that this isn’t accurate. Potentiality is the relative distinction between two possible worlds, while actuality is the relative distinction between two of these potentialities. So it’s a little more complicated...

I can be certain that something exists, and that something is aware.

All else leads on from this, with less and less certainty.

I agree that understanding the universe as awareness and relation is ideal, but the fact is that the universe consists of relations and awareness that are limited to certain levels. Awareness of what level these relations are at helps us to make the most of our connections and collaboration.

I can relate to an acorn and be aware of its diverse possibilities, but I can’t force that acorn to relate to much more than the relative shape, action and chemical qualities of its interaction with the world, let alone be aware of much more than a vague distinction of some kind of potential as it interacts. I can’t ever expect it to be aware of its own potentiality to become food or oak tree - but I am aware of my own potential to reduce its possibility through awareness, connection and collaboration with others in relation to the acorn as a particular level of awareness and relations.

My six-dimensional ‘structure’ follows on from Rovelli’s description of the universe as interrelated events: a four-dimensional structure that does away with the 3+1 understanding of spacetime which continues to hamstring much of modern physics. It’s still useful at times to interact with the world according to classical physics, but it’s important to acknowledge that it isn’t as accurate as we once thought.

Recognising this irreducibility of reality also enables us to more accurately understand the origin of space, life and consciousness as they have evolved in the universe. Six-dimensional relation refers to a highly complex relational ‘structure’ in the conceptual sense. I find it more comprehensive to refer to this structure in terms of relations evolving at various dimensional levels, especially when trying to understand how abiogenesis or consciousness evolved. Until we can all conceptualise a relational structure of six-dimensional complexity, it make sense to ‘scaffold’ this complexity of reality in a way that is manageable as well as navigable. I find dual aspect reality too simplified to illustrate how neatly it all evolves and continually interrelates. It lacks a unifying navigability - but that’s just my understanding of it.

Well, the question is pretty straightforward. If the universe is expanding, then new state spaces are arising and hence information.

I guess the question is whether the universe expands or contracts more rapidly in our universe as opposed to some other one? — Wallows

Carlo Rovelli says this about QM in relation to Information Theory, which I think is relevant:

“A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, the one with which it interacts. Any description of a system is therefore always a description of the information which a system has about another system, that is to say the correlation between the two systems.”

“1. The relevant information in any physical system is finite.
2. You can always obtain new information on a physical system.”

So the expansion/contraction of the universe is always relative to the position of observer/measurement apparatus. I think your question may be akin to ‘how long is a piece of string?’, but I could also be misunderstanding you.

Interesting discussion - I’d agree with the idea that information is meaning and meaning is information. Gnomon and I have been piecing together this idea here.

I think you got that wrong on basic principles. That is, the "The Meaning Of Life" must have some meaning itself, so any information consumed must have important meaning to the person. So, I'd say the consumption/creation of knowledge (the meaningful upgrading of information) is closer to the truth. However, even closer would be the consumption of wisdom (the meaningful upgrading of knowledge) is even closer to ones truth. Also, I believe you are falsely linking information consumption with happiness, which is no more true that food consumption. The path to healthy happiness is when you selectively produce/consume meaningful knowledge and wisdom that aligns your life/behavior/state of mind with your more true meaning/purpose in life (or at least one that brings you more peace than otherwise). — Sir Philo Sophia

This ties into @softwhere’s point about interpretation, which is another reduction of information - a subjective processing of information that doesn’t quite ‘consume’ or integrate ALL possible information available. Interpretation, reading, knowledge or some other subjective reduction of information appears to be the real meaning, but it’s only because that’s the level that individual humans operate: distinguishing between true/false, good/bad, right/wrong or correct/incorrect information. From there, we can make use of meaning/information in how we interact with the world. The information becomes consumable for us.

But I would argue that relation is meaning is information. We can approach an awareness of meaning itself only through our relation to the world at the level of possibility - even though we’re unable to distinguish that meaning from anything. Then we make use of it by discarding what lacks ‘perceived potential’. We manifest this information, this ‘difference that makes a difference’, as knowledge, understanding and wisdom by reading, interpreting or otherwise relating to information within subjective structures of value/significance/potential.

So, the ‘meaning of life’ as pursuing/consuming meaningful knowledge is a limitation. The ‘meaning of life’ is simply relation to ALL information as possibility - even if it’s false, bad, wrong or incorrect. It all has meaning - just maybe not meaning to you. The more we relate to information, the more meaning that information has. The more information we exclude, the further we get from this ‘meaning of life’, and the more limited our capacity in the world.

This is not a necessary conclusion. There could be a dimensionless reality, actuality which validates the dimensionless possibilities which has relations not describable in terms of dimension. This is what dualism gives us, the basis for a dimensionless reality, the principles required to describe actual existence with principles not derived from spatial representations (dimension). — Metaphysician Undercover

Dimensions are not necessarily ‘spatial’ representations, but are defined as aspects of reality, of which actuality only accounts for four, at best. So I’m not sure what you think dualism answers here, except to reduce reality to only two aspects, with no viable explanation for how they interact. What you refer to as ‘dimensionless’ reality is, for me, at least two non-spatial aspects of reality that extend beyond what you refer to as ‘actuality’.

