Gödel’s Infinite Candy Store

[ScottRoberts]

A couple of remarks on this discussion:

I think what would help here is a distinction I have made between qualitative and quantitative infinity. Quantitative infinity is what mathematicians deal with, like the infinity of natural numbers. There one finds the argument over whether there are actual infinities or only potential infinities (my view is that within mathematics, actual infinities are concepts one can play with, while no actual quantitative infinities exist outside of mathematics). Qualitative infinity, meanwhile, is that which allows new forms to come into being (or perhaps better said: allows the One Form to expand). It is "infinite" only in the sense that there is no restriction to what can come into being. Well, perhaps there are logical restrictions, e.g., no round squares.

Word of warning: it is, I think, important to not say that formlessness is qualitatively infinite in the way I have defined it. Rather, one should just say that conscious activity is qualitatively infinite. That's because both formlessness and the One Form are involved (as the two forces of one power) in what comes into being. Formlessness alone, assuming it existed, which it doesn't, could not produce anything.

Another remark: I do not regard forms as countable objects -- one can only count them by isolating them, but they are not truly isolatable. Which I figure makes arguing from the Gödel theorem moot.

[Eugene I]

If we consider each natural number an ideal form, which I think we both agree is reasonable to do, and it is what we have been doing, then the fact that they will always exist in definite relation to each other, whether we experience them or not, means the infinity set of ideal forms actually exists under the pragmatic-phenomenological approach. As soon as we discover an ideal form, it is as if that ideal form always existed (unless you claim discovering them will retroactively change all of the previous relations).

It makes sense and it's a valid idealistic paradigm (Platonic), but it's not the only one possible and it's only a unprovable hypothesis, that's all I'm saying. The Platonic hypothesis cannot be proven phenomenologically (experimentally) because it is impossible to experimentally prove the existence of anything until it is actually consciously experienced. So the Platonic hypothesis will remain unprovable. But it is also impossible to refute it, so it will always remain a possibility.

Another alternative non-Platonic hypothesis under phenomenological approach within idealism is that the numbers and their relations actualize into existence only when they are consciously experienced.

There is a spiritual reason why I'm not a big fan of the Platonic hypothesis. It makes life and progression meaningless. If everything possible already exists, achieved, known and actualized in the eternal realm of ideas, then what's the point of doing anything, making efforts to know, to develop, to evolve? While if the ideas are only actualized into existence when experienced, then we are the discoverers in the limitless universe of ideas, we are making ideals real, we make actual inventions and progress. For me personally it encourages and motivates my creativity, it gives me a sense of adventure into previously unknown and unexperienced. Note that "limitless" is not the same as "infinite", "limitless" means that we are always pushing the limits and expand and create the world of new ideas into the realms that have not even existed before, while "infinite" means that the whole infinity of ideas is already there and known by consciousness, and we as personalized alters are just going by infinite circles there.

[AshvinP]

If we consider each natural number an ideal form, which I think we both agree is reasonable to do, and it is what we have been doing, then the fact that they will always exist in definite relation to each other, whether we experience them or not, means the infinity set of ideal forms actually exists under the pragmatic-phenomenological approach. As soon as we discover an ideal form, it is as if that ideal form always existed (unless you claim discovering them will retroactively change all of the previous relations).

It makes sense and it's a valid idealistic paradigm (Platonic), but it's not the only one possible and it's only a unprovable hypothesis, that's all I'm saying. The Platonic hypothesis cannot be proven phenomenologically (experimentally) because it is impossible to experimentally prove the existence of anything until it is actually consciously experienced. So the Platonic hypothesis will remain unprovable. But it is also impossible to refute it, so it will always remain a possibility.

Another alternative non-Platonic hypothesis under phenomenological approach within idealism is that the numbers and their relations actualize into existence only when they are consciously experienced.

