is the “Platonic Realm”
The ancient Greek philosopher, Plato, famously introduced the idea that there is some sort of “higher reality” of “ideal forms,” and that our world is but a shadow or imperfect copy of this “ideal realm.” This “Platonic realm” was held to embody mathematics in its purest form.
There are a number of important implications to the idea of a Platonic realm, as well as a number of different ways that this idea has morphed and been used over the centuries. These overwhelming tend to involve some sort of built-in separation between humans and the “ideal.” This could be separation from “truth;” an example of this might be the idea that all human knowledge is inherently flawed, since it is based upon this shadow world in which we find ourselves, rather than the ideal, Platonic realm. Another example might be separation from “goodness,” of various sorts: good health, good desires, actions and morality, and so on.
The scionic theory contained herein, however, clearly indicates that there is no Platonic realm, separate from our world. Since mathematics itself is the ontologically inevitable foundation the very world we inhabit, our world actually is the “Platonic realm.” Rather than being separated from “goodness,” this very world we inhabit is actually perfect – but this is the perfection of mathematics, not the perfection of human wish fulfillment. Mathematical perfection, in other words, does not preclude conditions or things which human beings would find “bad” or “undesirable.” The fact that the world is mathematical in nature, however, allows us to study and understand the mathematical logic, foundations, and operation of all aspects of the world. Such knowledge truly is power, and with such knowledge we can harness, exploit, or operate in harmony with the mathematical nature of the world to great advantage, in an effort to increase happiness (or hedonic value). It also means that natural human desires are completely natural, and completely in accord with the mathematical perfection of the world; the healthy, productive, and rational pursuit of natural human desires is healthy, productive, and rational.
Another ancient Greek philosopher, Democritus, proposed the idea that the world was composed of small, fundamental, indivisible units. He called these units, “atoms,” which means “uncuttable” in Greek. This term, of course, came to be used for the things which we now call “atoms,” because they were originally thought to also be fundamental, indivisible, and “uncuttable.” It was ultimately discovered, however, that these atoms are not really fundamental, but actually consist of smaller parts (electrons, protons, and neutrons) and can therefor be “split” or otherwise “cut.”
Scionic theory, however, posits that the smallest, fundamental, indivisible units of physicality are scions. The very space and time of our physical world emerge from the scionic network, just as all physical particles, energy, and forces are manifestations of scionic complexes within this network. Unlike Democritus' atoms, however, scions have dynamic “internal processes” because each scion is composed of an infinitesimal bit of infinitely divisible SCION, the plenary fluid of mathematical consciousness. Scions have all of the characteristics which they have, including their infinitesimal size – and even their very existence – due to the hedonic response of SCION.
Quantum Uncertainty and Epicurus' “Swerve”
A further ancient Greek philosopher, and an adherent of Democritus' atomism, Epicurus, had the amazing intuition or depth of foresight to hold the belief that atoms (in the sense of Democritus) must at least occasionally undergo some sort of unpredictable “swerve,” in order to counter the determinism inherent in the original form of atomism, and to allow for the action of free will. In scionic theory, this “swerve” is replaced by the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. The source of the uncertainty principle is the uncertain or indeterminate nature of the internal flows or currents in the plenary fluid of infinitesimals (SCION) which exists within each infinitesimal scion, as influenced by the infinitesimal action of free will which is associated with each infinitesimal bit of consciousness.
Resolving Cartesian Mind-Body Dualism
The early 17th century philosopher, René Descartes, introduced the concept of “mind-body dualism,” the belief that body and mind – or matter and consciousness – are composed of separate underlying “substances.” Matter, he held, is composed of “extended substance,” while consciousness was held to be composed of “non-extended substance.” Scionic theory, however, holds that the single fundamental underlying substance is SCION, the plenary fluid of mathematical consciousness. It is ultimately the hedonic response of SCION which brings about physicality, and physicality which, in turn, serves as the basis for the complex structures necessary to support complex, organized minds (such as those in humans, as well as other forms of life). There is no underlying mind-body dualism. All is SCION, the single substance which permeates and is co-existent with existence itself.
Leibniz's Monadology – Without Teleology
The late 17th, early 18th century philosophy, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, presented a detailed metaphysical theory, known as his “monadology.” He attempted to base his monadology upon ontological necessity. Leibniz, however, knew nothing of quantum mechanics (the uncertainty principle, non-locality, the collapse of the wavefunction, etc.) the eternal, infinite and expanding nature of the universe, the creation of UTMs from cellular automata and vice versa, or modern science in general. Rather than ultimately founding his monadology upon the ontological necessity of mathematics, however, he was forced to resort to invoking the fiction of an ontologically unnecessary “God.” (As has been demonstrated earlier in the writing, mathematics is not only more fundamental than either science or “God,” math is the most fundamental thing which absolutely has to exist, without exception.) Scionic theory, on the other hand, is founded squarely upon the irrefutable ontological necessity of mathematics itself.
Leibniz required a “God,” or “Creator” to “preprogram” monads, i.e., to bring forth “purpose,” “goals,” or “teleology” into the world, and into the monads from which the world is composed. No such teleology exists or is required by scionic theory: scions operate according to the hedonic response, and the complexity of our world emerges from the interaction of scions, unbidden, “un-pre-programmed,” and non-teleologically.
