Consciousness: The Why Function

In the previous post, we talked about the gap (here). Now, the why function is a gap function that originates from the philosophical nature of consciousness. In the previous post, we also talked about perspectives, where we pointed out that two mutually exclusive perspectives create a gap. We shall see also that the why function is a perspectival function.

The question “Why?” comes up time and time again in human experience. Of course, we use ‘why’ in verbal communication when asking common questions, but there is also an existential dimension to this. Written or spoken language is the final expression of conscious process. Before words can come out from our vocal cords, logical processes have to take place in the brain (or CPU) first, and depending on the depth of such process we are able to make meaning. The existential ‘why’ makes use of a universal perspective P.

Someone experiencing an existential crisis tends to ask deep ‘why’ questions: why do I exist? Why am I here? One continues to ask these questions wildly and in turn they lead to anxiety. The physical process involved here is an ‘explosive’ process, akin to a miniaturized ‘big-bang’ (certain parts of the brain light up). Meaning that at first the gap function that is the why function might not be strong, but as the process continues it becomes more pronounced, it exponentiates. 

We write the why function as an integral function below.

Where R denotes the object of curiosity (?): Realiity
P denotes the universal perspective
Exponent ‘n’ denotes depth of perception (P)

 

 

Consciousness: The Gap

We introduced the differential in the first consciousness post (here), then we went forward to talk about subjectives (here) which are short-term value functions (STVF) attached to sensory information. Now, we shall discuss the real gate.

In the previous post also, we talked about ‘events’, and we said that events can only be ‘perceived’ or observed after subjectives have been attached to information (raw data). A perspective is the resultant of subjective information. To begin, let us first define reality.

Reality is a complex system of perspectives. 

It is important at this point to have a clear definition of reality, because if we take a serious look at consciousness, we’d notice that part of what makes us conscious, per se, is the physical space we exist in. Let’s call this space Real Space (RSp). Space is a precondition for consciousness. So in our quest for conscious AI, we will have to create a mind space (MSp) that would act as a physical space for future robots. Remember that our physical space cannot be their own space, since they didn’t ‘naturally’ evolve from it. So, AI consciousness would inevitably be an ‘implicit’ phenomenon. Implicit because their physical space would also act as a mind space.

So, an android observes the event of a planet in space, say Earth, resulting in a perspective. The same android experiences another event, say, a pair of shoes. These 2 events are part of our reality, but one might ask; what does a pair of shoes have to do with a planet in space, right? But one thing is certain, these 2 perspectives are connected due to the simple fact that they exist in the same physical space and owing to their chronological order as well. We say that these 2 perspectives are ‘culturally’ related. Below is an illustration.

In the illustration above, we have perspective P1 and mutually exclusive perspective P2. We call it the real gate or culture gate. These two seemingly unrelated perspectives create a phenomenon; the gap. The gap is the fundamental of all consciousness because so many other phenomenons arise as a result. The gap is also the differential, d. We shall treat these other phenomenons in time and we shall also call them gap functions.

The gap is fundamental to consciousness because it is the seat of philosophical inquiry. If we observe well enough, we’d notice that philosophical musings always tend to make sense of mutually exclusive realities. For example; why do I exist? In this case, I’m comparing the idea of the universe to that of my puny self, and I’m trying to no avail to merge the two perspectives together (this creates a ‘gap’). Another example is; comparing the event of the big bang to that of a cup of coffee on a table. In the chronological sense, there can be no cup of coffee without the big bang, but in the cultural sense, these two perspectives don’t relate. This is the reason why we are ‘cultural’ beings, our consciousness is full of gaps.

Consciousness: Subjectives

Subjectives are complex values given to information taken in by AI. In the previous post, we talked about the differential d and its analogy to the logic gate in electronic circuits, but we had to define what a ‘sensible’ input is. Subjectives are emotional values that give information initial meaning.

