Consequences of viewing Nature

as a universal logic process

Revisiting Scientific Paradigms and Our Thinking About Ourselves

The first and foremost consequence of viewing Nature as a ‘Universal Logic Process’ is that it will dispel a critical in-built assumption (which has become a paradigm) in our minds that the beginning of phenomena is our observation of them. This misconception has not only limited the scientific framework used for inquiring into Nature but most importantly it has made us view our own individual selves as static things (not dynamic processes in evolution) separate from Nature. It is only through introducing the concept of ‘Universal Logic Process’ into our thinking that we can extend the frontiers of Science, especially physics and mathematics, and at the same time apply it to our thinking about ourselves.    

The problem with Science is that it has tied itself to observation (primarily direct through our sensory and laboratory tools) and quantitative inferences despite being confronted by their limitations. To take an example, the discipline of Physics, is number one, biased in favor of observation as the first step. And again biased in favor of quantities in the second step of drawing inferences from observations. This is how it has a priori limited itself.  We can observe this more clearly if we try and take out these two elements—observations and quantities—from it and see what is left. We will realize that these are the main pillars on which the edifice of Physics (and Science) is built. For understanding phenomena the process of observation is no doubt a critical and indispensable step that requires an observer, who in reality is a tool only capable of making a physical and active observation, which by itself does not tell us the conclusions, results and consequences of that observation. Analyzing and drawing inferences from that observation is another separate step and process in which we again confine these inferences to mathematical or quantified interpretations. By doing this Science again limits itself and assumes that Nature exists in terms of quantities. Then it makes symbols out of those quantities and not just numbers, where each symbol represents quantities interacting in a certain way. Viewing these two processes, of observation and inferences, as steps is not the problem, the issue arises when we make a step into a dead end, as a phenomenon in itself. 

 

The critical mistake we make is when we say that the first phenomenon is observation while in reality, the beginning of phenomena is logic and not observation. Observation itself as a phenomenon represents a very advanced evolutionary stage in Nature. Similarly, we have nothing against tools like mathematics (for drawing inferences) as it is a very powerful tool but we must not view it as the beginning and consequently limit our thinking. Because the Universal Logic Process is totally intolerant of any limited framework. The scientific and universal logics are like the difference between method and process. Since the Sciences of Physics and Mathematics are limited by their method, so they have a tendency to exclude parts of a process. And that is where they become anti-evolutionary. We can only correct the above two-fold misperception if we try and understand Nature historically, in terms of its origins. Only a historical rather than a mere physical view will enable us to acquire a fuller (instead of a partial) and objective understanding of Nature as a whole, and consequently make applications of that understanding on this holistic level rather than our existing observation based limited scale. This understanding will inform us that the existing biases in our scientific thinking are a logical problem and limitation of the beginnings or childhood of the intellect; the first intellectual stages of human mental evolution which became more crystallized and systematized in the period of early Greeks thinkers and philosophers. This is a perfectly valid stage and reality of our intellectual process as long as we don’t limit ourselves by it, and make a habit out of it. When that happens it becomes illogical or ceases to be objective.  Every time we insist on making our observations and inferences an intellectual habit we are actually indulging in philosophical idealism. Where we give them the status of a priori, absolute and fundamental truths in Nature. At that stage our subjective state permeates into our thinking and pollutes it and we no longer remain objective. So the bottom line is, we should be opposed to making habits out of our beginnings, even wonderful ones like our intellect, which is very dynamic, productive and creative. 

 

When we decide to look at Nature as a Universal Logic Process, we find there is no room for making a habit out of it, or creating ideas and paradigms about it that we subjectively like. If we were to do that, it would be an anomaly. We can do so with an equation but not a logic process, and that too a Universal Logic Process. 