There is a spiritual reason why I'm not a big fan of the Platonic hypothesis. It makes life and progression meaningless. If everything possible already exists, achieved, known and actualized in the eternal realm of ideas, then what's the point of doing anything, making efforts to know, to develop, to evolve? While if the ideas are only actualized into existence when experienced, then we are the discoverers in the limitless universe of ideas, we are making ideals real, we make actual inventions and progress. For me personally it encourages and motivates my creativity, it gives me a sense of adventure into previously unknown and unexperienced. Note that "limitless" is not the same as "infinite", "limitless" means that we are always pushing the limits and expand and create the world of new ideas into the realms that have not even existed before, while "infinite" means that the whole infinity of ideas is already there and known by consciousness, and we as personalized alters are just going by infinite circles there.

So your latter point on "spiritual reason" is what I was initially trying to ask about in my first question, "do you hold each person will eventually experience all that everyone else expieriences?" It's not exactly the same as your reason for rejecting infinity whole above, but it is related. And I don't think you ever answered it, so I am still curious your answer. In the meantime, I will say it appears you are ignoring the value which comes from discovering the infinity whole and alll its relations for oneself. It also seems you are valuing your own desire to say "I am the one who created this ideal constellation" over satisfaction which comes from, "I have discovered this ideal constellation and thereby enriched my understanding and contribution to the eternal whole". To me, that is born of a desire to own one's own experiences at the expense of the integral whole, which is not at all aligned with my own Christocentric spiritual view (or any spiritual view I am aware of).

One more point on the other issue - Scott makes a good point. We are always talking about qualitative relations of forms under idealism, not isolated forms. There is not much use talking about "quantitative infinity", because we all agree there are only qualitative relations in essence. I am still torn on whether, not assuming idealism, there is any phenomenological basis to conclude infinity whole exists based on our experience of how "new" ideal form-relations function when they are discovered, i.e. as if they always existed. I need to think about that more.

Another point - you are still focused on this issue of "provable" by mathematical theorem and I don't get why, or at least I have not seen your own explanation for why that is warranted. Phenomenonal consciousness cannot be "proved" by mathematical theorem, yet it is clearly something we can have extreme (basically certain) confidence it actually exists. What is provable by intellectual models has zero bearing on what we are experiencing or can experience, under our view.

[Cleric K]

There is a spiritual reason why I'm not a big fan of the Platonic hypothesis. It makes life and progression meaningless. If everything possible already exists, achieved, known and actualized in the eternal realm of ideas, then what's the point of doing anything, making efforts to know, to develop, to evolve? While if the ideas are only actualized into existence when experienced, then we are the discoverers in the limitless universe of ideas, we are making ideals real, we make actual inventions and progress. For me personally it encourages and motivates my creativity, it gives me a sense of adventure into previously unknown and unexperienced. Note that "limitless" is not the same as "infinite", "limitless" means that we are always pushing the limits and expand and create the world of new ideas into the realms that have not even existed before, while "infinite" means that the whole infinity of ideas is already there and known by consciousness, and we as personalized alters are just going by infinite circles there.

Eugene, I can say many things here but I'm afraid that we'll succumb again into abstract technicalities.

I've talked about this many times but you still seem to hold on to the fundamental nature of linear, sequential Time. Even in purely physical sense General Relativity suggests the events of past and future exist simultaneously.

Holding on to linear time and still maintaining the candy shop view has some consequences. Let's take memory. I suppose you would agree that even though in our incarnate state our memory is limited to our current life (unless we don't do something about it), in the disincarnate state we see our state of being as a link in a chain of metamorphosis.

What is your view on this?
One variant is that our state of being is like a moving window (aperture) along the Cosmic potential of states of being. That means that as we metamorph towards new states of being the older states gradually fade away into oblivion. In this sense we are always in the 'middle' of an infinite movie strip where the aperture encompasses certain amount of frames. As the aperture progresses towards new frames, the oldest frames move out and cease to exist as far as our individual conscious perspective is concerned. The consequence of this view is that there's no way to know if we are not reexperiencing frames that are quite similar to something else that we may have already experienced infinitely long ago.