Let’s say an AI robot looks into the night sky, we would expect that the lenses of its camera (eyes) take in the light from the stars and the view in general, but would we expect it to have any related ‘feelings’? Then how do we make this raw information meaningful to the AI? This is where subjectives come in; first we have to attach a value, a ‘complex’ value to information for it to make sense to the robot.

Just like we have in ideal logic gates, where we have a high voltage 5V and a low 0V representing binary conditions 1 and 0 respectively. In actual logic gates the high and low voltages may deviate a bit.

An advanced robot would have been programmed to look at the stars as artful and good (these 2 qualities are subjectives). But what if in this beautiful view of the night sky the robot views a nuclear missile in flight, would the picture still be ‘good’ an d ‘artful’? These are the things the programmer would have to take into serious consideration. In this example, the night sky is beautiful, but upon sighting a nuclear missile we would expect a relatively conscious robot to get worried. In this case, the information that is a nuclear missile bound for somewhere should introduce a new subjective, a new value, that tells the robot that something is wrong or that something’s about to blow up which also inspires horror.

So, subjectives add value to events. The night sky is an event, a missile flying through the night sky is also an event. In fact, an event is anything that takes place.

An event is anything that takes place.

It is only after subjectives have been added to raw information can we say that an AI robot is ‘perceiving’ or an event has been ‘observed’. So, electrical voltages initiate short-term value functions (STVF) which are saved as short term memory (STM), just as in the human mind. The long-term value functions (LTVF) are akin to wisdom (we will visit this later).

In the next post, we shall revisit the Differential.

Consciousness: The Differential

Consciousness is a controversial topic because the study of the phenomenon has brought about more confusion. Although neuroscience and psychology have compiled lots of research in the hope of understanding consciousness better, consciousness largely remains a philosophical phenomenon. The study of consciousness is the study of the Self. It is the belief that consciousness can be resolved logically that drives the research in computer science. I believe the ‘problem’ of consciousness can be attacked fundamentally. [I intend to divide this paper into many posts so I don’t spend too much time on one post]

 

1. The Differential

Living things process information (data); we take in smell (nose), touch (skin), visual information (eyes), audio (ears), and taste (tongue). These major organs are akin to sensors in electronics. Information is taken in and then processed. But how is information processed? This is an important question that must be answered in the pursuit of replicating consciousness via artificial intelligence (AI).

[Can consciousness be ‘replicated’ per se? Well, I like to think that we (animals) are reactionary beings; meaning that we react to consciousness rather than seek to grasp it. In our reactions we have gone a long way, in engineering, in science, in art. We can also react in such a way as to ‘duplicate’ what we are. Indeed, since we are more like existential robots (in a deep sense), then conciousness can also lead us to react by technologically creating consciousness. Some scientists and philosophers might argue that how can we create something that we do not understand, but the truth is we don’t have to understand consciousness for us to recreate it. Remember, we are “reacting” to consciousness. This might stem up yet a new argument: if we are reacting to consciousness, then are we really ‘conscious’? This is a compelling argument which I tried to answer here. In the writeup, I maintained that human beings are not necessarily ‘conscious’, that in fact what we are, are reactions to consciousness. So, yes, we can and we are going to replicate consciousness, but not because we understand consciousness.]

So, information comes in, say, molecules through my nostrils (smell). The nostrils act as sensors. In the case of artificial intelligence (AI), such a processing unit would have to differentiate sense inputs. All information coming through the inputs (senses); vision, audio, olfactory, taste, and tactile (touch) , have to be differentiated. This is the first logical step in replicating consciousness.

The differential ‘d‘ is correlate to the logic gate in electronic circuits where we have the inputs and the output. This logic gate would form the differential. Before we further analyse the differential, we have to analyse the sensory inputs (in the case of AI) and what makes them “sensible”. We shall do this deduction in the next post.