 

Why and How Human Beings View Themselves as Separate from the Universal Logic Process 

 

The existing stage of our observation and thinking processes is actually a very advanced stage in the Universal Logic Process, which has already developed and evolved through many processes and states to reach our minds. The Universal Logic Process began with the random process stage consisting of random states of massless energy like strings etc. This process at that time was a combination of randomness and logic. Randomness is one side of the logic process, and also the limitation of logic of that particular state. The other side of that very state is its logic. So randomness is not the only reality in any given time but only one aspect of reality. To put it differently, logic is the hard core and randomness is the form of that process; a characteristic of logic of that historical stage of evolution. This logic process (in its random process stage) goes on developing and eventually evolves to its next stage, the programmed process, which begins with the origins of living things. Particularly, their elementary mental processes, which emerged as a precondition for the survival, stability and growth of a living form. When this process reaches the stage of human beings and their programmed mental processes then the capability of observing and thinking about ourselves as a separate and timeless thing arises in Nature. Which means we start viewing ourselves as a ‘thing’ minus a process, and consequently as supernatural beings. This implies that the individual now exists minus evolution (the core fundamental of the Universal Logic Process). 

 

This act of ours is a reflection of our programmed tendency to become illogical, which is expressed in terms of our wanting (not deliberately or consciously) to become a super-logical process. It is this kind of irrationality that became a part of our programmed mental process stage. This is not coming from our desires but from the limitation of the programmed stage as a logic process. Due to this when we look at any form as a thing in Nature we need to be vigilant of whether we are being logical or illogical in relation to it. And that applies equally to us when we look at ourselves as a thing in Nature.  

 

Moving on to this plane of thinking about ourselves is only possible if we have a view of evolution of the logic process beyond the programmed mental and biological states to its next stage, i.e. the intelligent process. In the intelligent process stage we proceed to an evolutionary process and not any state as such. While in the programmed stage we have a compulsion for stability and perpetuity, as the existing programme wants to go on repeating itself. So in a manner of speaking, it has an inherent tendency to be repetitive and not evolutionary. Despite the fact that Universal Logic Process has evolved its third process, which has become quite developed in us. And even the question of its maturing has arisen through its further evolution and becoming the main engine of Nature. This can only take place if we become intelligent about the programmed process, and then design an intervention from outside the programmed process through our intelligent process. We know that no software or programme updates or upgrades itself. Upgrades have to be introduced from the outside. Similarly in our case it is only through an intervention by our ‘post-programme’ emerging intelligent process that we can modify and upgrade our mental software and programmes and remove the existing obstacles posed by them in our further evolution to the mature intelligent process stage. This is the process of evolution we need to undertake, but we are not doing so at present. We are happy and satisfied with upgrading computer software but not our mental software and programmes. Hence in any thinking we do about our own selves, our preference is still to use our observations to come up with fixed and repeatable truths (as we do in Physics and the other Sciences), the basis for the emergence and development of mental software and the human programmed process in the first place. While in reality we should be in sync with the Universal Logic Process, which is continuing its further evolutionary journey through us.  

We forget at what evolutionary stage our thinking process is at present, and ignore its limitations, because we experience and look upon it as a very powerful tool, with its contemporary capabilities of problem solving, generating unending data, and using supercomputers in the process. So we are swayed by the power of that tool, and have a tendency to be oblivious of evolution. This is the limitation of the contemporary thinking or intellectual process at this stage of its evolution, while logically it should continue to extend and be in a dynamic state. Any product of evolution must itself be in a dynamic state. We must be wary of it becoming infinitely repeatable. Repeatability for a certain extent of time is logical but when it becomes infinitely repeatable, it becomes anti-logical or anti-evolution.  

