introduction
The « Philosophy (25/02/21)-11 items » section of this site deals with many aspects of life. In terms of complement and synthesis, we can consider different categories that can be linked to this concept.
Intrinsic existence
It is the one that we see through our « consciousness ». we are aware of our existence. This is, without a doubt, the most intertwined process because the object itself takes itself as its subject in order to establish itself as an object.
An illustration of duality is found in mathematics (which is a human activity) where the dual of an object would be the subject and the dual of the subject would be the object from which it came (like the image in a mirror). Subject and object are two facets of the same entity.
We measure the level of entanglement since to explain our existence we appeal to our consciousness, itself an intricate product of our mind which implies our existence and is itself the substance of our intellectual activity: existence is implicitly justified by existence.
The duality (in the mathematical sense) involved in the process, is a mirror image type symmetry that sends us a dual image (not superposable in 3 dimensions) that we can reduce to a superposable image by the use of 2 mirrors: the dual of the dual is itself.
In this respect, it should be noted that it is a mirror that allows us to see the entirety of our body and « externalizes » it in a way. It gives us a complete view of ourselves, from the outside. And by a double reflection, we obtain an object that is identical to the one that another observes.
It should be noted that, without mirrors, the knowledge of our body would probably be much less, resulting from our senses (the limited view we have of it from our face, the touch) and the description that others can give of it.
It’s like our galaxy that we see from the inside as a white trail, while we assume that it is shaped like a disk with a bulge in the center, given the other galaxies outside us.
The fact that our body and mind are made up of an assembly of atoms that obey laws (CPT symmetries for example) implies that it is not excluded that this has repercussions at the most intimate level of our mind.
The foundation of quantum mechanics and the associated quantum field theory rely on these fundamental symmetries (CPT symmetry) and their possible violations to explain certain properties of the universe.
Even if the relationship with our existence is not immediate, it deserves reflection.
Even stranger is the chirality violation of life on Earth.
Here again, this is a violation of symmetry since while the molecules of the building blocks of life exist in two forms linked by parity (mirror symmetry), only one is present in the processes of life.
We do not know the reason or the source, but this enigma is challenging.
Extrinsic existence
It is the observation of the existence of an object that is not ourselves. This point has been developed in the reference, one of the aspects that has been discussed is that if the external object under consideration is not itself aware of existing, that it then exists only in the mind of another object, we can ask ourselves whether, without external consciousness to ascertain its existence, it would exist « in itself ».
Implied existence
This point has also been developed in the references, it is the case of the existence of the universe of which we are a part, our existence presupposes its existence.
The question, then, is does it exist in itself, or because it contains us in order to ascertain it.
Knowing the history of the universe in which we appeared late, it seems impossible to affirm that it did not exist before a consciousness.
One can, of course, argue that other consciousnesses, or even better, perhaps, exist elsewhere and existed before, but the argument that seems the strongest is the concept of space-time.
The previous analysis is conducted in a Newtonian approach with independent time and space.
Space-time implies that the universe must be considered as an indivisible block where time and space are internal characteristics. In this approach, our existence is inscribed and part of the whole.
So the « historical » argument describes only an internal process of evolution but not of constitution that includes us.
Can we go further in the analysis?
In a highly cooperative context of minds, in the context of a hyperconnected world, can we go beyond this level of reflection?
A structural limit?
Can an object determine the emergence of its own existence? Beyond the argument that states that one must exist in order to « possibly » acknowledge one’s existence, can one find « objective » reasons for a necessity or an opportunity that makes one exist or not.
On this subject, the cooperation of minds in our modern world and artificial intelligences, while they can assist us in our work, and allow us to relieve ourselves of tedious tasks, do not provide us with an answer.
If that were the case, perhaps, they would discover that it was us, but to what extent, who created them, assuming that they themselves did not distance themselves and acquire a freedom that would make them escape us. Could they then overtake us?
What about the « augmented » man?
The progress of modern biology, in particular genetic engineering, promises us the eradication of diseases and other daily torments, or even almost eternal life, will this lift the veil on our origins?
Nothing is less certain, because it is a question of progress of the amplification (we improve) and not transcendental (break with the existing) type of progress that are necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) to overcome the paradigms that block us.
But the hope that remains is that our minds as they are contain resources that we have not all explored, as evidenced by the world in which we live and that are related by modern theories of physics which, in themselves, can only surprise us, because they shake up all the concepts that we considered to be fundamentals of our mind.
This obvious overcoming is a good omen because it reveals to us that amazing abilities are present in our minds.
In this respect, the example of the continuous is significant, because while we are by nature « discontinuous » because we are made up of different atoms in limited number (quantum mechanics), interacting through interactions of a discontinuous nature (quantum field theory), the continuous imposes itself on our thinking. This example shows the emergence of a process that cannot be explained by the nature and arrangement of its constituents [1].
Annexes
[1] The mystery of the continuous: perfect knowledge [2]
Our mind is capable of conceptualizing, rather naturally, what is called in mathematics the « continuum ».
A characteristic of the continuum is that it provides a « perfect » knowledge of the object to which it applies, which corresponds, in general, even if only one or a few « generic properties of the geometric type, for example » are retained, to an « infinite information of the most complete type » on the object described. We talk about the « infinite » power of the continuous (uncountable) in mathematics!