The Theory of Everything: Motion

Physics describes motion as a change in position of an object with respect to time. Motion is a central aspect of Physics that has captivated curious minds throughout history. Aristotle, in his Physics, taught about motion, he held the view that everything that moves is moved by another (which was debunked centuries later). Galileo Galilei’s postulate of inertia states that; a moving body on a level surface will continue in the same direction at constant speed unless disturbed. Isaac Newton built on Galileo’s findings and presented his own laws of motion. Albert Einstein, in his special and general theories of relativity, basically talked about motion. A body moves from point A to point B, what could be so involved in such simple a reality as motion?

In the classical universe sense, motion primarily involves the movement of celestial bodies. It would appear as though matter is always in motion, always changing position with time. But what is the quintessence of motion, what does a universe in motion mean? Let’s imagine a universe in which everything was perfectly static, a universe in which there is no motion, no vibration, no change in position; is that even possible? From this perspective, an observer would realise that the concept of motion is in fact a ‘universal’ concept. Matter is constantly in motion, from galaxies to solar systems to mere objects. Consider motion as a ‘state’ of our physical reality, just like liquid, solid and gas are states of matter.

A coin is tossed, and its path of motion is observed. Somewhere going up or down let’s pause it, at an instant, a moment in time. Now let’s observe the coin at this moment. Open your mind to observe  this perfectly stopped coin in the air because therein lies the theory of everything. [Note that ‘instant’ and ‘moment’ might be used interchangeably]

At the time the coin is instant in motion, what do we really know about this coin? Think with me, observe. At that instant in the coin’s travel, we can’t tell whether the coin is still going up or coming down! In fact, the coin could have been thrown from a different angle entirely and stopped at the same point in the air! Or maybe the coin was lifted to that particular position and let go, or maybe the coin wasn’t tossed at all, maybe it fell from an anchor in the ceiling. Point is, that moment of the coin’s travel, that perfect pause, has infinitely many solutions to it.

Let’s look at another example. Let’s imagine a moment of a planet’s travel around the sun, a perfect pause, and let’s observe this moment. One would notice that we don’t know much about the planet at that instant. The planet could in fact be rotating clockwise or anticlockwise around its equator, we don’t know! At the perfect stop, the planet could be orbiting clockwise or anticlockwise around its star, we have no idea.

We just see objects move and we somewhat expect them to behave in certain ways in motion. A tossed coin travels up and down, a planet orbits counterclockwise around the sun, a kicked ball accelerates, and so many other exhibitions of motion. But it is only when we investigate a moment that we begin to understand the true nature of motion.

What is a moment?

Let’s define a moment as a perfect instant in time, infinitesimal. Let’s denote a moment in time as dt. 

At a moment in a body’s motion, dt, not much information is known about that body. Its instantaneous position is known, but other information about the body are unknown. Let’s refer back to our tossed coin example.

The picture above (photocredit included, also edited) shows a tossed coin at a moment, dt, some distance from the tosser’s hand. Now let’s take a step back and inspect this moment. How did the coin get there? We know that someone tossed it alright, but could the coin’s position at that moment be the result of a different action entirely? Let’s see, first, let’s investigate the phenomenon: at that moment, dt, was the coin going up or coming down? We can’t tell! Let’s try another thought, let’s say someone else threw the coin at the tosser and the coin happened to pass the exact same position at dt in the picture, would we know by investigating this moment alone whether the coin was tossed or was thrown? No, we couldn’t know this. Let’s say the coin wasn’t even tossed or thrown, let’s say it was suspended by some anchor at the ceiling, and upon release fell through the same position at the same moment dt. We can now understand by this series of critical thoughts the infinite nature of a moment. A body’s moment is the result of an infinite possibility of actions. The coin’s position at the moment dt could be the result of an infinite variety of actions. This leads to my first postulate.

Enesi’s first law of motion: A body’s position at a moment, dt, is the resultant of an infinite possibility of actions.

Having gone this far, let’s have a look at another phenomenon. Let’s consider a second moment of the tossed coin’s path, different from the first moment we analysed (figure below).