We need to think of our lives as a journey in the process of logical evolution; a passing manifestation and evolving form of the logic process and not a static thing in itself. So our struggle today is with contemporary man who has in fact become anti-logical or in other words anti-evolution by persisting with his programmed state as the dominant process instead of his growing intelligent process. The problem with the programmed process is most graphically manifest in contemporary man whose programmes make his urge for repeatability a very strong motivation. In this state it becomes particularly difficult for him to put a logical evolutionary process on a pedestal superior than the desire for repeatability. The core issue is of what occupies the highest position in an individual’s mental hierarchy—the Universal Logic Process or the programmed process in the form of our repeatable habits, agendas, motivations, emotions, etc. The individual will not confront any problem as long as the highest position is occupied by the former instead of the latter

This can only happen when we decide and are able to reduce the dimensions of our existing programmed processes and create room for the abstract logic constant of the Universal Logic Process, at the head of our mental hierarchy. An individual is welcome to keep as many programmes as he wants as long as they are subordinate to the abstract logic constant in his intellectual hierarchy. The connection with this logic constant should be strong and firm and way higher than any programme. This has to be a sine quo non of any contemporary intellectual methodology, which is what will make us contemporary and modern.This is the point where we and the Universal Logic Process have arrived in our evolutionary journey. Now all our software and programmes can function under the umbrella of the abstract logic constant in the abstract. 

 

The abstract logic constant is not an idol but a game changer. It is the main spring of evolution. Whenever the stage of evolution comes there are thousands of obstacles in its way; some are higher, some deeper and so on. The pre-existing form resists and opposes evolution. At that stage it is this most powerful abstract logic constant which clears the way for specific logic. The power of this constant then overcomes the supremacy/dominance of all the obstacles. That is why we must not think of it as an idol but as the most dynamic and powerful factor of the Universal Logic Process. 

Today it is necessary that any vision that man has about anything, including his own evolution, must be aligned/connected with this abstract logic constant. Only this time he has to undertake this evolution himself through his intelligent process instead of waiting for the abstract logic constant to evolve him like it has evolved all other forms in Nature. Those who refuse to evolve will either get rejected and become a part of the random process or continue to live within the dominant framework of the programmed process and its problems and painful consequences. While those who are in sync with the logic constant will go on to the next stage of their evolution. Because the logic constant has no problem with both scenarios; it is impartial to both. Up to now man has been thinking that his main problem is of power break down, water, environmental pollution, food adulteration and security, inflation, unemployment, terrorism, etc. Little does he realize that it is his own self that has become the real problem today. Logically he has to now evolve further on the plane of the intelligent process while he is insisting he can choose to remain what he is. The truth is that the only real choice he has is to either persist with his anti-evolution and anti-logic thinking and doing and consequently go back to the random process stage, or he can start operating in line with the logic process and move on to the next logical stage of his own and Nature’s evolutionary journey.

 

Notes

i. Here we are not referring to the scientific fundamentals and spirit of inquiry but the existing theoretical and practical framework based on mathematics and empirical method using laboratory tools. 

ii. A view that is initially based on how we observe and experience ourselves as separate individual entities. 

iii. We confront the limitations of our direct observation in many areas of science, for example the principle of indeterminacy in quantum physics or say the string state of energy and there are many more. Similarly our quantitative inferences are also inadequate in dealing with phenomena involving complex qualities. For instance, one is unable to measure and quantify the phenomenon of consciousness, and hence cannot form any quantitative inferences and explanations about it. As Manuel Bejar Gallego (2008, p. 716) while explaining the problem confronted in the empirical method to explain consciousness says, … “In contrast to a physical particle or a biophysical structure, consciousness is more resistant to objectiveness and the rigors of experimentation. We cannot measure its mass, length or charge as if it were an electron. ….”. 

iv. Here we would like to share a quote by a Professor of Physics, Robert Adair, regarding the basic approach of physics in understanding the working of natural phenomena. In his view “The fundamental questions we ask in physics—and in other sciences—cannot address how something works or why something happens. One can only ask how one observation relates to another. This limitation on the character of questions derives from an implicitly accepted philosophy of science, a kind of logical positivism. Although the personal philosophies of scientists vary, as scientists they usually proceed according to the rule that in science the only questions that are admissible are questions that can be answered in principle by observation or by controlled observations and operations called experiments”….. (Adair, 1987, pp.3-4). Similarly according to Carnap (2003, p.254)…..“One of the great distinguishing features of modern science, as compared to the science of earlier periods, is its emphasis on what is called the “experimental method”. As we have seen, all empirical knowledge rests finally on observations….” …. “The experimental method is especially fruitful in fields in which there are quantitative concepts that can be accurately measured….”. One can see from this how physics limits itself to observation and measurable quantities.