Another variant is that memory builds up infinitely. But there are many problems with this. For one, we should already have infinite amount of memory, unless existence started in a given instance with blank memory state and continued building up from there.

All these things are quite abstract and certainly are far from my comfort zone. I try to speak concretely about the nature of Time and the Eternal by showing how consciousness transforms when we move along the axis of higher cognition, but since the topic of higher consciousness is right down dismissed, my explanations seem to amount to nothing. That's why I bring the question in a quite abstract manner, to indicate in a way, that if we accept linear time as fundamental, we hit upon quite some paradoxes.

[Eugene I]

So your latter point on "spiritual reason" is what I was initially trying to ask about in my first question, "do you hold each person will eventually experience all that everyone else expieriences?" It's not exactly the same as your reason for rejecting infinity whole above, but it is related. And I don't think you ever answered it, so I am still curious your answer. In the meantime, I will say it appears you are ignoring the value which comes from discovering the infinity whole and alll its relations for oneself. It also seems you are valuing your own desire to say "I am the one who created this ideal constellation" over satisfaction which comes from, "I have discovered this ideal constellation and thereby enriched my understanding and contribution to the eternal whole". To me, that is born of a desire to own one's own experiences at the expense of the integral whole, which is not at all aligned with my own Christocentric spiritual view (or any spiritual view I am aware of).

I personally have no motivation whatsoever to feel or say "I am the one who created this ideal constellation". I don't feel myself separate from the universal consciousness and don't care about what counts as my "own" contribution. But where I find the value and the meaning is the collective endeavor of creative development, exploration and pushing the limits to the unknown in the universe of conscious states/ideas.

To your question: "do you hold each person will eventually experience all that everyone else expieriences?" I would think the answer is "no" exactly because there is an inexhaustible amount of possible experiences and it is impossible to ever experience them all, and for the same reason, impossible for one person to experience the same experiences that everyone else experienced. And that is what is so great about it: there is no "redundancy" in our evolutionary and creative process of exploration and development.

I will say it appears you are ignoring the value which comes from discovering the infinity whole and all its relations for oneself.

Yes, there is some value it in, but it still seems meaningless to me, what's the point of going through the same path for yourself that has already been known and traversed before you? Like they say in the Bible: "There is nothing new under the sun" Yes, you will progress along your personal development, but what is your contribution to the collective and universal if all you learned has been already known and experienced? This seems to be more self-centric endeavor, it's all about your personal evolution, as opposed to the view where the collective universal consciousness is continuously evolving, creating new ideations and expanding into previously non-existed realms of ideations, and we are all contributing to this endeavor. To me if feels much more meaningful.

One more point on the other issue - Scott makes a good point. We are always talking about qualitative relations of forms under idealism, not isolated forms. There is not much use talking about "quantitative infinity", because we all agree there are only qualitative relations in essence. I am still torn on whether, not assuming idealism, there is any phenomenological basis to conclude infinity whole exists based on our experience of how "new" ideal form-relations function when they are discovered, i.e. as if they always existed. I need to think about that more.

Another point - you are still focused on this issue of "provable" by mathematical theorem and I don't get why, or at least I have not seen your own explanation for why that is warranted. Phenomenonal consciousness cannot be "proved" by mathematical theorem, yet it is clearly something we can have extreme (basically certain) confidence it actually exists. What is provable by intellectual models has zero bearing on what we are experiencing or can experience, under our view.

I agree, the area of applicability of mathematics is very limited, but it means that we can never prove the existence of anything except for what we actually consciously experienced. But neither we can prove that those "anythings" do not exists. All we can do beyond what we experienced is only hypotheses or beliefs. Which leaves us in a sort-of ether agnostic (as a negative attitude), or "possibilian" (as a more positive attitude) positions. For myself I choose the "possibilianism".