As is observed from the figure above, the coin’s instantaneous position is different from the first case we analysed. This is a new position entirely, a new moment. Let’s subject this case to the same thought process as we did in the previous case: what do we know about the coin in this new position? Nothing much, we know it’s in the air at an instant, but we don’t know whether it’s travelling up or down. Maybe that instantaneous position is the maximum height of the coin’s path, we still do not know! The instantaneous position of the coin at that moment could be the resultant of an infinite series of actions, just as we saw in Enesi’s first law of motion. The coin could have been thrown, kicked or tossed from various angles and still travel the exact same position! Now, let’s get to the crux of this critical thought process. At this point, the reader would have to open his/her mind radically, for it is at this point that Enesi’s second law of motion unveils itself. Here goes the controversial question: after considering all these analyses, how do we know that the coin’s position in this particular case leads to the previous case?

We know that each moment in the cited examples above has  its ‘independent’ properties that prove how disjointed the linear concept of motion is. One moment of a body’s motion is ‘absolutely’ different from another moment of the same body. ‘Absolutely’ goes with the fact that although a body is put in motion by same action, a moment along the trajectory behaves unrelated with another moment along the same trajectory.

Enesi’s second law of motion: Every moment, dt, of a body’s motion is absolutely independent of the subsequent and previous moments, and also the general course of action.

To make things even clearer, let’s consider a third case of the tossed coin.

Same rules apply in this third case. There is no way to link case 1, case 2 and case 3 together. Even if these moments are of the same action, each moment behaves like it were from a different action entirely with its own infinite possibilities.

This method of doubt or critical thinking makes the observer ask yet another question: If moments seem to be totally detached from each other, then why do I see a kicked football travel up and down in a ‘definite’ trajectory, or a planet rotate and orbit the sun in a ‘specific’ way, or a tossed coin travel up and down through infinite moments? If we say moments are absolutely independent of each other due to Enesi’s second law, then why does motion appear orderly as though it were following a set of rules (Newtonian motion)?

These ‘disturbing’ thoughts are probably what made Zeno of Elea (490 — 430 BC) describe motion as an ‘illusion’. Zeno’s paradoxes are a set of hypothetical problems that support this illusive viewpoint on motion. The one that concerns us most here is the Arrow paradox (figure below).

Zeno states that in any one instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not. It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.³

Zeno understood the problems that the moment posed to the concept and reality of motion as we know it; that at any instant in a body’s motion, almost all information appears to be gone. Then how is motion possible if all moments are absolutely independent of each other? This is the problem that Enesi’s second law creates.

Before addressing this problem, let’s first understand what information means. A cup of hot coffee is on a table, in a room of ambient temperature. What happens? There is an exchange of information between the cup of coffee and the room, in what we perceive as thermal convection. A plucked billiard ball accelerates, this moving ball possesses information, what we perceive as momentum. The moving ball hits a stationary ball in its path, and what happens? There is an exchange of information in what we perceive as the the conservation of momentum. So, in our universe, information always appears to be conserved. This phenomenon is what led to Isaac Newton’s third law of motion; that for every action there results an equal and opposite reaction.

There has to be a means by which information is carried. Yes, information is conversed, but the conundrum lies in the fact that even action is a reaction! And action is information, so before the big-picture law of action-reaction, we have to break down this picture into tiny bits called moments. It is only when we look at motion this way that we begin to get an even more accurate picture.

So, Enesi’s second law states that moments are absolutely independent of each other. This leaves us with one possibility and one possibility only: the moment is the carrier of information.

we denote the information carrying moment as . The arrow on top dt signifies progression or flow as we perceive time to be, moving forward. So let’s write the equation for the information carrying moment:

where the subscript ‘i’ stands for information.

Traditionally, all moments in a time interval, Δt, should add up to a duration in any given case, such that;

But this is pointless! It is pointless to add up moments, because in any time interval, there are infinite moments. Even a time interval of a second is made up of infinite moments. A time interval of a nano second is made up of infinite moments. The equation above illustrates the nonadditive rule of moments.

