Meta-Systems.

[wolven7]

Thinking about meta-systems theory, and a beneficial use for doublethink: To fully immerse yourself in all points of view, long enough to understand them and then move outward to a meta-level of thought, integrating them into a more full and cohesive view of the universe.

In this idea-scheme, so-called contradictions between systems are meaningless, as the über-systems contain and account for the infinite combinations of infinties, allowing for... anything.

Several questions arise:

1) How do/can we know that we exist in this kind of [infinite]X[infinite] reality matrix?

2) In such a matrix, isn't the negation of the continuation of the Matrix necessarily exisitent?

3) How do we function, in such a reality?

If we can adequately answer these questions, we can come to an understanding of Truth and Fact to be constantly in flux, as the universe And Its Components grow, change, and become more, then we can more easily apprehend the argument that Infinity Is Paradox; that limitation seeking to break itself is the nature of learning and understanding.

Another problem is of reconciling this with any kind of fanaticism.

What tells you that God loves only you? That "delusional" mindsets may not be beneficial for learning, growth, and moving forward? Why must the infidels be destroyed, rather than taught, shown your Better way, and then Ignored?

Try something like, "You're engaging in a practice I'd rather not be a part of. I consider it unhelpful for species advancement. If you cannot or will not stop, you or I should Go."

Or some fucking thing. Seriously. Why will it not work? More importantly, how could it work Better?

More tomorrow.

Comments

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

I'm almost positive that I'm keying in on 2 or 3 key words or phrases in here, and missing a larger point that you're making, but because *parts* of this mirror a conversation I had with a coworker years ago, I'll chime in with something that may or may not be completely relevant.

I'm assuming by Meta-Systems you mean social and/or collective systems created by humanity itself, in a broad sense.

I'm assuming you mean the contradictions have to do with different belief systems, data, or what have you.

So anyway...

1) The thing about any reality matrix is that there is no way of knowing anything with absolute certainty ever, and this includes your existence. I think that would apply to pretty much any system, even a completely fictitious one.

2) This is where I'm not sure what you're driving at, and I think it's merely a matter of phrasing.

3) And this is where I'm also losing you, and thinking that I misunderstood what you meant by "meta systems".

But this last part is what reminds me of the conversation with my friend, on reconciling certain truths with certain other truths, especially in reference to society.

"Why must the infidels be destroyed, rather than taught, shown your Better way, and then Ignored?"

I think it all sort of alludes to the fact that no matter what system we had, even if it was the integration of all systems, if we're all on the same page, there's no real need for conflict resolution.

And it won't work because people are just animals poking around in the dark. Until we transcend all the things that make us human, we will continue to be as such. But like I've said before, if we transcend all those things, there won't be any point in any of it anyway. We'd probably just cease to give a shit.

But all of that, I think, is not addressing what you're actually asking here, but just in case, there it is.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

In 2), I mean that if a matrix of completely infinite infinities is the true nature of reality, isn't it necessarily the case that there is, inherent in that matrix, the negation of the matrix itself, and the Fact/Truth that the matrix Does Not Exist?

In 3): With that level of infinitude, choice, and intersection of possibility, how do we go about making responsible decisions?

I don't like to think that we won't give a shit, any more. It seems that there would still be much to do and understand, and differences of opinion as to how to go about doing so. I think that we can disagree, in a civil manner, while still working toward better outcomes.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

"In 2), I mean that if a matrix of completely infinite infinities is the true nature of reality, isn't it necessarily the case that there is, inherent in that matrix, the negation of the matrix itself, and the Fact/Truth that the matrix Does Not Exist?"

Ok that makes more sense to me, and I can definitely see I was missing some crucial points to the whole post. So, I guess I'll have to rework the last bit I said, because it's not quite as applicable to this specific line of reasoning.

Addressing 2) Yeah if all variables can exist in contradictory states to themselves or each other all the time, there's the possibility that it negates its own existence, but not necessarily so. I mean, in some ways there's already the ABILITY for the universe to do this on the physical level, but largely, in most scopes, it doesn't. I've always wondered if that itself isn't a state of flux, that at some point the universe expands so large, that certain laws like gravity no longer reach the other things in the universe, or the expansion no longer happens, and at some point it all just dissipates into a fog that folds back into itself for another round.

But that's for the astrophysicists to figure out.

3) The same way we do now. The entire concept of responsible decisions and ethical choice is based on the fact that we feel pain and pleasure, and desire to live and defend our life. No matter how many infinite possibilities for the universe to collapse on itself or any sort of metaphysical version of that concept, we're just trying to sort through the variables to survive, and the more morally conscious of us are trying to do it in a way that doesn't harm others and works towards a "greater good", and that itself is widely debatable. Eugenics and Euthanasia are perfect examples of something where "greater good" is hotly debated, and there's fantastic, solid arguments on both sides, with no way to reconcile them because of the obvious pitfalls of either side; Either we let everyone breed however they want, overpopulating the planet with potentially genetically worthless people (products of extreme inbreeding, for instance) or we let some asshole decide to kill all the Norwegian because they think Black Metal is the tool of the devil.

If you were to have some sort of infinite variable matrix of reality where all things had the sort of infinite potential to allow these sort of meta-system contradictions on each other at random, or all the time, or what have you, our methods would essentially be the same, just modified to a system with increased variability, but with the same ultimate goals.

I think it would just make it that much harder because of increased variables. It's pretty much impossible now, because of the variability already in the system. I mean, the lumber industry is a perfect example of something where if you get rid of it, thousands of people are jobless and starve in South America with no way to grow food or support themselves, and with it, we have no fucking rainforest left in a few years.

And from there the variables and interactions become so complex that every action we take is not even remotely able to be put into a singular category of right or wrong, only a long list of small consequences and reactions which each have their own tinier web of interactions, with ever tinier labels of "productive" or "destructive".

And when I said "we won't give a shit" I was referring to what it would take for us to have a "utopian" sort of society, where there were no jealousy or harm or anything else like that, which would ultimately require the negation of various human emotions, which would ultimately lead to the negation of things integral to our will to survive, leaving us "not giving a shit" but that isn't really relevant to the overall point of your post, so disregard I guess.