[AshvinP]

So your latter point on "spiritual reason" is what I was initially trying to ask about in my first question, "do you hold each person will eventually experience all that everyone else expieriences?" It's not exactly the same as your reason for rejecting infinity whole above, but it is related. And I don't think you ever answered it, so I am still curious your answer. In the meantime, I will say it appears you are ignoring the value which comes from discovering the infinity whole and alll its relations for oneself. It also seems you are valuing your own desire to say "I am the one who created this ideal constellation" over satisfaction which comes from, "I have discovered this ideal constellation and thereby enriched my understanding and contribution to the eternal whole". To me, that is born of a desire to own one's own experiences at the expense of the integral whole, which is not at all aligned with my own Christocentric spiritual view (or any spiritual view I am aware of).

I personally have no motivation whatsoever to feel or say "I am the one who created this ideal constellation". I don't feel myself separate from the universal consciousness and don't care about what counts as my "own" contribution. But where I find the value and the meaning is the collective endeavor of creative development, exploration and pushing the limits to the unknown in the universe of conscious states/ideas.

To your question: "do you hold each person will eventually experience all that everyone else expieriences?" I would think the answer is "no" exactly because there is an inexhaustible amount of possible experiences and it is impossible to ever experience them all, and for the same reason, impossible for one person to experience the same experiences that everyone else experienced. And that is what is so great about it: there is no "redundancy" in our evolutionary and creative process of exploration and development.

I will say it appears you are ignoring the value which comes from discovering the infinity whole and all its relations for oneself.

Yes, there is some value it in, but it still seems meaningless to me, what's the point of going through the same path for yourself that has already been known and traversed before you? Like they say in the Bible: "There is nothing new under the sun" Yes, you will progress along your personal development, but what is your contribution to the collective and universal if all you learned has been already known and experienced? This seems to be more self-centric endeavor, it's all about your personal evolution, as opposed to the view where the collective universal consciousness is continuously evolving, creating new ideations and expanding into previously non-existed realms of ideations, and we are all contributing to this endeavor. To me if feels much more meaningful.

I never said we are going through the same path that has already been known and traversed - our integral path is truly unique for "humans" as a species and for each individual human. There is nothing about "whole infinity" or eternity which prevents that unique evolutionary contribution - in fact, Scott's image of the One ever-expanding Form can encompass both qualitative infinity and novel ideation. It is one of the great mysteries of the Cosmos - how fragmented perspectives can, by way of spiritual freedom and moral development, integrate with each other and not only restore, but also enrich the Wholeness.

What really makes no sense to me is how ideational activity can lead to random or semi-random experiences which are not more and more structured as perspectives of the One Mind are integrated with each other. Our roles in serving the Whole will become more and more well-defined as that integration occurs. The major difference between ancient 'caste' system and new one would be that we are voluntarily choosing to organize ourselves in that manner, precisely for the benefit of the Whole. And that seems to be what you are mostly objecting to in terms of "whole infinity", etc., but maybe not. Do you find yourself disliking and/or disagreeing with this expression below?

Humanity will be differentiated in the future even more than in the past; it will be divided into categories, but not in an arbitrary way; from their own spiritual inner capacities men will come to know that they must work together for the whole body corporate.

There will be categories and classes however fiercely class-war may rage today, among those who do not develop egoism but accept the spiritual life and evolve toward what is good a time will come when men will organize themselves voluntarily. They will say: One must do this, the other must do that. Division of work even to the smallest detail will take place; work will be so organized that a holder of this or that position will not find it necessary to impose his authority on others. All authority will be voluntarily recognized, so that in a small portion of humanity we shall again have divisions in the seventh age, which will recall the principle of castes, but in such a way that no one will feel forced into any caste, but each will say: I must undertake a part of the work of humanity, and leave another part to another — both will be equally recognized.

One more point on the other issue - Scott makes a good point. We are always talking about qualitative relations of forms under idealism, not isolated forms. There is not much use talking about "quantitative infinity", because we all agree there are only qualitative relations in essence. I am still torn on whether, not assuming idealism, there is any phenomenological basis to conclude infinity whole exists based on our experience of how "new" ideal form-relations function when they are discovered, i.e. as if they always existed. I need to think about that more.

Another point - you are still focused on this issue of "provable" by mathematical theorem and I don't get why, or at least I have not seen your own explanation for why that is warranted. Phenomenonal consciousness cannot be "proved" by mathematical theorem, yet it is clearly something we can have extreme (basically certain) confidence it actually exists. What is provable by intellectual models has zero bearing on what we are experiencing or can experience, under our view.

I agree, the area of applicability of mathematics is very limited, but it means that we can never prove the existence of anything except for what we actually consciously experienced. But neither we can prove that those "anythings" do not exists. All we can do beyond what we experienced is only hypotheses or beliefs. Which leaves us in a sort-of ether agnostic (as a negative attitude), or "possibilian" (as a more positive attitude) positions. For myself I choose the "possibilianism".

OR, we can stop arbitrarily limiting ourselves to abstract intellectual models and start to figure out what objective structures of Reality can be experienced and tested by way of higher cognition. That is the whole point - we don't need to throw in the towel to "possibilianism", which is at great odds with, "collective endeavor of creative development, exploration and pushing the limits to the unknown". Waving the white flag to "only hypotheses or beliefs" is the end of exploration and creative development, an end which many people in modern society have already reached.

[Eugene I]

I never said we are going through the same path that has already been known and traversed - our integral path is truly unique for "humans" as a species and for each individual human. There is nothing about "whole infinity" or eternity which prevents that unique evolutionary contribution - in fact, that is why Scott's image of the One ever-expanding Form can encompass both. It is one of the great mysteries of the Cosmos - how fragmented perspectives can, by way of spiritual freedom, integrate with each other and not only restore, but also enrich the wholeness.

What really makes no sense to me is how ideational activity can lead to random or semi-random experiences which are not more and more structured as perspectives of the One Mind are integrated with each other. Our roles in serving the Whole will become more and more well-defined as that integration occurs. The major difference between ancient 'caste' system and new one would be that we are voluntarily choosing to organize ourselves in that manner, precisely for the benefit of the Whole. And that seems to be what you are mostly objecting to in terms of "whole infinity", etc., but maybe not. Do you find yourself disliking and/or disagreeing with this expression below?

No, I'm not, I'm all for the interconnected and integrated activity of the community of individuals as agents of the One Consciousness. You seem to be confusing two different aspects here: one is the structure and integration of the collective evolutionary activity, and the other one is the whether the expansion of the spiritual activity "discovers" pre-existing ideations, or "creates"/"invents" them, I other words, whether these ideations eternally pre-exist but discovered within time in the evolutionary process, or whether they never existed and are being created/actualized at the instance of their conscious experiencing.

Scott's image of the One ever-expanding Form can encompass both

I'm not quite sure how to reconcile the One ever-expanding into the universe of forms and simultaneously timelessly experiencing the whole infinity of all forms/ideas at once. One way I can envision it (hypothetically) is that the infinity of all possible forms/ideas is indeed timelessly consciously experienced by the One, however, most of it is experienced unconsciously. So, the evolution is the process of expanding (in time) of the boundary between the meta-cognitive conscious experience and the non-meta-cognitive unconscious one. In this case I can recover the meaning of the evolutionary process: we are pushing the frontiers of meta-cognition and meta-cognitively discovering new realms of conscious forms that were previously experienced only sub/unconsciously by the One Consciousness (am I becoming a Platonist? ).

OR, we can stop arbitrarily limiting ourselves to abstract intellectual models and start to figure out what objective structures of Reality can be experienced and tested by way of higher cognition. That is the whole point - we don't need to throw in the towel to "possibilianism", which is at great odds with, "collective endeavor of creative development, exploration and pushing the limits to the unknown". Waving the white flag to "only hypotheses or beliefs" is the end of exploration and creative development, an end which many people in modern society have already reached.

I actually see it differently: possibilianism is the open gate to exploration and creative development in any possible directions not limited to our conscious or unconscious beliefs. When we have certain beliefs, they are useful and do serve us in certain ways, yet always limit our perspective and developmental possibilities, so there are times to critically evaluate our beliefs and be opened to other possibilities in order to keep moving along the never-ending path of exploration and development.

There are definitely objective structures (or, rather, multi-subjective structures), but at the same time, what Godel theorem is telling us, that there is an infinite and never-ending variety of such structures as possibilities. There is nothing wrong with conservatism of valuing, being grounded in and attached to structures that served us well so far. Yet, if we limit our horizon to only these structures that we happen to inhabit so far and got used and attached to, we will limit our developmental potential. As usual, what is needed is the right balance between the conservation of what has been already built and achieved, and expansion into new developments and explorations that require open-mindedness to any other possibilities.

[AshvinP]

I never said we are going through the same path that has already been known and traversed - our integral path is truly unique for "humans" as a species and for each individual human. There is nothing about "whole infinity" or eternity which prevents that unique evolutionary contribution - in fact, that is why Scott's image of the One ever-expanding Form can encompass both. It is one of the great mysteries of the Cosmos - how fragmented perspectives can, by way of spiritual freedom, integrate with each other and not only restore, but also enrich the wholeness.

What really makes no sense to me is how ideational activity can lead to random or semi-random experiences which are not more and more structured as perspectives of the One Mind are integrated with each other. Our roles in serving the Whole will become more and more well-defined as that integration occurs. The major difference between ancient 'caste' system and new one would be that we are voluntarily choosing to organize ourselves in that manner, precisely for the benefit of the Whole. And that seems to be what you are mostly objecting to in terms of "whole infinity", etc., but maybe not. Do you find yourself disliking and/or disagreeing with this expression below?

No, I'm not, I'm all for the interconnected and integrated activity of the community of individuals as agents of the One Consciousness. You seem to be confusing two different aspects here: one is the structure and integration of the collective evolutionary activity, and the other one is the whether the expansion of the spiritual activity "discovers" pre-existing ideations, or "creates"/"invents" them, I other words, whether these ideations eternally pre-exist but discovered within time in the evolutionary process, or whether they never existed and are being created/actualized at the instance of their conscious experiencing.

I hold to Cleric's position on that - it doesn't matter if they are "created" or "pre-exist", because, if the creation/discovery does not displace all prior relations of ideal forms, then it is as if they pre-existed. Under pragmatic approach, which I also hold to, that is the equivalent of absolute Truth. I think Scott's explication of the qualitative infinity of One expanding Form is also a very useful way to think about it.

OR, we can stop arbitrarily limiting ourselves to abstract intellectual models and start to figure out what objective structures of Reality can be experienced and tested by way of higher cognition. That is the whole point - we don't need to throw in the towel to "possibilianism", which is at great odds with, "collective endeavor of creative development, exploration and pushing the limits to the unknown". Waving the white flag to "only hypotheses or beliefs" is the end of exploration and creative development, an end which many people in modern society have already reached.

I actually see it differently: possibilianism is the open gate to exploration and creative development in any possible directions not limited to our conscious or unconscious beliefs. When we have certain beliefs, they are useful and do serve us in certain ways, yet always limit our perspective and developmental possibilities, so there are times to critically evaluate our beliefs and be opened to other possibilities in order to keep moving along the never-ending path of exploration and development.