So how are time intervals even possible when they’re made up of infinite moments? How do we then differentiate 1 second from 3 seconds as they all contain infinite moments? These are tough questions, but every tough question has its intricate solutions. Durations are possible because of the additive property of measured time;

In the above example, 1 second interval is added to 0.0001 second (another time interval) added to 59 seconds to give 60.0001 seconds. In our everyday activities, we deal with time intervals, no matter how small. Time intervals add up to give time intervals. Moments can’t add up to give time intervals, this is because moments are a different perspective on motion entirely, attacking the more instinctive understanding of motion.

We have illustrated so far that every time interval comprises infinite moments. What is the underlying concept? Infinity. Infinity occurs again and again in our universe, in our experiences. So it is no surprise that motion as we know it is fundamentally of the universal principle of infinity.

Remember that the information carrying moment, , is independent of other information carrying moments, therefore, we need a new parameter to make motion make sense. We need something to connect the info carrying moments. This brings us to Enesi’s third law of motion.

Enesi’s third law of motion: all information carrying moments of a body’s motion are stringed up by the infinity mode to form a time interval.

Finally, motion makes sense, and this is because of the function of the infinity mode. Motion cannot occur without the infinity mode, this is the importance of the infinity mode. It is the infinity mode that makes time intervals possible.

The infinity mode is denoted as shown above. The square brackets symbolise containment. So far, this is the most important parameter we have derived, it is the major ingredient evident in motion. Infinity is a universal concept, and down to mere events it is persistently evident. Infinity is the factor that makes motion possible.

It is thus clear that infinity determines the time interval. This can be written in an equation.

Let’s refer back to the tossed coin exercise, as there is yet another important observation to make. As the coin is brought to a perfect pause, a moment, an instant in time, something happens, a phenomenon not initially noticeable. Everything else comes to a perfect pause as well! Ideally, you can’t pause the coin’s motion midway without pausing the air molecules around it, and every other thing previously in motion. This brings us to state Enesi’s 4th law of motion.

Enesi’s fourth law of motion: all motion (all infinity modes) are stringed in a deterministic sequence.

This implies that the momentarization of a body in motion affects the motion of another independent body, irrespective of relative location. So, say a football is in the air at New York during a match, and at same time a Formula One racing car is speeding off at an event in Barcelona, slowing the speed of the football to an instant would in turn slow the Formula One racing car to an instant respectively. So, motion is fundamentally deterministic; the motion of a body directly affects the motion of another body anywhere in the universe. This phenomenon might not be readily evident in everyday observations of motion, but it is the most amazing phenomenon associated with motion.

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_(Aristotle)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno’s_paradoxes
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

 

[Please note: this blog is copyrighted, meaning that it is an act of plagiarism to copy part or whole of this post without the writer’s consent. This paper took me months to write, though I have rough sheets of previously jotted down details, I had to bring it all together to make real sense. My next paper would be on the ever controversial topic of consciousness: the theory of everything. So, please read and comment on these bold steps that make up the contents of Universals]

the Big Bang — Analysis 2

In the first analysis, I made mention of infinity. But first, what is infinity? Generally, Infinity is an abstract concept describing something without limit; limitless. There are various types of infinities broader than the mathematical infinity, where infinity (∞) can divide and be divided by numbers. I also made mention of the big bang being the physical process in the initiation of the universe.

The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity that contained the infinite information.

So what is the metaphysical angle to the big bang? In Analysis 1, I stated that the big bang was the reverse action of an infinite process. Now, we’d focus on the infinite process.
I’d introduce a concept I call universal infinity. The problem with the modern understanding of infinity is that we think of it in terms of ‘magnitudes’, numbers.

