People have wondered how it is that one thing is able to refer to another. This also has to do with the problem of meaning, intention and perhaps consciousness itself.

In an immaterial world, the only basis for existence is relational. To exist is to participate in an unlimited network of felt meaning. Things are composed entirely of their relations. They are ad hoc nodes in a relational manifold. This manifold is simply the ground of being.

In a material world there are only spatial relations. In order to objectify spatial relations, one must introduce a measuring system along with a coordinate system. These systems are abstractions rather than objects. The physical status of space itself is far from being objectively defined outside the contexts of various mathematical theories.

Mathematics is a seemingly self-contained, self-referential system, but is it? The simplest mathematical symbols can be manipulated mechanically as in a calculator. If our minds are glorified calculators, then we should suppose that simple calculators should have a simple numerical sense.

Let us suppose we have a robot with a visual system that is inspecting and counting widgets coming off an assembly line. By analogy with ourselves, we might suppose that the robot would have a concept of number. But how would that work? The brain of the robot is composed entirely of identical switches. An individual switch might have a sense of being on or off, but how would that translate into anything more complex? How would the states of multiple switches become meaningful except to someone reading the output?

One set of switches might be programmed to interpret the state of another set of switches, but unless you were the programmer how would you know that? It might just be a random wiring. Suppose that you are computing on a virtual machine that is time-sharing on various random physical machines. If there is any sensibility, does it reside in the machines or in the program? Is it in a physical copy of the program or in its abstract design?

Let us come back to numbers. Suppose there are a pair similar items on a table. By what means do we pair those items? Somehow we associate those individual items with each other and then with the numeral'2.' Could this be a mechanical process? Where in that process would the notion of a pair reside? Is it a simple or complex notion? If we look at the developmental process that goes into the human ability to count, we would have to consider it to be complex. For instance can we understand the notion of a number without understanding the process of counting? These two concepts are mutually dependent in a way that might be the subject of a philosophical essay. What does that say about the mechanics of numerical sense?

The concept of a pair is the simplest of relational concepts. There exists an association between two items, but where does the association reside? We could build a robot that would react in a special way just to the stimulus of finding paired objects in its field of vision. Its response would constitute a third item now associated with the first two. Where does the pairing exist? Is it in the objects or in the response? Suppose the response is just accidental.

If the two objects do not interact in any way, how can we suppose that their association has an independent reality? The association might have an objective existence by virtue of their being in proximity to each other, either temporally or spatially. One might say that a pair of green meteors hit the U.S. in the past century. That would be a highly arbitrary, subjective association. It might exist only in the mind of the speaker, yet its subjectivity is only a matter of degree.

We generally suppose that Mars has a pair of natural satellites, independent of whether we had ever invented telescopes. But would that be a fact independent of the concept of a satellite? Consider a solar system in an uninhabited galaxy in which the fourth planet from the star has a pair of satellites. Such a situation might exist.

Is not existence itself a concept? If there were a hedgehog inhabiting each of the putative satellites, how would that effect the question of existence?

The fact that we only ever find macroscopic things in a definite state of existence leads us to suppose that existence is definite and purely objective. But could there be a macro quantum world where we could observe superposition and collapse of wave functions? Would there be anything to prevent the extension of quantum physics to our experienced world?

We could argue that such an extension would be incompatible with our existence. It would not be a possible experiential world. Our continued existence is preventing the world from dissolving back into the logical chaos from whence it came.

It comes to pass that the products of our minds seem to take on a greater stability than mind itself. This is our necessary illusion. We lose track of the linkage between mind and matter.

Quantum computing will probably be a necessary step in breaking out of our material box. Cells act as quantum computers, a la Penrose. Genetic engineering and quantum computing will be linked together and to the cyberspace. QCs with super Squids will allow us to directly manipulate virtual realities that will become our new realities.

The quantum realm may not be epiphenomenal. It may be a universal touchstone that connects realities. This would be more like my first ideas on the quantum connection back at UM. How does the UFO phenomenon respect that portal? It would seem that they have broken down the door.

It is not Plato land on the other side of the quantum. It is the rest of the cosmos. Is that the eye of the needle for us? We will have to thread it with silver and gold - spirit and economics. It will be the convergence of those two movers.

Piercing the quantum veil. Could this be connected with the extra dimensions? One might hope for something a little more esoteric. Our minds can jump through but our bodies get left behind. How do they and we walk through walls? It may have to do with the greater collectivity of their thought. The smallness of Plank's h may be relative to the disjointedness of our minds. That is the mesh of our reality net. It has to be small enough to keep our small minds from slipping through.

The problem is to find how the figurative quantum connects with the real quantum and then use our ingenuity and economics to pry it open. This is the hard way to reintegrate mind and body, and it may be the only way to do it without a real eschaton. Anyone got a better idea? How many ways are there to skin Schrodinger's cat?

Perhaps the QCs will powerful enough to simulate genetic engineering in the context of cellular dynamics. Also the QCs could facilitate our mind linkage in various ways that would be more or less direct.

.

rev. 6/26/98