1,2,3,7: The Clavicula of our Simulation, Gematria and Katapayadi

In previous posts I have already shown that the number 273 seems to be a peculiar constant related to our Solar system, temperature and procreation. This number shows up so often that it is nearly impossible that this could be a coincidence. Rather it seems to be a kind of message from a higher intelligence who therewith announces its presence. In my philosophy of pancomputational panpsychism this implies, that we are living in a simulation.

In the present article I will go a bit deeper into the numerical signature which seems to be some kind of key, a clavicula, to decode the message of our simulators.

Let me first summarise my previous findings to numbers containing the sequence of the ciphers 2,7 and 3:

1.      The diameters of the Earth and Moon (7920 miles and 2160 miles, which is 11x6! and 3x6! miles, respectively) are in the ratio of 11 to 3, 11 ÷ 3= 3.7 (to be precise: 3.66), while 3 ÷ 11 = 0.273. There are almost 366 days in a year, which is the rotation time of the Earth around the Sun. In fact there are 366 so-called sidereal days in a year.

2.      The 3:11 ratio is also invoked by Venus and Mars, as the ratio of the closest to farthest distance. The ratio that each experiences of the other is 3:11. As we know, the fraction 3/11 rounds to 27.3%.

3.      27.3 is also the number of days it takes for the Moon to orbit the Earth.

4.      27.3 days is even the average rotation period of a sunspot.

5.      The acceleration ratio of the Moon in its path around the Earth is measured as 0.273 × cm/s². In fact, the acceleration of the Earth and the Moon behave reciprocally as the squares of the radii of the orbits of the Earth and the Moon.

6.      Moreover, 273 m/s² is the acceleration of the Sun!

7.      The Moon controls the movement of water around the Earth, ebb and flow. When water is consequently set as the standard for measuring temperature, Absolute Zero, the temperature at which all atomic movement comes to an absolute halt, is -273.2° C.

8.      According to the experiments of Gay-Lussac, when a gas is either heated or cooled by 1 degree Centigrade, it expands or contracts respectively by 1/273.2 of its previous volume.

9.      The triple point of water is defined to take place at 273.16 K.

10.  The Cosmic Background Radiation is 2.73 K.

11.  All medical students are required to memorize that a pregnancy (read: life developing in water) is calculated on the basis of a 10-sidereal month period of 273 days from conception to birth, which is 9 “regular” months. 27 divided by 3 gives 9.

12.  A woman’s menstrual cycle is on average 27.3 days.

13.  If a circle is drawn with a radius from the centre of the Earth through the centre of the Moon, the perimeter of the square around the Earth and this circle are one and the same! It also reveals how the Moon and the Earth have resolved the puzzle of the squaring of the circle. In other words, if the Moon could roll around the Earth, the circle made by its centre has a circumference precisely equal to the perimeter of a square around the Earth (when Pi is approximated by its ancient, traditional ratio of 22/7 = 3.14). Comparing a square’s perimeter to a circle having an equal circumference, the circle’s diameter is 27.3% longer than the edge of the square. Inscribe a circle inside a square.

14.   The four corners make up 27.32% of the total area.

15.  There are 273 days from the summer solstice to the vernal equinox.

16.  Furthermore, 2,730,000 is the circumference of the Sun in miles.

17.  About 108 diameters of the Earth fit across the diameter of the Sun.

18.  About 108 Sun diameters fit in between Earth and Sun. 

19.  About 108 Moon diameters fit between Earth and Moon.

(In fact the number in items 17-19 is 109.2, which in fact is precisely 4x27,3, the intelligence signature number we saw before).

Another important constant we encounter in physics is the fine structure constant of Hydrogen, alpha (0.0073), in which we encounter again two of the digits of 273.

1/alpha =137.  The scientist Pauli was obsessed with the archetypical meaning of numbers in particular number 137, which  unintendedly also turned out to be the number of the room in which he died. A Synchronicity. Pauli shared his fascination for numbers and in particular 137 with the psychologist Jung, who is the conceptual father of the notions archetype and synchronicity. Note that our universe is said to exist 13,7 billion years.