Many great scientists have talked about infinity at great lengths. The ancient Greeks; Zeno of Elea (Zeno’s paradoxes), Aristotle, Pythagoras and the likes all mused on infinity. Isaac Newton co-invented calculus based on the concept of infinitesimals which are infinitely small numbers but not zero. In George Canto’s set theory we have ‘infinite’ sets. These minds mostly conceptualised infinity in terms of numbers. I have to admit though, that Newton and one of Zeno’s paradoxes were outstandingly close to ‘solving’ infinity.
Solving infinity? Yes, exactly so, owing to the fact that we have not exactly been able to pin it down, and something so part of existence. Infinity, generally, is a topic I am preparing for a different post entirely. So we won’t go too deep, but I’d state my major findings owing to the big bang.

On the morning of 10/07/2015, a wordpress user, bbnewsab (bbnewsblog.wordpress.com) asked some interesting questions on Analysis 1 that opened up a critical line of thought:
Do you mean the Big Bang was a spontaneous event? Or was the energy contained in the singularity released, triggered off, by something that had an intention, or purpose, to release all that energy?
I didn’t know how much effect these questions had on me until it hit me. The big bang wasn’t necessarily spontaneous given that it is a physical process (varies with time), but the universe was spontaneous.
An ‘intention’ would imply a deity, and I don’t believe in deities.

Yes, there is the question; how can the universe be spontaneous and not the big bang? The thing is the big bang needed universal infinity to initiate. There had to be ‘room’ for the big bang which theoretically would spread in all directions. Note that this is not your common Earthly explosion, this is the ‘causal event’; the father of all events. The big bang is ‘existential’. Infinity is an existential law.
Universal infinity already existed before the big bang. The big bang was the physical process that followed the singularity — the infinite density of information.

The big bang couldn’t have created infinity. Infinity was a precondition for the big bang.
Anytime the cosmologist tries to conceptualize the universe, what he/she actually thinks of is infinity, then the planets, stars and galaxies follow.
What does this insinuate? It means there’s an intricate connection between infinity and the human mind.

bbnewsab also asked me:
Can you explain your “information” concept more/better? For example: Is information (what you mean by that word/concept) to be considered neutral? Or can information (in the way you use the word) be considered to be partial and biased (and if so, in what way, and how, and why)? Can information have a “will” of its own?

Information is information; planets, stars, galaxies, organisms, matter, mass, thoughts, etc. all information. Information is very much neutral. Life is information observing information, this is where the bias comes in. As we’ve noticed in the double-slit experiment, observing information could actually change its behaviour. Lastly, information having a will of its own infers consciousness (freewill), a concept I’d visit in time.

For my next post, I’d be formally and painstakingly ‘solving’ infinity and its paradoxes, in a treatise I call The Theory of Everything.

[Please note: this blog is copyrighted. If my discoveries directly inspire you in any constructive way, please let me know. Contact me via my Contact page. I don’t seek to hide knowledge, but if you must use what I find, then you ought to share. I use this medium to call on mathematicians, physicists, cosmologists, science enthusiasts, and philosophical minds to not shy away from these findings They are as rigorous as it gets.]

Reference

wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

the Big Bang – Analysis 1

The big bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model of the initiation of our universe as we know it. The big bang is an event.

What is an event? An event is anything that takes place. It’s that simple. Anything can be an event. A shoe is an event, a tossed coin is an event, Earth is an event, etc etc. The big bang is an event.

An event could be of any magnitude or sequence. For example; my laptop is an event, using my laptop is also an event, using my laptop in my room is also an event. So, an event in the real sense is limitless. An object is an event, a thought is an event, a number is an event. No matter the space in which an event takes place; physical space, mental space, number space, etc, it still remains an event.