These locations, and 'distances' are not actual distances, they are possible. So this dimensional (spatial) representation is inadequate because it cannot provide an actual spatial representation, only possible locations. For an actual representation we need to turn to the dimensionless actuality (granted to us by dualism) and determine the actuality which underlies the dimensional representation of possibilities. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, they’re potential distances - I never said they were actual. There is no actual representation of an electron - it’s a quantum particle. There is only relative ‘distance’ from the nucleus (represented as a calculation of potential energy) or the probability wave calculation that represents its potential two-dimensional location relative to the nucleus: either relative velocity (direction in relation to potential energy) or relative position (direction in relation to distance). I have a feeling we’re referring to the same thing here, though.

Yes, the monist materialism presents us with this problem; we cannot understand any reality in terms other than spatial. That is why we must accept the precepts granted by dualism, and move toward recognizing the actuality which exists on the other side of the "perceived potential", as a true non-spatial existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I don’t believe we must accept dualism, although I agree that monist materialism IS problematic.

‘Dimension’ is not a spatial representation but an aspect of reality. Each aspect is relational, regardless whether it pertains to our understanding of three-dimensional ‘space’ or not, and what you call ‘non-spatial existence’ refers to not one but two of six aspects of reality. The first aspect is possible awareness or existence, the second is relative distance or potential energy; the third is relative shape, action or chemical qualities; and the fourth is relative space, velocity, duration, complexity or sensory qualities. The fifth aspect of reality is the relative perception of value, significance or potentiality, including ‘qualia’ and conceptual relations. And the sixth aspect of reality is pure relation, meaning or possibility.

This is a move in the wrong direction though. You have described the non-spatial, zero dimensional, then you move to represent this as a fifth dimension. How is that consistent? Instead of proposing that we represent the non-dimensional as it is described, as non-spatial, you apply a spatial principle "dimension", and try to represent it that way, as a fifth dimension. — Metaphysician Undercover

You misunderstand me, and hopefully my explanations above have clarified my position a bit more. Your misunderstanding seems to come from this dualist assumption that there are only two aspects of reality: spatial/non-spatial, dimensional/dimensionless, actual/potential - as well as defining ‘dimension’ as necessarily spatial. I have used ‘aspect’ in place of ‘dimension’ below, in the hope of clarifying my argument.

The terms ‘potential/potentiality’ and ‘possible/possibility’ demonstrate a necessarily ‘circular’ structure to these six relational aspects of reality, from which the universe evolved. The first aspect of reality - possible awareness and existence - is not the understanding, awareness or knowledge of what possibility IS. It’s only the possibility of existence. The sixth aspect refers to an awareness of possibility itself. Likewise the second aspect is not an understanding, awareness or knowledge of what potential energy is. That’s just its potential for existence. The fifth aspect of reality is an awareness of this potential in the world around us.

Thank you for sharing your personal experience. It helps to understand where you’re coming from.

1. How did you resolve your so called struggle or dichotomy with Romantic/Pragmatic Love?. — 3017amen

The main thing I realised was that this distinction is in our heads - in how we socially and personally conceptualise love, based on what we’re taught and what we experience. My issues can be traced back to my childhood experiences, to how I experienced my parents’ marriage and even in some part to my parents’ childhood experiences, which impacted on what they demonstrated to and taught (or didn’t teach) their children about relationships and sexuality. In some ways I had inherited years of trauma, which I needed to carefully unpack as an adult without assigning blame, and remove the limitations for my own children. It’s not as simple as cause-and-effect, you see, because mostly we manifest this kind of information we’re exposed to as conceptual relations without any awareness.

As another personal example, recently my mother, ten years a widow following almost 40 years of ‘happy’ marriage, finally opened up to her children about her years of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of brothers and an uncle - something she had never told anyone, not even my father. The reverberations of the #MeToo movement had apparently pointed out to her how much this experience impaired her capacity to feel and show love across the board, and (now 80) she wanted ‘a chance to explain’. Some very large pieces fell into place for me at that point - although I had already suspected something.

It’s hard to believe that what seems on the outside to be a ‘solid’ upbringing can conceal seriously distorted or at least limiting concepts of love, but it’s such a personal subject of inner experience that there’s no way to determine what is ‘healthy’, only what is obviously ‘wrong’ (at which point the damage is done). To be grateful that ‘we turned out alright’ isn’t enough for me anymore. The idea occurred to me that what we consider to be normal, healthy relationships may in fact be perpetuating and concealing limiting concepts of love. That this was the second intimate example of ‘systematic distortion’ revealed in what seemed otherwise ‘healthy’ family experiences suggested to me that our social concepts might be missing something important. So your realisation that all we have to understand love are theories fits into this.

Being a parent (and resolving not to make my parents’ mistakes) taught me a lot about what love is and isn’t, as did working in the education sector. Awareness and realisation of potential is more of a significant component to love than we give it credit for. This particular component is common to all concepts of love, and can even be seen as its common strength. It certainly suggests that all forms of love may be different conceptualisations of a single human experience - one that we isolate in relation to certain relationships, for various reasons, mostly to do with fear.

2. How important do you consider Romantic Love? — 3017amen

Well, it’d be disingenuous of me to declare that Romantic Love isn’t important, when I certainly enjoy its benefits! Humans have evolved to fundamentally need other humans, but it’s not just about survival, pleasure or procreation - and the idea that these are the main ‘reasons’ that we touch needs to be reassessed in my opinion.