Strangely enough the ciphers making up 273 reproduce 137 in the following manner: 27+37+73 =137. And 37/27=1.37. 1,2,3 and 7 are four of the five first mathematical “Lucas numbers”, a variation related to the Fibonacci series.

37 itself is strongly related to 137. 37²+1=137. 2³⁷=1.37...x10¹¹, 37!=1.37..x10⁴³.

37 is the human body temperature. There are 37 trillion cells in a human body. 37 is the golden section of an hour. 137,5° the complement of the golden section of a circle. The remaining 222° are 2x3x37.

1,2,3 and 7 are related in more than one way, for instance via 27x37=2701 and 2³⁷=1.37...x10¹¹

1/27=0.37037.. 1/37=0.27027.

There are 12,37 full moons in a year.
37 is the 12th prime number, 73 the 21st.

27x37=999, which, if we forget the powers of 10 is very close to unity.

The mass of the Moon is 1/3x1/27=1/81th of the mass of the Earth.

273=3x7x13 or 21x13.

273x137=37401

13 itself is 2x3+7. As 13 is the number of closely packed spheres in the so-called “Vector Equilibrium” (cuboctahedron, the basic unit of the Akasha, the ether in Hinduism), consisting of a central layer of 7 spheres and an upper and lower layer of three spheres, it can be said that the basic unit of Akasha itself encodes the 1,2,3 and 7.

27 is the number of bones in a human hand. There are about 10²⁷ atoms in the human body.

The ciphers of the speed of light (186282 miles/second) add up to 27: 1+8+6+2+8+2=27. The adding up of ciphers of a number is also called the Indig of a number.

The multiples of 27 such as 54, 108, 432 and 864 are found in numerous relations of time, space and music. They are also key values in Hinduism and Buddhism.

E.g. there are 86400 seconds in a day, the diameter of the Sun is 864000 miles. The Sun and Sirius are 8,64 light years apart. 27x32=864. 432 is a time cycle number in various religions and cultures, from Hinduism to Mayan, from Biblical to Sumerian. 432 squared (186624) is very close to the speed of light and its Indig is 27 again.

27 and 37 together make 64 (27+37=64), which is the number of DNA codons and I Ching permutations. 64+73=137 Q.E.D. 64 corresponds to “prophesy” in Kabbalah and 73 to “wisdom”.

Multiples of 3 times 37 always generate a number of the form nnn. 3x37=111 and hence 6x37=222 etc. Most interesting here are the 18x37=666 or (6+6+6)x37=666 and 27x37=999 or (9+9+9)x37=999.

37 is not only an octagonal number, it is also both a hexagonal number and a hexagram number. Thus it is the first trifigurate number. Its inverse 73 is a hexagram or Star number as well with the 37 hexagon inside. 13 is the first hexagram, with a core of 7 spheres. Again we see the 1,3 and 7.

As already said 37x18=666, but also note that 73=37+6x6.

Tesla said: “If you only knew the magnificence of the 3,6 and 9 then you would have a key to the universe.” Funny enough the remaining numbers 1,4,2,8,5,7 together form 27 (3x9) and the permutations thereof can be ordered in a 6x6 magic square, in which each row yields 27 as sum.

The second trifigurate number is 91 (13x7). 91 spheres can be ordered as triangle, hexagon and pyramid.

37 is the fourth hexagonal number if we include 1. The sum of the three preceding hexagonal numbers 1+7+19=27.

Thus 1,2,3 and 7 are also extremely important in the genesis of form.

Due to its relation with the so-called “number of the Beast” (666=18x37) from revelation 13:18, the Bible fanatics are fond of finding all kind of relations with 37. Noteworthy, 137 is the 33^rd prime number, 33 is related to the length of life of Jesus in years.

The word Kabbalah has a Gematria value of 137. The number 6 is used 273 times in the Bible.

The most elaborate and impressive collection thereof can be found on the so-called “Biblewheel” site (http://www.biblewheel.com//GR/GR_37.php).