A flagrant inconsistency
We become aware of the resulting incoherence: A discontinuous, imperfect system, allowing, of course, an important but finite information, our mind is capable of generating a perfect concept integrating infinite information!!
Origin of the concept of continuous
This concept has its source in the approximation, linked to an imprecision of the perception, that we have of nature: thus a solid that we look at or touch seems continuous to us.
The continuous does not exist in the universe
But this is a pure invention, because nowhere in nature and, a fortiori, in our minds, does the « continuous » exist!
Advantage or disadvantage of the concept
Should we consider this as an advantage, (the ability to conceptualize something that does not exist in nature and this is not the only case) or on the contrary as an illusion that leads us astray and gives us a false idea of nature?
It may be objected that when we know that this perception of the continuous is not representative of nature, we reconcile the two points of view and thus win on both counts, but this ignores the insidious character of the concept that we can use without being aware of it.
The mystery remains
A beautiful mystery remains: How can a fundamentally discontinuous structure (our mind) conceptualize the continuous!
[2] Knowledge and Truth
An essential point was the relationship between knowledge and truth.
Thus Kant declared:
« The two strains of human knowledge, which perhaps start from a common root but unknown to us; Sensibility and understanding; by the first objects are given to us, by the second they are thought. »
Note: By sensitivity, we must understand what is accessible to us through our senses.
and he also stated (among other things)
« Truth, » it is said, « consists in the agreement of knowledge with the object. According to this simple definition, my knowledge must therefore agree with the object in order to have the value of truth. Now the only way I have of comparing the object with my knowledge is if I know it. Thus my knowledge must confirm itself. But this is far from sufficient for the truth. For since the object is outside of me and the knowledge is in me, all I can appreciate is whether my knowledge of the object agrees with my knowledge of the object. The ancients called such a circle a diallele in the definition. »
(quoted in « The Pleasure of Thought » by A. Comte-Sponville, ed. Vuibert)
We see that the study of the relationship between knowledge and truth leads to a self-relationship from which nothing true can be deduced!
Moreover, it is emphasized, in other articles, that the knowledge of an object comes up against the complexity of the object, all aspects of which it is, in general, impossible to grasp. The general opinion is that knowledge can only be, at best, a part of the « truth ».
The Scientific Revolution of the 20th Century
While classical science thought it had reached a culmination at the end of the 19th century, the emergence of relativity (restricted and then general) and quantum mechanics was to call everything into question. This has concerned science and consequently the nature of knowledge.
The role of experience will change.
Before, experience was considered as a question that we ask nature about a preconceived hypothesis formulated by our understanding. Indeed, the experimental design is designed according to the expected result (which leads some to say, an experiment is a materialized theory).
Note that an answer that conforms to expectations does not validate a theory, because there is nothing to say that a subsequent experiment will invalidate it, but a non-conforming answer eliminates it.
The elimination is definitive, the qualification is only a reprieve. This means that knowledge is acquired more through a series of mistakes (eliminations) than success.
Note that, if we are lucky, we can also get an answer that corresponds to a question other than the one asked and that may be of interest (serendipity).
This process presupposes that our understanding is capable of conceiving nature, but that we simply do not yet have precise knowledge of the particular phenomenon we are studying. Humans are the masters of the game in this process, science simply consisting in exploring and discovering, as we go along, the different aspects of nature, as we have discovered unknown lands throughout history.
For the new theories of the 20th century, relativity makes a clean sweep of the concepts of time and space and quantum mechanics of determinism (at this stage, one wonders what remains…).
In other words, since we apprehend theories via these concepts, which are themselves at the heart of our very existence and especially of our understanding, nature then turns out to be « inconceivable ». Under these conditions, it is difficult to submit preconceived hypotheses to nature.
In reversal of the situation, it is nature that is now the master of the game and it is up to humans to adapt their understanding to develop theories that describe these phenomena, some aspects of which are still inconceivable to us (space-time allowing temporal paradoxes for example, indeterminacy, contra-factuality, EPR paradox).
These points having been discussed in other pages of the site, we will leave it at that for this aspect.
The materialist point of view
These general considerations being recalled, another more modern enigma is that humans, considered, from a materialist point of view, as a structured assembly of atoms in accordance with the structure permitted by the laws of quantum mechanics, can develop a faculty of analysis and knowledge of these laws.
It is a meta-phenomenon, including a consciousness, the emergence of which is still debated.
These points have also been debated in the pages of the site and in the book, and it is clear that modern theories (relativity and quantum mechanics) include aspects that we cannot conceive, such as, for example, space-time destroying space and time in relativity, quantum indeterminacy, contra-factuality (possibility of knowing the presence of a detector in a quantum experiment, without it being activated) and the famous EPR paradox, among others.
It is indeed nature that dictates its law
Through formalisms developed for this purpose, built by a structural and formal « morphism » with the strange laws that we observe, mathematics allows us to represent them rather correctly!
Nature has dictated its law to us and has led us to an empirical approach. The positive point is the heuristic power of the process.
It is the inconceivable that is the door to salvation!
This leads us to consider that what is most important is what we do not understand, because this is where there is a possibility of going beyond our usual thought patterns.
This has been partially done, as has just been indicated, but is far from complete.