I read Lisa Feldman-Barrett’s book ‘How Emotions Are Made’ last year, which looks at the neuroscience of emotions and provides meta-research to show that emotions are conceptualised rather than intrinsic, and that current psychology is based on biased research which claims that emotions are ‘universal’. It’s well worth a read. One of the things she found is that humans use interpersonal touch and other sensory connections to help re-balance their ‘body budgets’: how we re-distribute available energy in the body based on our conceptual predictions.

So while ‘romantic’ love is an effective way to ensure we get the interpersonal touch we need to operate at optimal capacity, it isn’t the only source of touch, and confining our connections this way can even limit our ability to restore balance - if we’re both having a crap day, for instance. When it feels like this ‘romantic’ love isn’t enough anymore, we’re led to believe that the love we have is fading. But I don’t think we’re constructed to be ‘two halves of a whole’ as once suspected. We’re more designed to be interconnected in a wide variety of ways with the whole universe - even us introverts!

In a strong, introverted ‘romantic’ relationship like the one you’ve described, it’s easy to believe that we don’t need anyone else - that the rest of the world can fall apart and we wouldn’t even notice. I can relate - and our two children are also introverts just like us, so that’s a feeling we can often get even between the four of us. Adjusting to the idea that our partner derives satisfaction in life from something other than us can lead to fears that we’re drifting apart, that the intensity of connection that we call ‘romance’ is suddenly fading. I think introverts find achievement more satisfying than attention, but it can seem difficult to tell the difference. Two introverts in a relationship means we need to adjust to sharing our partner not with friends or social life, but with hobbies, work and intellectual stimulation without taking this time spent with other people personally.

But the whole social concept of ‘romantic’ love says that this not-needing-anyone-else is how it’s supposed to be - like in the movies, as you say. It comes more from the false idea that we’re meant to aspire to individual autonomy, than any real understanding of what love is. Or perhaps it’s left over from patriarchal expectations - this ‘shut out the world’ idea of ‘romantic’ love can even be a foundation for domestic abuse situations. So when we look around and see that we’re limiting our individual AND combined potential by limiting our connections to the world, we mistakenly think we have to choose EITHER to fulfil our potential OR hold onto ‘romantic’ love.

Personally, I think we need to extract what love is from its differentiated relationship concepts. They’re based more on limitations and boundaries than on a more holistic concept of love as realising the potential in others. Understanding physical attraction as more than sexual ‘love’, and ‘romantic’ love as more than physical attraction, also enables us to feel attracted to someone other than our partner without calling our love or commitment into question.

Discussions of higher dimensions in terms of abstract mathematics gives me little personal experience to build a concept around. Einstein's notion of a 4D world is easy enough to imagine, by simply thinking of Time as a dimension. But I have no idea what the 11 dimensions of String Theory are referring to. — Gnomon

I don’t really follow String Theory, so the ‘folded’ dimensions it describes are not what I’m referring to here. My understanding of five and six dimensions is mostly intuitive, and it surprises me that I’ve yet to find an existing explanation that comes close. What follows is an attempt on my part, while trying to keep it brief. I guess I initially followed the ‘Flatland’ conceptualisation of dimensions, but I disagree with the ‘materialist’ assumption that each dimension must be imagined in relation to ‘space’. For me, dimensional existence is about awareness and information - not an imagined mathematical extension of space. Even though six-dimensional possibility is necessary for the existence of the universe, that existence begins at zero.

We think about the concept of zero dimensions in mathematics as a point in space, but technically a universe of zero dimension only exists in possibility. Any possibility in relation to a universe of zero dimension must come from beyond that ‘point’, necessitating a universe of at least one dimension, consisting of the possible point and its possible relation. A one-dimensional universe allows for a distinction between possible points - but what manifests is potentiality (not two actual points in space). As these points of possibility relate, they manifest a variety of distinctions as quantum particles, or potentiality. A universe of two dimensions then allows for distinctions to manifest between these one-dimensional particles - still not in space, though. As quantum particles relate, they manifest their differentiated potential in two-dimensional or atomic relations (actual matter in motion) - with the information of differentiated potential energy in quantum particles recognised in their relative distance from the nucleus.

It’s difficult not to think of this one dimensional ‘distance’ as located in space, but there is no awareness of direction, space or time. Nevertheless, we imagine this energy manifesting as a ‘Big Bang’, as particles suddenly differentiating themselves in all possible directions of an expanding spacetime, creating the material universe and the start of ‘time’. In the two-dimensional universe of atomic relations, however, it’s important to understand that quantum particles aren’t rotating around a nucleus in space, but are simply at a certain ‘distance’ in relation to that nucleus. It isn’t until some particle relations ‘collide’ with other atoms (a relation of outer electrons being equidistant from two or more nuclei) that energy creates action, and the shape of a three-dimensional universe starts to come into focus in relation to existence.

A universe of three dimensions allows for distinction between two-dimensional relations, manifesting molecular or chemical relations as these atomic relations interact: information consisting of direction or change in relation to distance/potential energy. Shapes, actions, noises, smells, textures and colours, etc manifest without much more than a vague awareness of them. A universe of four dimensions allows for distinction between three-dimensional relations, manifesting as molecular and/or chemical systems of differentiated complexity: information consisting of action, shape or chemical qualities in relation to distance/potential energy. Life develops at this level, directing energy into manifesting its own direction or change to alter its relative distance/potential energy - changing direction towards/away from chemical gradients, for instance.