v. Here we are referring to the Universal Logic Process, which gives birth to phenomena. 

vi. It arises with developed mental functioning in human beings. 

vii. A widely used approach in various sciences today is that one can adequately explain observable phenomena only through mathematical tools because mathematical laws govern natural phenomena. The origins of this approach go back to the Pythagoreans. We are proposing to move away from this approach so that we do not limit our thinking. 

viii. The evolution of the various post-language mental functions/processes like emotive/sensitivity mechanism, intelligence processes, abstraction, memory, imagination, idea process, etc., over the course of civilization.  

ix. Repetitive patterns of our preferred intellectual ideas or paradigms, approaches and methods of thinking and reasoning. 

x. Our existing software based and dominated mental functioning, in which the criterion is not objective reality. Of course this subjective functioning is also a part of objective reality, which means that it is a logical process in Nature, with objective mechanics.

 

xi. Any understanding which is in sync with both the logic of a specific phenomenon, and the universal logic process. 

 

xii. Changing states are nothing more than products of different processes, but the fundamental consequence of the logic process is evolution and not just a change of state. 

 

xiii.  This term is not being used in the specialized sense in which it is used in mathematics, statistics or information science, wherein we refer to an absence of predictability or a kind of uncertainty but with a certain regularity in occurrence which can be measured mathematically through probability distribution curves. We are only referring to the process of haphazard or accidental interaction without any preexisting design.

 

xiv. It is a limitation because logic at that stage could not be otherwise. It was limited by the parameters of its own operation in that state or in other words by its own logical compulsion of existing and operating randomly in that particular state. 

 

xv. It is not a form in the ordinary sense of being a thing but is the form of that process. 

 

xvi. This happens in consequence of our developed awareness and experience of our own individuality/personality as distinct from other beings (human and otherwise) and things in Nature. and this happens when our developed programmed process is able to make use of the facility of language and abstraction to construct a whole superstructure of ideas, feelings etc. about ourselves and life outside of us. And when we give this a verbal tag of ‘I’, then automatically we become distinct and separate from the rest of Nature. In our eyes we become a ‘thing’ disconnected from a process. Our growing observation and understanding of our differences from other phenomena (including our own species) in Nature at all levels has reinforced our thinking of being separate and fixed and not a part of a changing process. 

 

xvii.  Our dominant programmed process due to its subjective (which separates itself from the evolutionary process and makes itself static) and repetitive character (coming from the need for preserving the existing form) actually becomes illogical from the standpoint of the Universal Logic Process. So the programmed process is logical in terms of being a real process having objective mechanics but becomes illogical from this standpoint.  

 

xviii. Operating beyond the reach of the laws of Nature that we are now viewing as the Universal Logic Process. 

 

xix. It is not a limitation of logic per se but of its operation at a given stage of its own evolution.

 

xx. The word abstract is being stressed here so that there is no misunderstanding. There is no ‘specific’ which we are making a constant because no ‘specific’ can be a constant. 

xxi. Incidentally in our view the concept of God is also derived from this abstract logic constant, not from an observation but an extra sensory perception of it. It is the status and power of this abstract constant which has an operative and dynamic supremacy. So those who operate in opposition to it and do not turn away from anti-logical actions, are destroyed by it in the sense of being pulled away from the door of the intelligent process and thrown in the rubbish bin of the random process. So fear of God should actually be the fear of this abstract logic constant, which is the most powerful and mightiest of all. 

xxii. He has an illusion of having ample choices and alternatives and a freedom to choose whatever he wants. But that can be a reality of his existing specific micro logic. At the level of the macro universal logic process, like all forms in Nature, he does not really have a choice. When the time for evolution is at hand then the abstract logic constant takes over and overrides the specific micro logic and clears the way for the next stage. At that stage then there is no choice for individuals because they cannot escape this dominant reality.