Religious occultism is fond of “Gematria”. Gematria assigns values to each letter of a word and by adding those gives the Gematria value of a word. Words with the same or similar Gematria value are considered to bear a strong relation. It is permissible to add or subtract the value of one Aleph (1) in order to still have a related meaning. Thus the Gematria of the name of God in Hebrew (YHWH), which is 26 is related to 27. The perfect number 28 (i.e. it is the sum of its divisors) is also related to 27. Interestingly 137x2=274, which is therefore Gematrically identical to 273.

Interestingly the Gematria value of the Greek “he kleis” (the key) is 273. This is also the value of “klesis” (calling) and “hiram abiff”, the all-seeing eye. The Hebrew Gematria value of the Greek word “Gematria” is 273.

Likewise interesting is the suggestion by the Biblewheel, that the first verse of Genesis (the Gematria of which yields 2701=37x73) is a “Creation holograph”. 37 is also the value of the gematria of the word of God.

The author of the “Biblewheel” first went berserk in a kind of Apotheosis-singularity experience, in which every gematrical relation fitted in a beautiful scheme and then himself started to debunk his findings in his dark night of the Soul being lost in the quagmire of agnosticism.

In my book Technovedanta 2.0, I show that other religions made similar claims: Hinduism claims the first verse of the Rg Veda to be a creation holograph, Islam does the same with the first verse of the Qu’ran. These religions also have their variants of Gematria. The Hindu shloka (verse) gopiibhaagya madhuvraataH shruMgashodadhi saMdhigaH .
khalajiivitakhaataava galahaalaa rasaMdharaH

encodes pi up to 31 decimal places.

Because these religions also have their own Gematria system (called Katapayadi in Hinduism and Abjad in Islam), with equally impressive results and because these different religions contradict each other, it cannot be so that they all represent the word of God (which they claim), in an equally truthful manner. Thus unlike these religious zealots, I do not conclude the correctness of a religion based on its impressive Gematria results. In Technovedanta I argue that the writers of these books were perhaps telepathically influenced (in a manner unknown to themselves) by entities from a higher intelligence or even higher dimension (our simulators?).

The agenda of these entities is not necessarily benign. Although they give numerical clues and keys about the simulated structure of our universe, they have also created a great deal of confusion and suffering, by being the instigators of the mutual oppositions of the different opposing religious factions. Therefore we cannot rely on the moral prescriptions of these religious books, but we can use them in our deciphering of the key to the ontogenesis of our universe.

At least it is worthwhile further figuring out how these values relate to physical processes and constants in order to increase our Technological dominion over physicality – which in panpsychic terms means to subdue the lesser spirits of Solomon’s Goetia. But if we truly crack this code, we may even be able to connect with our simulators and commune with the greater spirits of Solomon’s Theurgia. Or I am now venturing into the realm of Satan’s pride, wishing to be “K’Elohim”, “like the Gods”, which terminology has a Gematria value of 666.

Personally, I think that if the Gods or simulators put so much effort in devising such an encryption, which they knew would be deciphered one day, they also meant it to be so. It seems to me that then it is also their wish that we become like them, without there being any animosity or wrathfulness, because we would have been too “proud”, too audacious to venture in their realm. 1,2,3,7 is not a forbidden fruit. It is not the tower of Babel. It is our rightful heritage to become K’Elohim.

Panpsychic Pancomputationalism as framework to build a T.O.E

“Autopoietic reality cell sensing with a digital output called existence” or “How consciousness autopoietically creates a digital reality”.

In contemporary physics the last years a new field has been developing under the name “digital physics”. The premise at the base of this theoretical perspective is that the universe is computable and a manifestation of information. Deep in the equations of supersymmetry of string theory, the physicist James Gates found what is essentially “computer code”. The concept of entropic gravity by the physicist Erik Verlinde and the holographic principle of the physicist van ‘t Hooft both concur with the notion that the physical universe is made of information, of which energy and matter are merely manifestations. Perhaps the most famous article in this theoretical field is the “It from Bit” article by the physicist J.A. Wheeler.