You’ll notice that every relation always relates back to this one-dimensional, non-spatial ‘distance’, the differentiated potential energy from all possible relations in the universe. The error we make in materialist interpretations is in assuming this ‘distance’ is spatial or at least quantifiable, simply because that’s how we tend to perceive it manifested in relation to the universe. It is better described as ‘perceived potential’.

So if we continue in the same vein, a universe of five dimensions allows for distinction between four-dimensional relations, manifesting as detailed and significant experiences: information consisting of differentiated ‘objects’ or environmental conditions with velocity, duration, space or complexity as well as texture, taste, colour, scent and sound in relation to this ‘perceived potential’. Life at this level of consciousness also directs energy into manifesting its own action, shape, sound, taste or scent (response) to alter its relative distance or perceived potential - initiating movement towards/away from senses, shapes or actions, attacking, evading, or directing energy towards effecting a particular sensory effect, shape or action in the world.

The way I see it, a universe of six dimensions allows for distinction between five-dimensional relations, manifesting as detailed conceptual systems or ‘meaning’: information consisting of differentiated qualitative and quantitative experiences in relation to distance or perceived potential. Life at this human level directs energy into manifesting its own experiences to alter its relative distance or perceived potential - initiating causal conditions that contribute to or change particular events, or directing collaborative energy in anticipation of achieving or avoiding objects or environmental conditions.

While I don’t believe there is any limitation to possibility (when we recognise the distinction between possibility and potentiality), I don’t think we could ever be certain that a seventh (or any subsequent) dimension does not exist, and acting as if it does (even if we simply refer to it as G*D) could help to broaden our understanding of this sixth dimension. We can attempt to unify an overall structure of possible ‘meaning’ by exploring how our own conceptual systems in relation to distance or perceived potential (that we manifest in meaningful expression) relate to differentiated meaning that others express. We can also direct energy into changing our conceptual systems in order to alter the relative distance or perceived potential in how we relate at every other level, or even change how we perceive this distance or potential (through imagination, for instance) in order to alter our conceptual systems. I think we do this anyway, we’re just unaware of how these efforts help create a sense of relative meaning or purpose.

It seems like so long ago that I wrote all this!

Could one interpret your forgoing quote to include the notion that men and women are naturally open to other sexual relationships even when they are in an exclusive one? — 3017amen

I don’t believe that an exclusive sexual relationship is a ‘natural default’ for humans only because I don’t think there IS a ‘natural default’ that is human. Every ‘instinct’ we think we have, we are capable of acting against, given the right circumstances. This means that, whether we promise exclusivity and then re-neg on it, or we insist that we’re incapable of it and then find someone to change our mind, the choice is always ours to make based on a self-reflective understanding of our subjective experience and potential, rather than a predetermined result of ‘human nature’.

I think we observe the mating behaviour of other animals, and Darwin tells us that we’re no different from them - that our capacity for communicating intention and feeling, and our self-conscious reflection and evaluation on how we perceive the world and how we respond to it, is simply observational in relation to behaviour we have in common, or a matter of choosing a ready-made path, and not an opportunity to refine, correct and create a more collaborative pattern of relating to the world.

I see that making an obvious commitment would involve the channeling of our energy towards just one person. But it seems as though human nature has it that reading from the menu is more or less an intrinsic past-time full of intriguing distraction. Sort of an existential question, but in your view, why is that (I'm sure Freud could speak to that Ha)? — 3017amen

I think the desire for obvious commitment in a sexual relationship, like most social contracts, enables us to bring some certainty into an otherwise uncertain co-existence. Our potential to love is much broader than we are often willing to admit. If I am capable of multiple lovers then so is my lover, and the imagination boggles at the uncertainty of inner experiences we don’t share. By limiting this concept of ‘love’, we limit its potential, and with that the uncertainty it brings to our world.

I think you mentioned in this thread that at one point (during your marriage) you had your own radar tuned to that frequency or said possibility. And that's because I think your criteria at the time was 'pragmatic love' and not 'romantic love'(?). You were struggling to integrate the two and I think you indicated you had been successful in doing so... — 3017amen

‘Romantic’ and ‘pragmatic’ concepts of love are ways that we isolate this capacity to connect deeply with the universe in a number of ways. Being able to open up and share your inner experiences of life, both good and bad, doesn’t need to be confined to one person, be it a ‘friend’ or a ‘partner’. There are people we feel comfortable sharing with more than others, but this idea of a ‘best friend’ or ‘soulmate’ is just a way that we limit our capacity to connect with the universe that enables us to learn from each other and better understand what this inner experience might look like for others, despite the uncertainty.

Likewise, being able to connect and collaborate fully with others in a physical way to achieve, create and ‘remake the world’ doesn’t need to be confined to a romantic or sexual connection. Any physical connection and collaboration is full of risk and uncertainty as much as it is full of potential: it involves contributing the limited energy and effort of the organism to an event or experience of the world that may not benefit or sustain the organism itself, but has the potential to achieve beyond each of our limited, material existence. Limiting the potential of this connection to mutual pleasure or even procreation with one ‘romantic’ partner is a way to control the uncertainty of what can be a frighteningly overwhelming capacity to collaborate, and together, change the world.

