The Reconcilation of Meaning in Causality and Choice

Surely it might be slightly arbitrary to unite the concept of meaning- of value and of worth, with the concept of its inherent goodness within a few paragraphs of discourse. The concept of meaning is indeed a very important dimension that applies towards all things; all things can be described in terms of its meaning, of its value and worth, just as how all materials can be evaluated to a certain price. On the other hand, the concept of (objective) goodness as we conventionally know lies in some la-la land between the ideals of true love and the perfection of God. By these standards, it is extremely difficult to see how money and love can actually be one unified concept. If love and money speaks of valuation and goodness, then why does the love of money be the root of all evil?

From the last post we had taken another induction to this statement, implicitly. We have not fully justified that goodness to man is actually in essence similar to metaphysical goodness, but rather implied, through the intuition that ‘man values what is inherently good to him’, that what we treat as worth must be good. But we do not know for a fact if such an intuition is an objective truth or is it no more than a subjective notion inculcated on human standards. After all, if goodness by value can be objective and subjective (we will see to the rigorous proof soon), then definitely value is based, to a certain extent, by perspectives and viewpoints. If we acknowledge the validity of the claim (in the last post) that humans are the stewards of creation and that the monotheistic God is the master of creation. Surely both views would consequent in different goodness by value towards the same object- just as how our nineteen year old girl will mean differently to her sister and her parents simultaneously.

Is this statement exactly true? By our definition of metaphysical goodness, we are speaking of the value the object holds at the point of creation. While some may argue that the value at creation may be relative, since it may find different purposes with the progress of time, it is often forgotten that determinism (or the logical proceed of events that in a way speaks of inevitability) would naturally ensure that meaning itself will remain fixed. What actually seems to be relative would then be the different permutations of causality towards different individuals, and of course from within, the phenomenon of free choice. Now, what are we leading to exactly?

If we hypothesize that change is the only constant mechanism for the universe, then naturally there would be only one type of change that can occur. The logic to this conclusion is trival, since if change itself may have two differing natures, then there would arise different permutations (transcendentations) of change in time. In other words, change would not be constant since change it itself may be changed to a constant (i.e. no change). The universe could be an intergalactic cosmos today, and a pear tomorrow. Two rocks upon collision may or may not change its physical orientation and construct, since one type may advocate a certain change, and the other advocate another type of change simultaneously. The outcomes of this issue would then only be resolved by creating two parallel dimensions, each denoting a possible outcome. Unless we blatantly advocate the notion of parallel dimensions and are willing to accept the fact that there are infinite dimensions created today, then we can generally conclude that the above hypothesis is correct. This change that we know of today then lies in our definition of deterministic change.

Deterministic change in essence is change via the theories of truth (i.e. the laws of physics and probability); and insofar, every change that had occurred before is in essence a change lead by determining factors and causes. From rocks to humans, it has been argued that it is indeed ultimately the rule of deterministic principles that govern all motion, being, intent and will. This argument is the crux of causality.

Now immediately we see a slight contradiction. On one hand we advocate subjectivity and choice- we state from the above that goodness (in human standards) is relative and we preach an underlying message to change for the better. Now if determinism and causality is the sole mechanism of evolution since the days of creation, then doesn’t it make the concept of subjectivity and free will falsifiable? The strife for a better would be a logical paradox, since there can be no chance of escape from determinism. Also, there would be no need for any further change, since goodness and intent itself would be absolute (constant throughout all dimensions of time i.e. absolutism), and all derived products would be metaphysically as good as the day the universe was created.

On one hand we can now see a clear reason to the statement that all things that exist today have an inherent degree of goodness and purpose. If we were to re-conceptualize the above conclusion with the analogy of space rocks and the concept of change as Functions in a mathematical process (i.e. f(x)), then the inherent (metaphysical) qualia of the a space rock would be unchanging since its first encounter with determinism, since all functions cannot degrade the quality of answers, but rather transmute them from a state of being to another (which is in essence a consequence of beauty).

On the other hand, we have yet to address the contradiction with the concepts of choice, human autonomy and potential. From our previous project, we had utilized the preset model of compatibilism to explain that free will and determinism coexist. We had stated then that compatibilism holds that free will is a 'hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires.' However, today we will be giving the specific reason of free will, and from there the official statement of reconciliation between human subjective goodness and metaphysical objective goodness.

It is imperative for us to understand beforehand that the phenomenon of choice and belief, contrasted to causality and truth, is not two mutually exclusive alternative projections, but actually one in the essence of change. Subjectivity itself is not a slave of objectivity, but is rather a phenomenon created out of the infinite permutations of being and (deterministic) change. Currently, our understanding of this issue would probably lie in the domain of machines and free will- from the vast permutations of programmes and command processes within robots we often hypothesize a single programme that may one day cause the machine to loop back its own outputs as inputs, creating a form of sentience within itself, and subsequently an autonomous being.