As an extrapolation from these theories has come the suspicion that the universe might actually itself be a computer and that we might in fact live in a computer simulation. The vast majority of proponents of this theoretical perspective think that ultimately existence is fully deterministic.

Yet a convincing Theory of Everything based on digital physics, which would also be able to account to the presence of consciousness in this universe has not seen the daylight yet. In fact the very understanding of consciousness remains an elusive topic and is often called the “hard problem”. Within the materialistic paradigm which is predominant among scientists, including most digital physicists, the problem of explaining consciousness is usually dismissed as non-existent, consciousness being considered as a mere emergent effect that arises if the system reaches sufficient complexity.

In addition to consciousness as a phenomenon without explanation in the digital physics framework, in physics at the quantum level we encounter indeterminacy, nonlocality, entanglement and the wave-particle duality. With regard to computation we encounter incomputability of certain phenomena and we are stuck with Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. Moreover physics has not been able to bring quantum physics and relativity theory under a common denominator. These phenomena and notions do not a priori seem to fit within the framework of a deterministic digital physics based pancomputational universe.

This has led to the hypothesis of certain other physicists and philosophers that consciousness may in fact lie at the base of existence. The philosopher Peter Russell proposes a paradigm shift under the name “The Primacy of Consciousness”, in which information, matter and energy are mere manifestations of consciousness. This leads to a panpsychic or hylozoic perspective on reality.

Interestingly, the URT (Unified Reality Theory) of Steven Kaufman and the CTMU (Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe) by Chris Langan bring digital physics and panpsychism together in a surprising manner. Whereas these theories do not deny but rather suppose that indeed physical reality is information based and even digital, in their versions, the digital physical manifestation of relative existence is in fact embedded in a deeper fundamental level of infinite absolute existence or absolute consciousness (Kaufman) or “Unbound Telesis” (Langan). Kaufman’s and Langan’s concepts are strikingly similar but use a quite a different language making it prima facie difficult to see the resemblances.

In my quest for an all-encompassing “Theory of Everything” that includes consciousness, I have not been convinced by the materialistic scientific paradigm, but the alternative in the form of religion or esotericism has not been very appealing either. The more refreshing to me has been perspective that Langan and Kaufman offer, which unifies physics and metaphysics, quantum physics and relativity theory, determinism and indeterminacy, gravity and electromagnetism and information, mass and energy. In order to also fully unify panpsychism and pancomputationalism, I have further enriched my own interpretation of their work with some additional concepts, which will become evident in the course of this essay. This leads to a hypothetical framework of understanding, which –it is true- is still speculative, but which allows me to have a hunch how existence could possibly function without having to resort to absurd, esoteric, spooky, magical explanations or many-worlds interpretations.

In order to demonstrate how this is achieved, I will have to elaborate a bit more on Kaufman’s URT. I choose not to dive into the work of Langan, because despite its conceptual merits, it is bursting with prima facie incomprehensible neologisms.
...
More of this chapter in my next book, which I have submitted for publication.

An Anthology of Bloom: A Solution to “The God Problem”

(Also published on https://steemit.com/consciousness/@technovedanta/the-pancomputational-solution-to-howard-bloom-s-god-problem in modified form)

Have you ever come across a better plea for the notion of Panprotopsychism? In his book “The God Problem, How a Godless cosmos creates” Howard Bloom hunts for the very key of semiosis: How does life the universe and everything unfold from a set of simple starting rules. And what does Bloom show? That the universe unfolds in a profoundly social, a profoundly conversational manner. That the smallest particles in the universe show “will, compulsion, drive and unrelenting determination” – “virtues” Bloom says, “that we say belong only to conscious entities”.

“Why does it appear to be a cosmos with a primitive precursor of will?” asks Bloom. He describes “Time” as the great Translator, the great extractor of implicit properties, the prime mover that constantly inches the cosmos into the wilderness of possibility space”…

Bloom imparts unintentionally intent to the most various phenomena by posing the question: “Why are Ur-patterns like spheres, spirals, quarks and stars anxious to repeat themselves”?

And he challenges the second law of thermodynamics, the sacred cow of science, because Bloom says, the universe is not running down, the universe is running up.

Existence as a “manifestation of ambition”…

It seems like we have a zealous advocate of a new religion, giving “God” new names, in the name of atheism…

And Bloom challenges more sacred cows, he ventures his other heresies:

Aristotle’s A=A, because frog 1 is not frog 2; because although they share a same pattern, a same ontology, they are different instances of the same concept each with a different space time location, carrying out its own froggy role in a slightly different environment.

1 +1 does not always equal 2. Why? Because of emergence of unforeseen properties that are not present in either contributor.

Randomness is not so random: It is rigidly constraint and gives rise to a very limited numbers of relatively stable phenomena when compared to what would have been expected when the universe would have been randomly generated by six monkeys with six typewriters.

Information theory is wrong, because Shannon left out “Meaning” from the equation.

And I agree on all these points with Bloom. But I disagree on one point evoked elsewhere in his book.

And that one is Consciousness.

Bloom writes “Though many spiritually oriented folks and even a few scientists believe that the universe began with consciousness, I think that is extremely unlikely. Consciousness is an animal and a human thing. It is not a thing of protons and stones.” Huh? Did not Bloom himself argue the Global brain mindedness of beehives, anthills, termite hive structures and even bacterial colonies. Does not Bloom zealously advocate a universe springing from simple rules at every level of existence as a consequence of Stimulus and Response? What are the Hallmarks of conscious behaviour? Stimulus and Response. Weber Fechner’s S=k ln A/A0. The virtue to experience a maximum of diversity by having a logarithmic way of dealing with information at the level of the diaphora de re, the signals, by having dendritic nodal structures that abstract the essential ontologies and compare them heuristically with a vast array of Yoneda embedded functor patterns, translating the information of the diaphora de signo in the right context of its relational meaning so as to present this knowledge of meaningful information to the primary being, the primary experiencing entity, the consciousness.

And how could it be different? Why is our brain/mind architecture with its nodes and cliques so isomorphous to the world around us? Because the very underlying nature of existence appears to be a nodal clique system as well. Because the nodes at sub Planck scale form cliques, that act as new nodes, which unfold the whole plethora of quantum behaviour, space-time and special relativity theory. Cliques that build space time, by anisobaric links between them, which we experience as topological distances.

Because information storage is optimally using storage space in a logarithmic manner, that’s how sunflowers present their seeds, How the curvature of the Nautilus comes into existence. That’s how essentials are abstracted, patterns recognised, for the virtue of functional and spatial optimisation. What is the difference between Bloom’s Time as ultimate extractor of meaning and my Consciousness as ultimate abstractor of meaning

Perhaps because the very underlying nature of existence IS Consciousness?

Bloom describes the behaviour of the most elementary particles as “social”, as showing “behaviour”. His attraction-repulsion, differentiation-integration, fission-fusion metaphors of the Ur-patterns of transformation, metamorphosis, combined with his competition and emergence are they not another way of describing the very essentials of the algorithm of Intelligence, the ability to achieve complex goals? Raw being (thesis, Peircean and Palmerian first), triggered by a Stimulus (antithesis, P&P’s second) leads to a heuristic competitive screening/pruning protocol for pattern identification, pattern abstraction,  or pattern recognition (P&P’s third), if needed results in the abstraction and distillation of new patterns with emergent properties (synthesis, Goertzelian fourth), which undergo the same cycle again and so on ad infinitum, leading to various niches and symbiotic relationships, maximising variety on ever higher levels allowing for interacting with (Response) and mining ever more complex resources? Allowing for exponentially extending into the diversity of existence by the very nature of parsimony giving rise to the ultimate optimised formula for Stimulus and response S= k ln A/A₀?