Accordingly, you also were brave enough to share that your sojourn included an introspection that involved a form of repression or suppression or denial of certain romantic feelings that possibly presented itself earlier in life. — 3017amen

I would agree with this assessment.

I'm not well-informed on higher levels of abstract mathematics. Is this Fifth Dimension a conventional mathematical concept, or something you came up with yourself? You seem to think of 5D (probability??) as something like the Will of G*D, which sounds pretty far-out even for a String theorist. What's the Sixth Dimension : Divine Possibility? I'm grasping mere, but my own ideas sound far-fetched to most people who are not familiar with the fringes of Science. I have referred to my own notion of EnFormAction metaphorically, as the Will of G*D operating in the world to cause Change. — Gnomon

I wouldn’t refer to it as ‘the Will of G*D’, because a limited understanding of the two concepts doesn’t do justice to the complexity of the idea as I understand it. I use these terms here with you, because I think we are roughly on the same page as far as these concepts go. The common misunderstanding is that G*D is doing the ‘operating’ or ‘causing’ as something separate from ‘the world’ and from ‘change’, rather than the idea that G*D IS the possibility of operating, and the possibility of cause, and the possibility of the world, and the possibility of change. I guess I would more accurately translate this ‘Will of G*D operating in the world to cause change’ in my own understanding as ‘the faculty by which any possible action is determined and initiated through increased awareness, connection and collaboration’.

In Carlo Rovelli’s book ‘The Order of Time’, he refers to the relativity of time as a four-dimensional relation between variables known as ‘events’. Rather than tacking another dimension onto the three that we’re familiar with (the 3+1 view that refers to objects in relation to a universal ‘time’), he describes the entire universe as consisting of four-dimensional events in relation to an observer - who is themselves a four-dimensional event within this universe. So a more accurate understanding of ‘time’ from a physics perspective that is inclusive of quantum mechanics is how these 4D events change in relation to each other: the ‘difference that makes a difference’ to each event.

This acknowledges the irreducibility of the universe to 3+1 dimensions - but it also opens up the possibility of 4+1 dimensions. We verify three-dimensionality by correlating the changes in relation to our four-dimensionality (our movement in time). All animals do this, regardless of their level of consciousness. Don’t we also verify this four-dimensionality by correlating changes in relation to our five-dimensionality (our awareness of value/potential)? So if we follow this pattern, it is also possible to describe the universe as consisting of five-dimensional potentialities in relation to an experiencing subject - who is themselves a five-dimensional potentiality. I find this surprisingly consistent with the human self-conscious experience of the world, as distinguished from animals lacking self-conscious capacity. Then a more accurate understanding of reality - that is inclusive not just of quantum mechanics but of morality, emotion, language and other value-related experiences - may be how these 5D potentialities change in relation to each other: the ‘difference that makes a difference’ to potential.

The 5D conceptual view of the universe explored by physicists looks precisely at attempting to unify the potentiality fields this thread tackles. IMHO, it fails because it lacks an understanding that enables it to be inclusive of both quantitative and qualitative potentiality. It’s a limitation of awareness, connection and collaboration that excludes unquantifiable information in the irreducibility of a potential 5D structure. Just as ‘time’ is not a unified extra-dimensional variable in relation to space, but rather an irreducible relation of variables that constitutes the overall structure of spacetime inclusive of all potential events, regardless of observation/measurement; so, too, potential or value is not a unified extra-dimensional variable in relation to spacetime, but rather an irreducible relation of variables that constitutes the overall structure of experience, inclusive of all possible experiencing subjects, regardless of awareness of potentiality.

Of course, it’s all speculation.

An expression of an ethical principle is an expression of a moral judgement. So, if "honour your mother and father" is an expression of an ethical principle, it is also an expression of that very same moral judgement. You are only trying to create an unnecessary separation between a moral judgement and an ethical principle. If someone claims, or believes that such and such type of activity is good and desirable, and therefore ought to be established as an ethical principle, this is a moral judgement, plain and simple. A moral judgement is a judgement as to what is good or bad in human character. It is not necessarily a judgement of particular action, but mat also be a judgement of a general principle. If not, then what type of judgement is this, when we judge a general principle concerning goodness or badness of human acts?? — Metaphysician Undercover

The definition of a ‘principle’: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.

There are two different value structures interrelating here. One is linguistic: that grammar, syntax and semantics (as values) correlate to signify meaning. There is no judgement in the statement: “honour your mother and father” - nothing at all to say what is good or bad, per se. Any implication of judgement is assumed by an interpretation of the statement that derives meaning from its relation to a moral value system.

As an ethical principle, the statement “honour your mother and father” serves as a foundation for a moral system of evaluating behaviour. Judgement is implied or has meaning only by relation to a moral value system - without this relation, there is no judgement in the statement as such.

This is what I’m getting at. “Honour your mother and father” has meaning regardless of any moral value, as well as the capacity to guide behaviour to what is judged as ‘moral’ without the implication of moral judgement.

Moral judgement has nothing to do with character - it has to do with how we relate to a demonstration of character. Any judgement is a process of reducing the broad range of interrelated ‘value’ information available in human experience down to a single, subjective binary relation to an event.

What I’m saying is that there is so much more to the principle “honour your mother and father”, to human relations and to ‘love’ than a subjective binary relation to an event. By exploring the different ways we each reduce this interrelated value information, we get an idea of the irreducibility of human experience that renders ‘moral judgement’ an inaccurate and dangerously limited perspective of reality.

