The Resolution Of Life
A human being is born with a perceptual apparatus that resides within the limits of a resolution best adapted for its existence in life.
This essay will be about the explanation of this sentence.
The perceptual apparatus of a human is its way of knowing the world. It is the sensory apparatus its sense organs provide it with, coupled with the modalities of perception, which allow it to interpret and interact with that same world. Through this complex, the human can create ‘meaning’ in the reality, or world the perceiver experiences. The mind of the human can go even further and create ‘identities’ that define within that world classes of different existents, or the ‘objects’ that make up the reality of this perceptual world it experiences. Using these objects in the modalities of time and space, allows the human to create a modality of relation, called causality. In fact, within the boundaries of the resolution of the human being this causality can achieve its strongest form called determinism.
Determinism is the strongest form of causality, because every cause unambiguously always determines a particular effect. And within the natural boundaries of the perceptual apparatus of the human life, this causality is at its strongest, or deterministic level.
But the effects of this determinism also shape the ways in which a human knows its world. It allows the human to abstract this world into the pieces (objects) that interact with it, using this same determinism in its relations to further determine what these objects are.
This reality, the human lives in, at the resolution, or resolving power of his senses and perceptions, is the determiner of its world, and all it knows.
Knowing, as such, is the process of creating identities, which cause the human mind to create a world of abstracted objects that live within the defined identities created for them. But identities and the definitions they form always live within the boundaries of a resolution or resolving power. In ordinary life this resolution is that with which the human is born: the resolving power of the senses, and the derived perceptions of the human being. But a human can abstract to the point that it begins to go beyond this natural resolution.
This is the realm of the discipline of knowing that science lives in. Within science, abstraction can lead the scientist to create abstractions beyond the natural resolution of the senses and the interpretation of the perceptions.
When microscopic or macroscopic realms are probed, the ordinary objects within the realm of knowing defined by the normal resolution of perception no longer hold. The objects that are investigated live within a reality outside the resolution of the senses or perceptions of the human organism. Objects created within this new resolution do not have the same validity of knowing they had within the natural resolution of the senses. These new objects no longer live within the boundaries of the modalities, and therefore do not have meaning within these modalities, because they live outside the limits of their resolutions.
These ‘objects’ are not the same as objects as defined or identified within the boundaries of the normal resolution of the senses or perceptions. In fact, causality no longer is a deterministic causality at these levels. Causality now becomes a creature of statistical probability determined by how this new resolution defines it.
Behaviors are statistically determined, not individually determined. The ‘object’, as such, as originally defined in everyday human life, is no longer that. Instead, these new objects do not really have individuality (as objects have) as such, but types of mass actions that interact within probabilistic ranges of causal interaction. The modalities themselves have changed at these new levels of reality. Space, time and causality are no longer as they were within the normal resolution of the senses, but are now themselves redefined into things that create objects within the new resolutions they now have.
Thus the new objects within these realms are determined within a new set of modalities, where a weaker probabilistic causality determines their behaviors and even their definitions as objects.
At these microscopic and macroscopic levels, knowing, as such, is redefined through the use of a new set of modalities that are relevant at these levels.
So, in a sense, knowing, at these levels, is itself different than knowing as defined at the normal resolution of human knowing.
Even the definition of objects has taken on a new aspect, as this new object cannot be thought of outside of the world of its own modalities, the modalities that exist within the new boundaries of resolution they are defined within. As we have seen in subatomic particle physics, these objects live in a non-deterministic world, where the modalities of time, space and causality have entered a new resolution, where meaning as ‘objects’ in the ‘real’ world has no relevance at all.
Does the ‘object’, a ‘particle’, or a ‘wave’ have meaning in these new realms? These new ‘objects’ must only be interpreted under the conditions, or resolutions of the modalities where they obtain meaning. Mixing of the two realms cannot occur, for meanings are exclusive within the boundaries of the resolutions of the modalities for which they have meaning.
The Philosophy Of The GOOD has hypothesized a world (the continuum of existents) as a world of total uniqueness; this world is in line with the imperfection of the world, where separation reigns. But a world of total uniqueness does not allow the world to be knowable or have meanings as we conceive of them – in other words, there is no order. The mind has developed a strategy through which this world, where no duplication exists, can become a world of objects, which have identities created through the resolving power of the sensual and perceptual apparatus. Thus the ‘identities’ created through working definitions, which work within the resolution of the senses and perception allow abstraction to form objects which can be used and manipulated, and have meaning within the human mind.
Thus the mind can bring order to life, and allow the motivational causality of the mind to rule over the world of the continuum through the mental mechanisms of identity (reached through limiting or abstracting the existents into objects) and meaning. This allows the logical inductive sciences to probe the continuum through experimentation on objects, which are created to conform to the existents the sensations of the human perceptual apparatus presents to the mind.
But science can even go further through abstracting even the modalities of perception themselves, when investigating the limits of perception the micro and macro worlds present for study. Thus objects, at this level, have meaning only within the realm of their own perceptual resolutions. And even the modality of causality can lose its determinism and become a modality given over to probabilistic determination, as pointed out in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle.
Resolution is the basis upon which objectification lies; and the particular realms of investigation outside of the normal human working perceptual resolutions, demand objects fitted to these new modal resolutions – new sets of objects for the new limits of time, space and causality present within these new perceptual ranges. These are the other areas of reality that are not at all understandable in the normal realm of perception, but are, to an extent, predicable in the new modal resolutions they lie within.
Thus predictability supercedes understandability as normally understood in these realms, and objectification is not definite, but also blurred within the range of this predictable action. Here we see that objectification is not a given, as formerly thought, but a creation from what is given by the senses, and the identities created by the mind through abstraction using the limits of the perceptual resolution given. These limits, or bounds of resolution, also determine what objects can be created. So science is not only bound to the hypotheses created, but also the resolutions within which these hypotheses apply.
Originally Published:March 4, 2012
Revised:January 2, 2014