The big bang theory is one event that utilizes the phenomenon of an explosion. I’d be elaborating on another realisation of mine later, that ‘perspective yields perspective’. This is very evident in our world. They say ‘perception is reality’, and in fact that statement has some physics in it. An observer could liken the waves of an ocean at shore to the scattered patterns of a bedspread, or the shape of a Coca Cola bottle to a beautiful woman. The latter is used in advertisement as a ploy to increase sales, and most consumers don’t even know the rounded shapes of the soft drink bottles affect their spending. So, real perspective P1 could yield perspective P2 and real perspective P3 could yield perspective P1. In the ocean and bedspread example I gave, the ocean is the real perspective (what the observer is actually observing) let’s call this P1 and the bedspread is the mutually inclusive perspective (what the observer infers form the observed) let’s call this P2. The observer could then perceive a different event entirely, say a flooded road P3 and this could initiate a perspective of a real ocean P1.
So, P1 yields P2, and if P2 yields P3 which further yields P1 (we have a closed loop). I’d delve into this phenomenon in later posts.

So what’s the Big Bang all about? In one word; INFORMATION. The big bang is all about information. Matter is information. Particles are information.
And what is information? I’d define information as the basic entity of physical existence. We are all information.

The big bang yields the perspective of an explosion.

What does it mean for something to explode? It simply means that energy is compacted, and upon disturbance, the energy breaks free. Imagine a bomb, for example; before a bomb detonates, there is an internal or external reaction that causes the compacted energy in the setup to break free, violently. Energy is information as well. When a bomb explodes, the container is consequently shredded to bits owing to the released pressure, and these bits are accelerated in all directions. There is a somewhat spontaneous discharge of heat. ‘All directions’ means there is a 360° discharge of energy.

The event of the Big Bang when perceived P1 could yield a mutually inclusive event of an earthly explosion P2. But there is a problem here: the big bang is the causal event, meaning that it is arguably the father of all events. Now, how does one relate the event of eating a plate of macaroni to the big bang? Keeping in mind the chronological reality. How do I relate the event of my shoe to that of the big bang? This is the problem. This problem is what I call the cultural gate problem. In this text we have been dealing with mutually inclusive perspectives, where one perspective yields a well related perspective. But what kind of operation is this perception business? Well, humans alongside other animals are the observers of events, and we perceive things in different ways that depend largely on personal experience. This fact makes us cultural. And this is fundamentally how the mind works, by these perspective pairing. Where we have two mutual perspectives, we have a gate, a cultural gate. Just like we have the logic gates in electronics.
So when we have two perspectives that don’t necessarily relate, we call them mutually exclusive perspectives. Set theory comes in very handy here. I won’t be delving into the topic of consciousness akin to perception, as that would be a bit off.

But unlike the bomb event that takes place on our Earth, the big bang is a different occurrence entirely. We have the problem of space and time or as general relativity (Einstein) would put it, spacetime. Is the big bang responsible for space and time (spacetime) or either of the two? Space and time are existential (physical) constants. There is first a metaphysical side, meaning that existence precedes physical process. The big bang is the physical process. Physical interactions are what we experience directly, but upon curious research, a keen observer would notice that physical interactions require a premise. So, what nature of existence gave birth to the big bang? Well, we have the physical process that is the initial singularity which is the gravitation singularity of infinite density. That is the physical side of the big bang, but we all know deeply that there is a metaphysical side as logical as the physical.

Let’s analyse. You have infinite information on one hand and a universe on the other. Then what causes the singularity? Note the word infinity, you have infinite information in a theoretical point, dimensionless. The big bang theory says there were quantum fluctuations that caused the resulting inflation, let’s agree on this as the physical process, now let’s go deeper. It should be glaringly obvious that the universe already existed in a singularity but needed the physical process of an explosion to come to life. Then how can so much information infinitely exist at a point? This could be a disturbing question, but just like Einstein I stay with my problems longer. Observe deeply, and you might discover as I have that the big bang is the ‘reverse’ action of an infinite process, reverse. What does this mean controversially? This inevitably means that infinity existed before the big bang.

Infinity is a crazy topic entirely, crazy is an understatement. There are various types of infinity. Well, I have a blog, and I intend to fill it up with so many discoveries of mine in time.

[Please note: this blog is copyrighted. If my discoveries directly inspire you in any constructive way, please let me know. Contact me via my Contact page. I don’t seek to hide knowledge, but if you must use what I find, then you ought to share.]

References

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity