In The Thermodynamic Mind post I made the statement:
“In the God Series we learn that Ontological Mathematics, Mind, Light, and Energy are all synonymous terms…they all refer to the same thing, and they all partake of the form of the God Equation. Since thermodynamics is simply all about the behavior of energy, and this is where the Fourier Transform originated, might we find evidence of mind in the study of heat flow?”
I also remarked on the Photonic Mental Agency post:
“If thermodynamics is where the mathematical solution of mind-matter dualism was first discovered, even if this was not the intention behind the discovery, then perhaps thermodynamics is where evidence of fundamental mental agency may be found?”
From the very beginning of my interest in the climate alarm debate, when I first realized that there was a fundamental foundational problem with its premise of a radiative greenhouse effect, I had always used the idea of “boundary conditions” to try to get across the idea of which Mike Hockney more recently stated much more eloquently:
“Once you have assumed the wrong ontology and epistemology, everything you subsequently say is automatically in error.”
This is what I used to call “mental boundary conditions”, the idea being of course that if your axioms or initial premises are wrong, then everything you say afterwards will be wrong too. For example, treating the Earth as flat and with uniform average sunshine is a wrong conception of the planet, and so anything you infer and extrapolate from that starting point simply has to be wrong.
I used the term “boundary conditions” due to my experience with partial differential equations and their solutions – if you get the boundary conditions for the equation wrong, even if you subsequently compute and solve the equation correctly, the equation will not behave the way it is supposed to and it will not correspond with the reality you’re trying to model. Likewise, the ontology and epistemology with which you bound your thoughts dictate the limits of what the mind will be able comprehend, deduce, and extrapolate within those bounds. As there is a certain mathematical phase space “topology” which becomes bounded by the boundary conditions used, likewise there is a mental “landscape” which become circumscribed depending upon the underlying ontology and epistemology of the thought in question.
It turns out, after all these years, that there really is something interesting to look at in the actual mathematical boundary conditions in the numerical Fourier Transform solution of the de Saussure device discussed in my recent paper.
I won’t describe what to do with the model in order to see it, because I want the details to appear in a future paper, but there seems to be something happening in the Fourier Transform boundary conditions of a de Saussure device which directly indicates mental agency governing the behaviour of this device. Something changes in the boundary conditions of this device which changes the mathematics being used; the equation of the boundary conditions changes under certain conditions, and in a significant enough of way that it is difficult to just explain away mechanically. The equation governing the device seems to actually spontaneously change its terms – in the math of the boundary conditions that is, at the interfaces where light interacts with matter within the device.
In the two previous posts mentioned above we discussed how mental agency basically actually needs to be behind everything at all times, because there’s some paradox in assuming that matter should follow mental mathematical principles if matter is supposed to have nothing to do with mind and can have no interface with mental principles. If matter is a different substance than mind then matter should never follow or empirically demonstrate mental principles. Of course, existence is a dual-aspect monism with mental/mathematical substance being the basis of existence, and matter being an epiphenomenon of the mental/mathematical substance, and so finding that matter follows mental principles presents no paradox. Everything is truly being governed by mind at all times.
However in this case, if what I think I’m finding is correct, instead of being fixed and governing fixed mechanics and therefore appearing totally mechanical and unminded, we can actually see mental agency make an active choice about the way it wants to behave, and thus change the equation in the Fourier Transform maths it uses to govern the phenomena via the boundary conditions.
It’s really quite mental.
The philosophers and “scientists” of old almost universally felt that they found the expression of the mind of God when observing the intricacies of the laws of nature. However, as these laws never express change within themselves, and with the onset of the paradigm and religion of scientific materialism and atheism, that viewpoint has turned into a belief that matter simply behaves mechanically and where the laws of physics are stored, why they exist, and how they effect themselves are no longer deemed important questions. With my education in Ontological Mathematics, and my research into the radiative greenhouse effect and the question of “how photons can know” where they should and shouldn’t carry heat energy, I’ve confidently rediscovered that old knowledge that mind must be behind the governance of everything in nature. It is all mental. And of course, it is that mind which the old philosophers used to call “God”. In Ontological Mathematical terms, it would be called the mind of the Monadic Collective.
But what I discussed above might be a place where we can actually see that mind actively making a choice, making a change in itself which has an effect on the way the material world subsequently plays out.
It would be beautiful to find that in the very place where the solution to mind-matter dualism was solved, and even in the context of that solution’s mathematics given that it was all about noumenal energy wave mechanics.
I need to do more work on it, but, stay tuned. It might be nothing.