There are definitely objective structures (or, rather, multi-subjective structures), but at the same time, what Godel theorem is telling us, that there is an infinite and never-ending variety of such structures as possibilities. There is nothing wrong with conservatism of valuing, being grounded in and attached to structures that served us well so far. Yet, if we limit our horizon to only these structures that we happen to inhabit so far and got used and attached to, we will limit our developmental potential. As usual, what is needed is the right balance between the conservation of what has been already built and achieved, and expansion into new developments and explorations that require open-mindedness to any other possibilities.

I don't see how you are seeking any sort of "balance" when you make the bold assertions. You are thinking of it literally as a kid in a candy shop, or even better, in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, where any possibility you can imagine is available to be explored. Moreover, you seem to be justifying that by claiming, whatever the structure is, we can never know what it is one way or the other, so we may as well assume all possible paths of exploration are fruitful ones. If that is not your position, then please explain how we can discover the underlying structure so as to determine which paths are actually available to explore and will be fruitful?

[Eugene I]

I don't see how you are seeking any sort of "balance" when you make the bold assertions. You are thinking of it literally as a kid in a candy shop, or even better, in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, where any possibility you can imagine is available to be explored. Moreover, you seem to be justifying that by claiming, whatever the structure is, we can never know what it is one way or the other, so we may as well assume all possible paths of exploration are fruitful ones. If that is not your position, then please explain how we can discover the underlying structure so as to determine which paths are actually available to explore and will be fruitful?

I can tell you how I use this "possibilian" approach in my engineering practice. There is an infinite variety of ways to make/interconnect transistors on a chip. Most of them are useless or at best just poorly performing, but still some of them are very useful and well-performing. We learn from collective experience in the engineering community which structures are most useful in different scenarios. In most cases we tend to be very conservative and use the known solutions that we already explored and know all their pros and cons. However, as the technology evolves and the application requirements and areas expand, the previously explored structures do not perform up to the expectations anymore, and we need to further explore the space of possible circuit topologies and find new solutions. In order to do that, we often need to think out-of-the box, forget the structures and solutions that we previously explored and got used to, and search for completely different possible topological solutions and signal processing concepts, in other words, to practically be "possibilians". On the other hand, this search should not be random, because just randomly trying various solutions is extremely inefficient way of doing such exploration. We still use our intuition, experience and previous knowledge to guide us along this travel into the unexplored areas. But the most mysterious events along this exploration happen at the moments of new breakthrough inventions: suddenly new useful and elegant solution that provides radical practical advantages comes into mind almost "out of the blue" that is so radically different from the solutions that were previously known that you are just left stunned in awe: "how the heck could I come to that solution?" That was definitely not a result of a random try-and-error, but also not a result of a systematic and logical design using previously known recipes. It's still a mystery to me, but what is definitely needed to make this happen is the open-minded out-of-the box approach, openness and willingness to consider any possibilities and not be limited to rigid previously learnt solutions. But once these new solutions were found and explored, they become the "prior art" and part of the collection of known solutions resulting in useful products, and the developmental path goes on. So the bottom-line is: engineering is a balance of conservatism (sticking with the known as much as possible to the point where it's not helpful anymore) and open-mindedness and willingness to consider any new possibilities and ways (but of course eventually choose only useful ones). In spiritual path and in philosophy I use a similar approach.

[AshvinP]

I don't see how you are seeking any sort of "balance" when you make the bold assertions. You are thinking of it literally as a kid in a candy shop, or even better, in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, where any possibility you can imagine is available to be explored. Moreover, you seem to be justifying that by claiming, whatever the structure is, we can never know what it is one way or the other, so we may as well assume all possible paths of exploration are fruitful ones. If that is not your position, then please explain how we can discover the underlying structure so as to determine which paths are actually available to explore and will be fruitful?