Indeed, it had been on the same lines of such determinism that sentience and subjectivity had arisen. It was known that the fundamental chemical reactions that brought life were self-sustaining reactions. And from the infinite subtle changes of determinism we had seen the diversity and evolution of life. Biblically, the formation of the true human consciousness (or the metaphysical realization of the soul) was arbitrarily emplaced on the sixth day. This can be compared philosophically, since a single choice within a domain of possible choices, as the domain increases infinitely, tends from a choice out of mere probability, to a choice out of intent. From the previous post, we state that there must be a meaning for existence, since there is infinitely more possible for inexistence to occur. If we may draw analogies between these two examples, and bear in mind the statistical law that an outcome will not occur if it’s probability of occurrence is exceedingly low, then by now we can see that man, in his infinite deterministic options of actions before, creates for himself a new phenomenon of intent when a particular action is considered at any time. In other words, it is actually in (not from) determinism that free will, intent and choice had existed.

As an integratory conclusion, we can also see that since there needs to be an infinity of possibilities to be considered before determinism becomes free will, just as how an infinite superposition of 2D images may lead to a 3D image of an object, the nature of free will (i.e. 3D) would naturally transcend the nature of determinism (i.e. 2D). This is aptly reflected in the bible, since religion tells us that man has potential, and as an additional entity (a soul) that is one-step-higher than other forms of creation. For the record, man was created on the last day, and if we were to see that each day denotes a transcendentation of events over the next, then naturally we can see more than the simple correlation of theories.

So insofar we have seen the nature of human will and intent, now if we are to return back to our discrepancies between human goodness and metaphysical meaning, now we can introspect these two domains (which is in essence one) in a much clearer light.

In light of determinism and free will, subjectivity would be the slight discrepancies arising via the multitude deterministic options undertaken in life. The constant nature of feedback in life would then allow current deterministic causes to affect subsequent decisions, emotions and beliefs, personalizing each of them to form a collective set of traits unique to the individual. Each subsequent reaction then would hold meaning and intent, since although it is in essence still determinism in action (the presence of a motorcyclist cutting across our lanes causes us to slam our brakes and raise our middle finger) the infinite possibility of previous experiences and possible reactions in our collective domain would transcend each meaningless cause to an action of intent and purpose. The psychological term of this collective domain would of course be individuality.

As we experience qualia objectivity in subjectivity, we begin to see that a single objective choice, or entity would hold a multitude of subjective perceptions based on experiences from the past. The quale of the human life itself is objective, fixed and metaphysical, but it is our infinite permutations of causality, through the constant feedback of introspection and attitudes, that lead us to view this objective goodness in a more subjective and dynamic sense. As we begin to arbitrarily assign qualia toward the objective things around us, an object, say a snake may be thought as a good pet to some, but to those who have been bitten before by snakes, the concept of 'pet' would most probably be replaced by ‘pest’. Although the inherent metaphysical qualia of that (one) snake is objective, our mindsets naturally transmutes this qualia based upon our standards.

In the same sense, it is our now-intended actions that subjectively denote how good we are- we know that our nineteen year old girlfriend has an objective meaning to life, and it is that objective qualia that qualifies her as a human being proper. But on the other concept of conventional goodness, what we have denoted as the meaning to man, the goodness she would pose to someone as an obedient child, or a potential bride (awww….) would be objectively subjective to the individual domains of the people around her, or at least their thoughts and beliefs; and hence we conclude earlier that meaning, or goodness to man is indeed relative.

It is from here we may finally see truth and reconciliation in the statement: “you are who you are”, and the statement “all man are equal”. We also begin to see some light in the phrase: “love convicts (brings meaning) the soul to objective goodness.” Since love allows us to subjectively recognize each other as objective individuals with an objective qualia, naturally such an action would bring a certain meaning and goodness to ourselves.

As a simplified conclusion, we have tackled various issues regarding meaning, intent and goodness. While determinism allows all things to be fundamentally good as they were upon creation, it was the ‘chosen’ outcome amongst infinite possibilities that brought up a higher state of intent, goodness, or potential to man than just entities of creation. The objective meaning (goodness) of man then is objectively immense and subjective, and from the constant feedback of life, this leads to the slight differences between his actions of discrimination and introspection to the goodness of things. To each his own, and as we then compare each objective qualia (or potential) on a relative scale, we can finally see what we have termed as conventional goodness, or the meaning to man. Such is the construct of events, leading us to the earlier conclusion that goodness is objective and subjective at the same time.

In our next post we will introspect the workings of conventional goodness. As we utter that idealistic ‘change for the better’ we get to see what does that phrase actually means. Hopefully we may then see a direction to goodness, and subsequently, the meaning of life. On a lighter side, it is also about time for us to realize that the title of this post is actually a clever pun by itself.