Bloom may not have realised it, but when he questions why this cosmos appears “to be a cosmos with a very primitive precursor of will” he is almost acknowledging the very essence of panprotopsychism. So I may not see God as a bearded man on a cloud determining each and every event, but I do find the fact that the very simple rules that shape and evolve the cosmos are strongly isomorphous to what we generally refer to as conscious behaviour a very convincing pointer to a strong presumption of consciousness as the underlying fabric on which the Rules are played. Consciousness may well be the checkerboard of digital pancomputationalism. Yes, it remains a chicken and egg problem, conscious behaviour can look isomorphous to the behavioural rules of existence because it is part of existence, because it mimics existence, yes there are also good arguments for a “consciousness” as emergent property and yes if you’re a hammer everything looks like a nail, but the fact that the principles of conscious behaviour manifest in every octave of existence and are like a pantelic universal metaphor of metamorphosis rather are in favour of “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck”.

Most phenomena are relative and have no universal applicability. But those patterns, those principles, those rules that are uniform and universal throughout existence, are they not at least the first derivative of the underlying noumenal absolute nature of existence?

Bloom extracts perhaps these very universal rules of how a seemingly Godless universe creates, but like Bohm he cheats a bit: He looks at what is there, he captures the existing rule-pattern. Which requires a lot of intelligence, which is very smart, and act of highly developed consciousness, a very inventive synthesis indeed, but which nonetheless is not the designing of these rules. So where do these rules come from? An infinite regress?

No need for a bearded God and no need for six monkeys with six typewriters… BUT as far as we know it does require an intelligent screening/pruning algorithm to find the “causally invariant rules”, Stephen Wolfram is working on. It required the conscious attention of Stephen Wolfram himself to come up with sets of simple rules for his screening/pruning protocols. And guess what, what he finds are systems self-organised in nodes and cliques…how mind like, how fractal like… And how much like the condensation of nodes and cliques into matter described by Abraham and Roy (Demystifying the Akasha) in their quantum vacuum theory, how much like Kaufman’s (Unified Reality Theory) and Campbell’s (My Big TOE) digital consciousness.

But there is more to the story of extracting the rules, that Bloom has not touched upon. The whole business Bloom describes about the fact the it would be expected that a purely random universe after the big bang would yield particles in a zillion different shapes and sizes, but instead condenses to a parsimony of a mere 57 particles. A process repeated throughout the history of emergent patterns: The variety at every level (quarks, protons/neutrons/electrons, stars, galaxies, life forms) is rather limited.

A theory which may give a hint to a rationale for this limited number of hits in a screening protocol may be reflected in the principle of “Entropic attraction”: the emergence of a limited number and forms of structures arising from the fusion of the elementary building blocks causes the maximal dissipation of energy. Yes, you read this well, Entropic energy dissipation is higher in the presence of a few structures than in more homogenous field of

apparently more random elementary building blocks. Why? Because the aggregates create more space for dissipation for the remaining elements, because by clustering i.e. “attracting each other”, the remaining elements can better dissipate their heat. And guess what, Verlinde has shown that this form of entropic attraction can also be considered a computational process, which gives rise to… of all things Newtonian gravity.

So it would appear that Chaos drives the creation of levels of Order.

Really? Or do we need a paradigm shift, an “axiom flipping” as Bloom would call it, a Gestalt-switch.

Campbell sees in the autopoietic morphogenesis of emergent properties, of qualities, what he and others would call negentropy. Not the negentropy of Shannon’s information; that one lacks meaning. But the negentropy of meaningful information: the abstraction or extraction of essential qualities, which make one entity different from another. A diffeont: a set of ontological parameters to distinguish one pattern from another. Hey, that’s what a Mind does when it tries to distinguish A from B. In my book “Technovedanta, Internet architecture of a quasiconscious Vedantic Webmind” I suggest an architecture for an artificial equivalent of consciousness for the internet, the essence of which is that websites are hierachically embedded in Hubs of ever higher ontological categories, which Hubs extract which Websites get the most attention, (attention being a multidimensionally defined concept here). Attention, like bees giving in a beehive, the abstraction of the essential, the most successful heuristic, like pillars of a termite hive. This extraction process of what is most essential to the existence of the Webmind is presented to higher ontologies, decision making routines of the Webmind, the upper ontologies of which could be considered as its (quasi)consciousness. Because it abstracts the stimuli and reacts thereon with a response. The higher the quality of this architecture, the more it optimises its interaction with its environment. And the structure is fractalised; lower ranking ontological Hubs still have capacity to carry our decisions unless overruled by a higher ranking Hub. Basically the structure reflects the potential of dealing with its environment. It is a type of a reservoir of highly ordered energy capable of highly ordered release thereof in its response.

