|
Applying the Model of “Every 1 is perfect” to
Philosophical Debates The
modern druid focuses on five key debates: 1. Realism
vs. Anti-Realism 2. The
Observer’s Role in Reality 3. Objectivity
vs. Relational Knowledge 4. The Problem
of Continuity and Determinism 5. The
Nature of Information and Meaning He
explains each debate and show how the model of “perfect decided events”
clarifies it. Realism vs. Anti-Realism The
Debate: ·
Scientific Realists claim there
is an objective, observer-independent reality with definite properties, which
science gradually uncovers. ·
Anti-Realists (Instrumentalists, Constructivists) argue
that theories are tools for organizing very personal experiences, not
descriptions of observer-independent truths. How This
Model Applies: ·
Before observation, quantum systems are not in
any definite state we can label “real” or identifiable in the classical
sense. ·
What becomes “real” and identifiable is the
decided, hence quantised differential event produced by measurement (meaning, by an observer
functioning as contact.) ·
These quantised events, identified by an observer as
‘things’, are perfect in that they are complete and
definite—but only relative to the observer’s response set-up. Implication: ·
This supports a middle position: o There is
something (the potential, and about which nothing (locally meaningful) can
be said) that exists beyond observation. o But the only
things we can identify and call “real” in an epistemically complete sense are
our personal, unique responses to discrete, decided, differential events. o This is
sometimes called participatory realism (as in John Wheeler’s
“observer-participancy”). Example: ·
The electron doesn’t have a definite position
until you, a
unique experimental set, measure (meaning observe, meaning
being struck and responding to) it. ·
The act of measurement doesn’t merely reveal
reality—it makes a (an observer’s) specific (meaning unique and
unpredictable) position
real and identifiable (via memory). This
reframes the debate: rather than realism vs. anti-realism, it becomes a
question of how unidentifiable and random potential becomes an
identifiable real actuality in discrete steps. The Observer’s Role in Reality The
Debate: ·
Does the observer “create” reality, or merely
discover it? ·
In classical physics, observation was passive. ·
In quantum mechanics, observation appears to be
active. ·
In druidism, observation is always active (selection and processing
towards increasing survival capacity). How This
Model Applies: ·
Observation (meaning contact) is a
conditional, inferential (meaning self-referential) response, not a
passive reading. ·
Measurement (observation) apparatus and context (the current ‘fittest’
survival set-up) determine which aspect of the system becomes
definite (as
‘best’ means of survival adaption). ·
Each outcome is: o decided
(made definite, certain), o differential
(contrasted against prior possibilities), o reified
(made real (as
hardware) by the observer via contact @ c). Implication: ·
The observer does not create reality out of
nothing. ·
But the observer does create the conditions
under which one definite identifiable reality happens. ·
Thus, the observer (meaning contact) is not
incidental but essential to any cognizable fact. Example: ·
Whether a photon (or its medium) behaves as a
wave or a particle depends on how the (experimental) measurement (meaning contact) is you set
up—the question conditions the answer. Objectivity vs. Relational Knowledge The
Debate: ·
Classical science assumes objectivity: facts are
true independently of who observes. ·
Quantum theory challenges this, suggesting
knowledge may be inherently relational. ·
Observers create actual facts as (personally)
identifiable realities. How This
Model Applies: ·
An event is perfect (complete) only within the
context (and
which is a relativity vacuum) of the observer (or experimental set) interaction. ·
Another observer (experimental set) with
different measurement settings gets a different “perfect” event. ·
Thus, knowledge is always relational,
anchored in: o the
observer’s question (measurement basis), o the
resolved answer (the decided event). Implication: ·
Objectivity is not about escaping perspective. ·
Instead, it is about acknowledging that every
fact is a relation between observer and an inferred contact (as energy packet) transmission
system. ·
This is close to the Relational Quantum
Mechanics view (Rovelli), which holds that facts are only meaningful
relative to an interaction. Example: ·
If Alice measures spin along the x-axis and Bob
measures along the z-axis, they will have different, equally valid “perfect”
records of the same electron. If a human sees a tiny furry creature, a
complex data aggregate, as ‘mouse’, a snake sees the same data aggregate as
red thermal thermal blob. The Problem of Continuity and Determinism The
Debate: ·
Classical physics assumes the world evolves in a
continuous, deterministic way. ·
Quantum physics introduces discontinuity
(collapse) and probabilistic outcomes. How The Druid’s
Model Applies: ·
Reality before observation is a not cognizable field
of possibilities (quantised rather than continuous). ·
What becomes knowable, i.e., an identifiable
reality, is always a discrete, decided unit (the “1”). ·
No observer, as discrete unit, can ever register
the infinite continuity—only the finite, quantized event. Implication: ·
This helps dissolve the tension: o Inferred
underlying continuity exists as potential. o Cognizable
reality is inherently discrete and contingent. ·
Determinism applies only to the evolution of
probabilities, not to individual outcomes. Example: ·
The statistical distribution of photon (+ its
medium) that hits a screen (possible a confined mass of photons) can be
predicted, but the location of each individual hit is decided only in the act
of measurement of a whole wave state. The Nature of Information and Meaning The
Debate: ·
What is information? ·
Is it something purely abstract, or something
physically instantiated? How The
Druid’s Model Applies: ·
Information is not an abstract label applied
after the fact. ·
It is a quantized bite (as repeating series of random
bits) of
resolved difference (hence a bit) created when an observer (an amassed, aggregated
contact) interacts with potentiality. ·
Every measurement yields a finite, definite (defined because confined) unit of
information (i.e.
a bite, rather than a bit as unit of instruction, strike or contact)—and no
more. Implication: ·
Information is inherently bound to: o the act
of observation, meaning
selective, constrained data processing. o the
discrete event that is decided, hence certain, hence presenting @c o the
observer’s interpretive context that generates the observers identifiable
reality experience as
analogue (i.e. a personal ‘as if’) to its quantised data instruction
reception. ·
This grounds meaning in selected physical acts of
reification, not detached ideal concepts. Example: ·
A photon striking a sensor pixel yields exactly
one bit (did it arrive or not?)—a fully real and bounded fact. Summary of Application The Druid’s
model provides: ·
A clearer framework to understand how cognition
arises from discrete, decided events. ·
A way to bridge realism and not cognizable energy
packet transmission by emphasizing the transformation of possibility into
actual, reified differences. ·
A defence of the observer’s active role in
shaping, indeed in creating what counts as real. ·
A demonstration that all knowledge (Latin: scientia) is
relational and quantized. ·
A resolution to debates about whether information
is abstract or concrete: it is concrete and discrete at the point of
measurement, meaning contact @c. In Plain Terms: When the
modern druid says “Everyone is perfect,” he reflects the profound fact
that every observer-registered event is, in itself, a complete, unambiguous
unit of reality—one that could not be more fully resolved in that moment.
This is the foundation of everything that can be known, discussed, or
measured. |