I can tell you how I use this "possibilian" approach in my engineering practice. There is an infinite variety of ways to make/interconnect transistors on a chip. Most of them are useless or at best just poorly performing, but still some of them are very useful and well-performing. We learn from collective experience in the engineering community which structures are most useful in different scenarios. In most cases we tend to be very conservative and use the known solutions that we already explored and know all their pros and cons. However, as the technology evolves and the application requirements and areas expand, the previously explored structures do not perform up to the expectations anymore, and we need to further explore the space of possible circuit topologies and find new solutions. In order to do that, we often need to think out-of-the box, forget the structures and solutions that we previously explored and got used to, and search for completely different possible topological solutions and signal processing concepts, in other words, to practically be "possibilians". On the other hand, this search should not be random, because just randomly trying various solutions is extremely inefficient way of doing such exploration. We still use our intuition, experience and previous knowledge to guide us along this travel into the unexplored areas. But the most mysterious events along this exploration happen at the moments of new breakthrough inventions: suddenly new useful and elegant solution that provides radical practical advantages comes into mind almost "out of the blue" that is so radically different from the solutions that were previously known that you are just left stunned in awe: "how the heck could I come to that solution?" That was definitely not a result of a random try-and-error, but also not a result of a systematic and logical design using previously known recipes. It's still a mystery to me, but what is definitely needed to make this happen is the open-minded out-of-the box approach, openness and willingness to consider any possibilities and not be limited to rigid previously learnt solutions. But once these new solutions were found and explored, they become the "prior art" and part of the collection of known solutions resulting in useful products, and the developmental path goes on. So the bottom-line is: engineering is a balance of conservatism (sticking with the known as much as possible to the point where it's not helpful anymore) and open-mindedness and willingness to consider any new possibilities and ways (but of course eventually choose only useful ones). In spiritual path and in philosophy I use a similar approach.

That is a great illustration, thanks. I am sure Cleric can make a more detailed comparison here, but what you are describing above sounds exactly like moving from abstract intellectual reasoning to imaginative thinking. The former does not perform up to expectations anymore when it comes to philosophy, science, or spirituality. All of the prior intellectual reasoning over the centuries and our own lifetimes is enormously helpful and will indicate fruitful avenues to explore, but there is also that transition to "new useful and elegant solution" which one would never come across with mere intellect. The bolded statement is most certainly true about what is needed for this transition to higher cognition as well.

Think about it from my perspective - I have barely dipped my toes into imaginative thinking, if even that, so I have no "previously learnt solutions" with it, i.e. how it reveals much deeper philosophical, scientific, or spiritual truths (which I will call "spirituality" in general). I have no vested interest in it whatsoever - no rigid dogma that I have held on to for years and which now leads me to conclude it is the only path to take. It is precisely because I have tried hard to keep an open mind, go outside of my own box, and reexamine previously learned solutions that this path has revealed itself as the most fruitful. I have utmost confidence in it just like you do with regards to your general method for discovering new possibilities within engineering.

So now the question becomes - is it possible that someone (or a few people) have already discovered the best "possibilian" approach when it comes to spirituality? Is it possible that developing higher cognition in ways that have been made public and specified could reveal the possibility space of spiritual exploration most clearly and usefully? At the end of the day, that is what meets the most resistance - the basic idea that this already established approach could even be a possibility, let alone the best one. Then there is no question of keeping an open mind and seeing where it leads - it is never considered as a viable option and therefore the most basic steps towards it are never taken.

Put another way - Cleric will repeatedly write posts here saying "we can know X, Y, Z via spiritual training of Anthroposophy, because I have experienced it". Then that same question of X,Y, Z will come up on the forum and you or someone else will say, "it is impossible to know X,Y,Z right now, so all we can do is speculate". What that indicates to me is you are not truly adopting your engineering approach to the spiritual approach. If you have already tried to develop imaginative thinking and it simply led nowhere, then I am definitely curious to hear your accounts of those attempts. Otherwise, I must simply conclude you want to keep spirituality in a separate, more heavily restricted (conservative) domain than your engineering practice in terms of exploring new possibilities.