Whereas a single monad represented the “soul” or “consciousness” of a human being for Leibniz, in reality it takes a super-scionic complex of countless scions to embody the mind of a human being. This complex, furthermore, is not comprised of a static collection of scions, but instead consists of an ever-changing pattern which moves throughout the scionic network, and occupies countless different sets of scions from moment to moment. Whereas Leibnizian monads were “immortal” and indestructible (at least as long as “God” wished for them to be so) the scionic complexes which comprise a human being are not (although the individual scions themselves may essentially be).
A particular defining characteristic of Leibniz's monads is irreducible simplicity. Individual scions, on the other hand, each have an “internal structure” comprised of SCION – the plenary mathematical conscious fluid of infinitesimals. It is SCION which is the source of consciousness, and it is the hedonic response of SCION from which physicality and complex mentality ultimately emerge.
The Ultimate Resolution to All Scientific Mysteries
There are many mysteries in the realm of science which can be explained by virtue of hedonic value and by virtue of the nature of the scionic network. This does not mean that these questions should not be subject to further scientific investigation – they should. It does mean, however, that the ultimate answers to these questions will be found to be consistent with scionic theory, and that just as scionic theory does much to shed light upon scientific knowledge, so too will increased scientific knowledge shed light upon (and help define the precise details of) scionic theory.
There is the question of why the fundamental constants of nature have the values they do, for example. The simple answer is that these are the values that maximize hedonic value – in, other words, they “feel good” at the level of individual scions.
The reason that there is more matter than antimatter in the universe is because during periods of extreme cosmic inflation the creation of matter provides slightly greater hedonic value than the production of antimatter. (Why this would be the case is a matter for further scientific inquiry, of course.) During slower periods of expansion, however, the hedonic response of creating matter is equal to that of producing antimatter, which fits current observation.
General relativity predicts the existence of points of infinitely dense matter or energy, particularly in the center of black holes. This is because, in general relativity, the fundamental structure of space-time is a “continuum.” In both quantum mechanics and scionic theory, however, the fundamental structure of space-time is quantized, and thus it seems highly likely that there is some maximum density which can be achieved by matter and energy. This avoids the contradictions and paradoxes associated with infinite density.
Logos, Pathos, Ethos, Mythos – and Back to Logos
Dictionaries exist for good reason, and words are tools for communication. If everyone simply "made up" definitions for established terms as they went along, communication would quickly become impossible. The four terms above, however, have been used in many different ways over the centuries. It therefore seems justified, in the interest of clear communication, to first specify the exact sense, definition, or meaning which is being invoked when employing these terms.
Logos – The principles of logic and mathematics. As such, it is central to certain activities of the mind, such as reasoning. Logos can exist, however, in its "pure" form, even outside any mind. Logos is the essence of mathematics itself, and mathematical truths exists independently of anyone's knowledge of these truths. Logos the foundation of all things.
Pathos – Feeling or “hedonic preference." At its most fundamental or most simple, pathos may be viewed as pleasure or pain. Unlike logos, however, pathos cannot exist apart from consciousness. To feel is to be conscious of the feeling. For human beings, of course, feelings are often much more complex than simple pleasure or pain: sadness, joy, anticipation, fear, hope, etc.
Ethos – The seeking of hedonic value within the context of the interaction with others. Ethos cannot exist apart from logos and pathos.
Mythos – Mythos is most fundamentally “story” or “drama.” Mythos cannot exist in any meaningful way apart from logos, pathos, or ethos.
With these definitions established, we can continue:
Logos, in scionic theory, is the ontologically necessary foundation for all existence.
Pathos springs forth from logos. Pathos is consciousness, hedonic preference and free will in its most fundamental form, which we call SCION. Because this pathos springs forth from logos, however, SCION is also completely bound to logos, to mathematical order and logic, even while operating on the level of pathos.
Ethos springs forth from pathos. Ethos is the interaction of individuated consciousnesses. As SCION becomes the infinite and infinitely interconnected and interacting scionic network, ethos emerges as in the interaction and operation of individual scions. Ethos takes on increasing richness and complexity, however, when it involves “minds,” i.e., ordered complex conscious structures. Furthermore, for ethos to be more than mere automatic or "animal” response to stimuli, it requires that the order and complexity of the mind allow for "conceptualization." Human minds do have the necessary order and complexity for "conceptualization," and therefore for a highly complex "ethos."
Mythos springs forth from ethos. Mythos is the construction of stories and dramas about existence and the experience of existence, and quite often about the complex interactions of conscious beings. Mythos requires mind and memory. Simple creatures, with simple minds and little memory, construct the most simple of “dramas,” and they do so in an automatic, undirected way. With minds of increasing complexity, and more memory, these dramas also become more complex, but they are still constructed in an automatic, undirected manner. With conceptual abilities, however, mythos becomes extraordinarily complex, and can proceed in a volitional, directed fashion. Mythos can then be harnessed to go beyond the construction of “stories” or “dramas” about existence and existence, to attempt to actually understand and explain aspects of existence and experience. At first, such explanations were primitive, and very often wrong. Eventually, however, the art of creating “true stories” about existence and experience was learned: this art involves the proper application of logic to experience, i.e., science.
Thus, logos springs forth anew, from mythos. But unlike the original logos (the ontologically necessary foundation of existence) this logos does not give rise to mere awareness, but also to understanding, knowledge and power.
Logos is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. It is the reason and the result, and the cause and the effect of existence.