This actually exemplifies my point. A person, like Jesus or anyone else, might pass judgement on an established ethical principle, as to whether the principle is acceptable or not. This judgement would be a moral judgement. And since ethical principles are upheld by convention, agreement concerning such moral judgements, (the ethical principles) are simply an expression of consensus on moral judgements. — Metaphysician Undercover

I’m not sure that it does. Jesus deliberately didn’t pass judgement on these ethical principles at all. He simply pointed out that these moral judgements by the Pharisees were incongruous with our own human experience.

Do you think Possibility (G*D) directly intervenes in Reality (Actuality) in such a way that scientists can observe and test those cause & effect changes empirically? Are you talking about a miracle, or something else with "meat" on it? :smile: — Gnomon

No. ‘Cause and effect’ describes only relations in time - it doesn’t describe relations to 5D or 6D information. The way I see it, ‘actuality’ refers to an awareness of 4D information only. ‘Cause and effect’ re-imagined as a 5D relation refers to ‘metaphysical will’: the function that determines and initiates action from relations of potentiality, limited by awareness, connection and collaboration. Its relation to ‘cause and effect’ as we understand it is mathematically constructed as probability, which accounts for a degree of uncertainty in the prediction. But this structure is limited to quantitative values of potentiality only.

I think that possibility is always the source of any relation. I remember David Bentley Hart once described the ‘personal’ nature of ‘God’ as that “He knows, loves and relates to us all”. For me, the relationship works the other way: it’s not a matter of looking for improbable possibilities or ‘miracles’ as proof of direct intervention with actuality by some all-knowing G*D, but rather for us to map the relational structures of increasing awareness, connection and collaboration that might then increase the probability or potential of an event we now observe as possible. The actuality of improbable possibility, what seems to be a ‘miracle’, is simply an event whose obvious possibility we have yet to map in relation to our current map of potentiality. It’s proof of a capacity to increase the level of awareness, connection and collaboration in relation to possibility (G*D).

I guess the ‘meat’ I’m referring to is our capacity to map more and more of these anomalous structural relations between 5D and 6D information. The more of these relations we’re aware of and can map, the more accurately we can determine not just the probabilities or potential but the ‘difference that makes a difference’ to this potential, and then predict and plan actions that were once considered improbable, even ‘impossible’.

I think it won’t just be scientists who are going to have to rely more and more on probability calculations or potentiality maps as sufficient evidence - rather than insisting on reducing the information further to ‘accurate’ empirical data - if we want to understand all of the universe as interrelated events, let alone as potentiality. The testing in frontier science these days is less empirical or observational, and more mathematical, as the SUAC (Shut Up and Calculate) expression in reference to quantum physics implies.

When we learn to recognise the potentiality wave calculations of quantum physics and the qualitative potential we perceive in our experience of the world as interrelated information about this 5D aspect of the universe, then we can work towards a more effective conceptualisation of reality: as an evolving awareness, connection and collaboration with potentiality in relation to absolute possibility.

I appreciate the edification. I work in public relations and marketing for non-profit, and my educational background includes media, social psychology and corporate culture. I haven’t been on a panel like this - I’m drawing from experience managing (and observing poorly managed) internal corporate communications on sensitive issues.

Does love usually sour after years of cohabitation? Do couples need to learn to “fall back in love” for the sake of keeping together what they have built their lives around, especially when it has been many years of cohabitation? — Noah Te Stroete

I think perhaps love either evolves or stagnates, depending on what it is that you love.

After more than 20 years of marriage, I’m certainly not the same person I was in many, many ways. So for someone to love me for that length of time, they would need to love more than who they thought I was then, or even who they thought I might become. And they would need to love more than who they thought they were or would become, too - and more than what we had in common or built our lives around, because ALL of it changes eventually.

I think it’s a matter of a couple being more open to their love changing in unexpected ways. If love stagnates, then they’d need to be prepared to get to know each other all over again, let go of any expectations or assumptions of the past, be open to loving their spouse for the different person they are (who will inevitably change again), and be honest about the person they’re becoming. That’s a decision: for the sake of keeping together what they have built their lives around, it could be worth the effort.

But I would also argue that the strongest common ethic among us is that moral value of life and procreation. It is bred into us. Or rather it is the fundamental evolutionary function of our moral consciousness. As such our strongest love is directed toward the mate with whom we can promote our own shared values and our prosperity through shared risk and shared labor. Ultimately it is our means to generate new life and new moral actors in the world through procreation and nurturing of our progeny. This gives a form of immortality to our moral will. We instill in our children those values we would see actualized beyond our lifespan. — jambaugh

This is still a limited view of love, and a limited view of our capacity as humans. It can be equally applied, without much adjustment, to pretty much any social animal. Humans, however, have a capacity to love in such a way that we would freely give up this life that we value out of fear, or the chance at procreation, to relate to a much broader sense of existence than the next generation. This is the foundation of religious thought, philosophy and science: to relate to the infinite universe as an integral participant.

Evolutionary function is far from fundamental. We are inspired by something more inherent than ‘survival value’ to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the world around us. If not for fear, we would realise our capacity to love without limitations.

So the statements "you ought to do...", and "you ought not do...", which are constitutive of ethical principles, are not expressions of moral judgements? Ethical principles are not expressions of moral judgements? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. Ethical principles are an attempt to guide morality, to ensure one’s behaviour will be judged ‘morally good’. It’s a common misunderstanding of ethical principles that they provide a reason to judge and condemn other people by how we perceive their thinking as well as their actions.

I can see now why you include thinking as subject to moral judgement - when thinking is perceived as a conscious and deliberate act, then it too is guided by ethical principles. When we are aware of how we think and how we can adjust our thinking, then we can apply these principles to our thoughts as well as our actions to ensure our words and our behaviour will be judged as ‘morally good’.

But the aim of ethical principles is preceptive - they instruct us to predict, evaluate and alter the motives or internal causal conditions of our thoughts BEFORE we think or act. When we don’t believe we have this capacity, when we consider certain thoughts to be indicative of a predetermined or ‘fixed will’, then there is no distinction made between an action, a thought and the person who thinks. So these principles are used to judge and condemn (or praise) people by their thoughts and actions.

For “honour your mother and father”, for instance, to be a moral judgement in itself, not only does it assert that they OUGHT to honour them, but it also assumes that to honour them is GOOD and to fail at it is BAD, regardless of intention. So if we observe or predict behaviour or thinking that doesn’t demonstrate honour for one’s mother and father, then do we judge the behaviour, the lack of honour or thinking in the person, or do we judge the person who would fail to honour? It’s not so clear, is it?

If, however, the precept “honour your mother and father” is an expression of ethical principle and NOT a moral judgement, then it is the specific behaviour that fails to honour when judged against this principle, and the person is empowered to change or correct the failed behaviour without being defined or condemned by judgement.

The ridiculousness of the Ten Commandments as ‘moral judgement’ is even demonstrated by Jesus, who says that ‘if your eye causes you to sin’ then you should ‘cut it out’ rather than be condemned for ‘adultery’. He upholds them as ethical principles, but challenges the interpretation of them by the Pharisees as judgements in themselves.

The Ten Commandments as stated are expressions of ethical principles. Moral judgements (eg. that a particular behaviour is ‘good’ or ‘bad’) are evaluations of behaviour according to ethical principles.

Yes loving someone isn’t just about how that person makes us feel, and it isn’t just about wanting them to be happier, and it isn’t just about seeing a potential in them, it is also about seeing who they are beyond appearances, about seeing a light in them despite how they appear or how they behave, about seeing their inner beauty that the eyes don’t see. — leo

Yes, and it’s ultimately about seeing beyond even the ‘beauty’, to the ugliness that is nevertheless a part of who they are, were or could become, and recognising in them the absolute and inclusive possibility of the universe - and our ultimate capacity to love it all without judgement.

Potential vs Possible : example --- Battery voltage is Potential electricity, not Actual electricity, because no energy is flowing. However, you could say that it's Possible for energy to flow, conditional upon a complete circuit. Enfernity is infinite Potential, but only in Space-Time is it Possible for that energy to flow. Space-Time is the complete circuit that allows the power of G*D to flow into the world and back again. — Gnomon

But it’s also possible for energy to flow between a potato and a lightbulb - conditional upon a complete circuit. Which means that it’s also possible for energy to flow between a rice grain and a lightbulb - conditional upon a complete circuit. The difference between these three possibilities is the potential, which can only be considered infinite AS the absolute possibility of G*D. Potentiality in itself is limited by the perceived value of awareness, connection and collaboration - the function of metaphysical will. I used to believe that potentiality was infinite, but a more recent understanding of science suggests that the energy in any physical system - including quantum systems - is finite, although it may be beyond our capacity to measure.

Therefore, in order to convert an infinite pool of Possibility into finite Actuality, G*D must create a little pocket of space-time as a place for Change. And the tool for Change is EnFormAction, which can be imagined as the Will of God acting in the real world. So, in Enfernity, all things are possible, but nothing is actual. Yet the manifestation of EnFormAction transforms impotent Possibility into the world-changing Power of Energy, which ultimately changes (via evolution) mundane Matter into Mind, a spark of the divine. — Gnomon

Spacetime is a function of interrelated potential (EnFormAction), which is a function of the metaphysical will, which is a function of pure relation, which is a function of absolute possibility. Possibility - G*D, the source of potentiality itself - requires nothing to manifest (not transform into) this potentiality, only the relation, the idea, that anything it could possibly be matters, even if it only ever remains just a possibility.

Possibility relates as this love or pure relation to manifest potentiality, which relates as metaphysical will (awareness, connection and collaboration) to manifest particles, which relate as interaction to manifest material information. This is the origin of the universe: the beginning of information, of everything that matters. From here, all matter in the universe mostly stabilises into a relatively isolated ‘object’, some changes in relation to an interaction, and even rarely integrates into a system of more complex interrelated information, evolving as one dimensional atoms, two dimensional molecules, three dimensional chemical reactions, four dimensional life, and eventually into the rare, five dimensional human organism: with maximum capacity to interrelate across all six levels of information complexity, including the pure relation of G*D.

This is all very esoteric, and hypothetical, so I wouldn't worry too much about getting it right. This is not presented as absolute Truth, it's just my way of thinking about the unknowable in terms of metaphors. — Gnomon

I understand that, and I’m not suggesting that you’re necessarily ‘wrong’ - only that I think we have more information than this. I guess I’m not willing to leave it as metaphor. I personally think the conceptualisation has more meat on it than that, and I think the ultimate aim is to develop it towards testable hypotheses.

