Gregg: 

Thanks for the clarification. It’s an important one. What I meant in referencing the Enlightenment Gap was the solution should complement—not contradict—what we already know. Facts are stubborn things, and ideas are ultimately limited by them in practice. With that said, our common sense ontology could use reorientation.

While the TOK’s posited as meta-framework, I believe it contains real solutions. As symbolic representations—like mathematics itself—the joint points correspond to actual events (broken symmetries), which are testable. In fact, scientists have already conducted a few; they just can’t explain the results. They require the broader framework.

Cadell:

Read your paper, and I believe there’s mutual fidelity in our ideas. While I’m not convinced the Technological Singularity provides solutions (Halting Problem), I’m onboard with the phase transition towards intersubjective objectivity. How we ultimately get there, time will tell.

I’m glad you mentioned Cantor’s Infinities, as they require their own explanation.  If incompleteness is fundamental to understanding, then solutions must incorporate indeterminacy. However, attempts to include the singularity lead to nonsensical results. That’s the beauty of the black hole analogy: it allows their inclusion by extending infinitely outward AND inward.

Ironically, accounting for reality requires us to acknowledge something unreal: Potential. It simultaneously exists infinitely into the past as well as into the future. It’s foundational to both subatomic particles and the universe-at-large, manifesting dualistically in QM (probability) and GR (center of gravity). Potential is the unrealized unification, fulfilling the incomplete.

If broken symmetries are driven by gravity, the separation of forces in QM are functions of Potential—the Graviton—as independent background. The model is its own theory of quantum gravity.

This is the TOE.

Eric

On Saturday, November 14, 2020, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks for this summary, Cadell.

 

I completely agree. This last sentiment is key, in that there will never be a final solution to the problem; whatever ground solutions uncover, they also always expand the negative space of the horizon.


Best,
Gregg

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]U> On Behalf Of Cadell Last
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 7:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK Episode #1 Enlightenment Gap Series

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Eric:

 

As demonstrated by the Measurement Problem in QM, interpretations of reality must include the observer, and accounting for them both simultaneously is the problem before us. However, the beauty of the hard sciences is they’ve already established their own limitations, e.g. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems and Geodesic Incompleteness in Penrose-Hawking Singularities.

Yes, exactly.  I would just add that in order to include the problem of the observer and the measurement problem we also have to remember the lessons of Cantor vis-a-vis the importance of including self-relating procedures (especially in mathematics) and the “infinity of infinities”.  When we combine self-relating procedures in mathematics and also the incompleteness theorem then we have the limitations to make progress without regressing into the trap of:

 

 Post-Modernist Theology, solipsism run amok.

 

There is a Real here that does not involve the traditional notion of a substantial eternal absolute; and there is a Real here that does not allow every subjective position to be true.  However, this Real also applies to scientists themselves and especially the risks and dangers of scientism, as Gregg notes and defends well:

 

 the problem of psychology IS a problem with science as it was birthed during the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment Gap means that science has failed, at least without a new approach

 

This new approach will indeed require that we not only understand physics but also physicists themselves.  For example, in Figure 11 on my paper of including subjectivity into singularity I attempt to map the historical-social real of the physics community itself and its search for the real-truth in-itself:

 

 

Eric:

The intractability of Mind-Body Problem suggests we lack even the terminology to discuss the topic appropriately.

Yes, or the problem literally brings us to the limits of scientific language (and especially the search for a “metalanguage”).  That is why psychoanalysis (which can find its origin in the very problem of the mind/body relation itself) has no time for “metalanguages” but instead lets the frustrated speech of the subject emerge as it is because the subject already has the knowledge, and we need only provide the set and settings for that truth to emerge about the body and its pathologies.  For me, the direction to point is in this frustrated emotional speech itself (with no metalanguage to stop it from expressing what needs to be expressed).  

Eric:

In keeping with the incompleteness of reality itself, maybe its insolubility is the solution.

This logic is where I would point as well, it is a brilliant demonstration of the inversion of positivist logic.  Positivist logic is always looking for a solution, whereas its inversion sees the problem as itself the solution.  Science is brought to its limits with the in-itself of the human mind (as Hegel already knew).  For Hegel, he say the “insolubility” as the key to the solution (which is the meaning of his axiom “the spirit is a bone”).  What he means by this is that it is the very work of the mind on the body (full of all the emotional tensions and pains that that includes) where the real of spirit is becoming actual.  This real cannot be conceived of as “complete” or “consistent” or “finished” in any way.  As you say: “its insolubility is the solution” (that we need to actively work with the logic of spirit itself).

 

—

Cadell Last

“Die again, die better!”

 

On 11 Nov 2020, at 13:35, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

Hi Eric,

 

  Thanks for this note. I appreciate these connections, and I see some linkages here that are worth pursuing. I especially appreciated the link to Ethan Siegel’s article. I am a fan of his work.