In fact what I am arguing is that consciousness itself is a reservoir of highly ordered energy, huge amounts of energy with a very low entropy due to its structure, based on the attention it gets bottom-up and executing top-down in a highly structured way by focussing on what is most essential, what has the greatest optimised utility for the whole system. How it can reach a sustainable equilibrium with its environment for as long as possible. The inbuilt hunger for sustainable symbiosis as its emergent morality, because that is the most probable way for its survival.

And the higher the quality of the consciousness, the lower its entropy, resulting in more control when responding to the attention it receives in the form of stimuli. And you may recognise this from your own ways of dealing with tasks: If you do it with love and care, with attention and control, the result is better and you enjoy the doing more. So if consciousness gives attention back, it autocatalytically improves itself by autopoietically generating joy. Giving attention results in receiving attention, from others and from your own mind.

Consciousness has therefore a strong relationship with pattern, with structure and it may well be that if we find the right formula to quantise consciousness quality as negentropy and weigh this against the heat dissipation created in a conscious creative process, that the ultimate outcome is that the heat dissipation entropy is more than compensated for by the gain in consciousness quality. And perhaps Weber Fechner’s law is the right metaphor for both consciousness quality and pattern emergence. Perhaps the quality of consciousness is indeed reflected in the constant k in the formula S= klnA/A₀ which should be summed over all the processes and senses involved. Because stimuli corresponding to greater differences can be dealt with by a consciousness with more versatility, with more resistance. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the formula of entropy, Boltzmann’s DS=k ln W/W₀ is highly isomorphous to that of Weber-Fechner, as its symmetric counterpart in the world of matter. Perhaps the degree of randomness of an event is linked to the degree of order created in a process (without them necessarily being quantitatively equivalent).

Because opposites are joined at the hip.

And what do we see, the more structure, the more consciousness a species has, the more versatility it has, the more variety it can create, all aiding to maximise heat dissipation – and to build ever further structures until the system at a new meta-level becomes isomorphous again with a previous level far away: Until it becomes an abstractor per se: a nodal network of mindedness, and interconnected dendrogram.

And perhaps it is not entropy that causes the attraction resulting in levels of order, but its consciousness counterpart. Perhaps we mistake the rope for a snake. Perhaps the solution to the God problem is that there is no bearded God-as we-know-it, but that there is a fractal of consciousness, of self-repetition in ever increasing variety, ever increasing potential. An interference pattern of beautiful structures of panprotopsychism, of psychic interacting social entities, particles and waves singing the harmonies of quantification, commune-icating. Which ultimately manifest at the highest semiotic level as a one transforming into a zero and back again ad infinitum, an ever repeating bagel and stick of Bloom’s toroidal model of the universe… part of a yet bigger matrix of digitality, which is only part of the fractal the Maya-fabric of consciousness uses for self-expression. Self-expression of the simple rule solve et coagula, differentiate and integrate. How to differentiate optimally? By using meta-transformators transforming transformators into new ones following the optimal asymmetry ratio parameter F (1.618) of beauty. The same ratio parameter that forms the basis of Fibonacci’s spirals. Spirals which are the semiotic expression of logarithmicity and parsimony. The logos of the arithmos: The ultimate ratio expressed in number. How to integrate? By attracting harmonies, clustering attention of admiration of inequalities. By screening for the highest pile being built and focussing your attention there and pruning the not so successful recruitment strategies away, by recycling them. By creating meaning in the form of Bayesian proximity co-occurrence, a Yoneda didensity love relationship shaping a new ontology.

The purpose of this level of the game Lila is to find out the rules of the game. The purpose of the next level of the game Lila (autopoiesis) is to find the purpose of the game (resulting in an infinite loop of self-redefinition).

15-04-2014 by Antonin Tuynman