You're just not making any sense at all to me. Clearly stating that a goal to end racism is misguided is itself quite the contentious claim. It's false on it's face, no matter what method one employs to meet that goal... diversity training notwithstanding.

Some people do not need diversity training, for they've already had a diverse group of loved ones, friends, and family members for long periods of time. Some of these people find it all rather telling... — creativesoul

I understand your emotional response to the statement in isolation, but you misunderstand why I said it. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t ‘end racism’ as such. My opinion is that declaring the goal of anything to be to ‘end racism’ in an environment that already generally accepts the negative connotations of ‘racism’, establishes a dichotomy of ‘racist/non-racist’ that does nothing to change the situation.

I’m saying that assuming this is the immediate goal of a ‘diversity training’ session - especially by those involved in the session - is misguided, and contributes to an unproductive environment of defensiveness on the part of those who object to the implication that someone here is being ‘racist’. These sessions are about creating opportunities to be aware of, question and challenge any damaging correlations we may still make as a community (not necessarily as individuals) between diversity and value.

Some, as you say, have value systems inclusive of this diversity, while others need such experiences to be sensitively ‘set up’ for them - in diversity training, for instance. Unless you’ve been brought up in an exclusive environment or without a diverse group of loved ones, then it can be difficult to understand what experiences might facilitate some people to challenge their own existing correlations between diversity and value. Stating ‘combating racism’ as a goal would NOT achieve this. Most people with ‘racist’ attitudes have elaborate ‘logical’ arguments to support their beliefs that they conceptualise as ‘non-racist’.

Do you have black, asian, latino, and/or an otherwise diverse group of loved ones, family members, and friends? Just curious. — creativesoul

I’m not American, so these diversity concepts you refer to (and their perceived correlations of value) are not quite the same in my experience. But my mother’s family were minority ‘Eurasian’ in Singapore before moving to Australia to join the minority ‘asian’ population, and my husband’s family moved over as minority southern European ‘migrants’.

So I understand what it’s like to consider myself to have a ‘diverse’ group of loved ones, family members and friends, and yet still recognise the need to challenge my own conceptual correlations between diversity and value that can manifest as ‘racist’ attitudes or behaviour. Humility is a significant part of that process, and in a politicised work environment I imagine that can be a difficult experience.

If you want diversity training to be effective in changing the culture or shared conceptual structures of the group, then your approach needs to ‘normalise’ an experience of humility, and also be inclusive of those who find even the suggestion of value difference to be offensive, as well as those who have quietly or even subconscious ‘racist’ attitudes towards their co-workers.

Agreed. As I said, the potential is there. Inference in physics is known as ‘interpretation’.

I admit, I’m not all that familiar with the academic philosophy of language, but I tend to agree with Quine’s perspective of the synthetic-analytic distinction in response to Kant: that the justification of even supposedly analytic propositions are still contingent upon a shared meaning of concepts in relation to experiencing subjects, just as supposedly synthetic propositions are also constructed according to the limitations of language and other ‘logical’ value structures that appear to preclude the necessity of such a relative value position as an experiencing subject.

Science has all but abandoned the search for a ‘universal time’ variable, recognising that this four-dimensional aspect of reality consists of a number of interrelated variables in relation to an observer. Quantum probability formulae without a ‘time’ variable are found to be more accurate, leading to an accepted scientific view that the universe of spacetime consists of interrelated ‘events’ rather than ‘objects’ in spacetime - but this is just the beginning. It’s a useful shift that allows for the irreducibility of reality.

In the same way, a more accurate structure of the five-dimensional aspect of reality can be achieved not by proposing one ‘objective’, ‘logical’ or ‘ethical’ value system, but by recognising that our experiential reality consists of a number of amorphously interrelated value systems (currently isolated as mathematical, linguistic, ethical, social, political, aesthetic, musical, etc) in relation to an experiencing subject. In order to accurately ‘collapse’ all of this information into a determined and initiated action (a function of the metaphysical will), an expression should be carefully rendered to include this complexity of information in the observable event. This is the skill and talent of an artist/genius to which Schopenhauer refers, a capacity we can all develop only by testing for prediction error in our conceptual systems - which manifests as pain, humility and loss (suffering or negative affect) in our experience.

What we call ‘intuition’ I think refers to the extent to which we interrelate and include these value systems in how we interact with reality, rather than ignore/isolate/exclude information according to a simplified dichotomy or continuum (good/evil, logical/illogical, objective/subjective, analytic/synthetic, even probability, etc). The more we increase awareness, connection and collaboration, the more we recognise that all value systems reduce information, and so even language or logic alone can only approach this complexity of shared meaning that points to the infinite interrelation of all possibility (EoG).

It is how we relate to this possibility beyond language, beyond even our own experience (eg. to what we cannot understand or rationalise in others’ expressions or actions) that enables us to render a more accurate conceptualisation of reality. Buddha and Jesus were onto something: simply relating (without judgement) to what we may feel justified to exclude, and being open to its possibility, is the key to refining the accuracy of what is ‘reality’, ‘truth’, ‘love’ or ‘God’ as a five-dimensional rendering of six-dimensional information, and to reducing the prediction error (suffering) of subsequent interactions with reality, as four-dimensional action/expression events.