 

Let me offer one point of clarity…the Enlightenment Gap (see here) refers to the fact that Enlightenment Science/philosophy PRODUCES the problem of psychology. That is, the failure of modernist science/philosophy to effectively reconcile science/society and mind/matter gives rise to the problem of generating a coherent science of mind/behavior. Thus, I don’t follow you when you say “progress with the Enlightenment Gap must conform to established science. Given its relative success compared to the persistent Problem(s) of Psychology, science has earned its authority.” The point of the Enlightenment Gap is traditional conceptions/frames/grammars of science have generated an eclectic empirical conglomerate of findings in psychology and the social sciences in general that do not cohere into intelligent sense making. Thus, the problem of psychology IS a problem with science as it was birthed during the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment Gap means that science has failed, at least without a new approach; that is, what is needed is an upgrade in how we conceive of scientific knowledge. 

 

  The ToK System is that upgrade. It advances our understanding of MENS knowledge so that we now have a descriptive metaphysical system that affords a natural scientific worldview that provides us the grammar to generate a science of mental behavior. That is, it solves the problem of psychology at the metaphysical and metatheoretical levels of analysis. 

 

  I do concur with you that the observer/knower is central to this analysis. Indeed, the whole point from a ToK-into-UTOK perspective is that we need a theory of both physics and physicists and does so in a way that also connects knowledge to wisdom. That is, we need a theory of the human knower that connects properly to ethics in anything that purports to be a “theory of everything”. That is what makes the ToK System unique. It is a theory of scientific knowledge that includes the human knower. And then placed in UTOK, it gives the proper relation between knowledge and wisdom.

 

Best,
Gregg

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]U> On Behalf Of Deepak Loomba
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 1:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask].EDU
Subject: Re: TOK Episode #1 Enlightenment Gap Series

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Gregg, 

 

This seems to be an interesting conversation (the one Eric is talking about). My challenge to participation is the time - you hold it on a working day at India time 0300+ hours. 

Would be awesome if you could consider delaying or preponing by a few.

 

TY

DL

 

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 04:52 easalien, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hey Guys, 

 

Wonderful conversation. It encompassed a broad swath of the field and the passion for it is evident. However, there were many questions and few answers so looking forward to future installments.

 

The distinction you brought up between common sense ontology and ontic reality is an important one. I think we get caught up proclaiming the “Wisdom of the Ancients” instead of seeing things as they are. Frankly, if they’d solved it, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We obviously require a new paradigm.

 

With that said, I’ll make the case that progress with the Enlightenment Gap must conform to established science. Given its relative success compared to the persistent Problem(s) of Psychology, science has earned its authority. We need to couch the discussion in real terms or risk getting mired in Post-Modernist Theology, solipsism run amok.

 

As demonstrated by the Measurement Problem in QM, interpretations of reality must include the observer, and accounting for them both simultaneously is the problem before us. However, the beauty of the hard sciences is they’ve already established their own limitations, e.g. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems and Geodesic Incompleteness in Penrose-Hawking Singularities. This provides a hint how to proceed.

 

The intractability of Mind-Body Problem suggests we lack even the terminology to discuss the topic appropriately. In keeping with the incompleteness of reality itself, maybe its insolubility is the solution. If the separation acts as an event horizon, it implies the observer occupies a central position within a respective black hole, and this is exactly what’s observed (Schwarzschild-Hubble Equivalence):

 

 

This interpretation leads to other consequences, such that the CMB—leftover radiation from the Big Bang—is Hawking Radiation (both black body spectrums), and the Big Bang is black hole evaporation (inverse). This resolves the matter/antimatter discrepancy (Baryogenesis) while accounting for the Initial Singularity. It also addresses, as Cadell beautifully put it, a pathos for the Origin: Absolute Potential.

 

While advanced extraterrestrial civilizations, I suspect, have their version of science, the findings should be the same. Even in a relativistic universe, the laws themselves are identical for different observers, i.e. Lorentz Invariant. The fact we continue bashing our heads against the same problems suggests we simply need a new way of thinking. In the tradition of Einstein, the universe is subtle, not malicious.

 

Eric

 

 

P.S. The Schwarzschild-Hubble Equivalence is this mathematical identity:

 

Critical density (flat universe): p = 3H^2/8piG

H: Hubble’s Constant

G: Gravitational Constant

 

Age of Universe (uniform expansion): 1/H

R: Hubble Radius of Observable Universe: c/H

V: Volume (Sphere); 4piR^3/3

 

Mass: M = Vp = [4piR^3/3][3H^2/8piG] = c^3/2GH

 

Schwarzschild Radius (black hole): Rs = 2GM/c^2 = 2G[c^3/2GH]/c^2 = c/H

 

Rs = R

 

Hi TOKers,

 

  I am pleased to announce that Cadell Last and I have started a podcast series on called The Enlightenment Gap.

 

Here is the first Episode:

 

For a blog on the term, see here. For me the problem of psychology is found in the shadow of the Enlightenment Gap. I am very much looking forward to exploring this with Cadell and I found much positive “wisdom energy” emerging in our exchange. Please check it out if time/interest permits.


Best,

Gregg

 

___________________________________________

Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)


Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.

Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:

 

############################ 

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNO[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################ 

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNO[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################ 

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNO[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNO[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

 

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1