Bonding and the value of things

Anything is replaceable in the initial stages. Details don't matter at all since there is bound to be a large selection of stuff that may mirror the exact same general qualities that you prefer in the object of your requirement. The key to forming a bond with something or someone is sticking to it through thick and thin which after some time reveals the unique magic that every single object in the universe carries within it. And that magic is irreplacable even with the most insignificant of things. 

Such is the nature of bonding. 

The minimum requirement for bonding to occur is the existence of atleast one sufficiently conscious being who is capable of comprehending extramaterialistic value in an object.

Just like the guitar of world renowned guitarist Jimi Hendrix carries exceptional value regardless of its make or quality or even it's current usability, in the end all that really matters is the magical value that can be extracted from something. Conversely speaking it should be realised that it is possible that even the most insignificant of stuff can carry much value , much bigger than its physical or monetary value and thus has the potential to be respected as any other object in the universe.

Jimi Hendrix

The assumption taken here is that despite the initial material value of any object, it is assumed that the final magical value that it is capable  of reaching dwarves the material value so much that it becomes negligible. 

For something to reach the full potential of it's magical value it is necessary to posit the existence of an external observer (external to the universe). This too we can assume for this experiment.

In such a scenario even a speck of dust has the potential to grow it's value to be equal to any other part or the entirety of the whole universe.The theory here in regard is much similar to the underlying essence in creating one of the most interesting geometrical shapes in mathematics, called fractals. Every single point of a fractal can be zoomed in to reveal another complete fractal of the same type within itself which can be zoomed again and again only to reveal an endless world of fractals, each complete in itself. Thus if the full value of all objects in the universe is realised we can come to the conclusion that even though everything  holds immense value none is greater than another.

For more information on fractals look into
Benoit Mandelbrot and his work on fractals

At this point a pertinent question may arise which questions the validity of having equal value for everything in the universe, since value of an object is always calculated relative to something else. If every object has equal value then we can argue that instead of assigning a very high value we can also assign no value at all to everything. These 'priceless' objects are now akin to mathematical formulas or numbers which are priceless in their own respect. 

So why don't we get to comprehend the full magical potential of any object right away? That is a question to be pondered in another blog. 

If the universe and anything within it has no inherent value or cost to it, it can also be copied and simulated countless number of times within a machine capable of doing that. Thus through this little thought experiment we can see that it may indeed be possible to simulate the universe to  the 't' and if you would like to think so, we may even be living in one of those simulated realities already. We can also speculate that as far as the nature of fractals and simulated universes go, the second universe in which our reality is assumed to be simulated in may in turn be a simulated reality running on a similar machine in a third similar reality and so on. An infinite matryoshka doll of simulated universes.

 

A rant on Postmodernism (Subject to continued refinement)

In my continued search for reason and meaning I have been hopping through the domains of language, social studies, science and finally arrived at philosophy . Philosophy was something which I had actively avoided until now and often questioned its relevancy in the age of science and rationalism. In one of my YouTube 'down-the-rabbit-hole-binge' sessions, I came upon some videos that explained the theory of post modernism, post structuralism, deconstruction etc. It greatly excited me very much that these theories were congruent with much of the thoughts that formed in my head during my previous flirtations with the world that it lead me to further explore it's nuances through numerous articles, books and videos that I came across on the Internet.

I have come to admire Derrida's idea of Deconstruction of Binaries and also subscribe to the notion that words often just offer subjective truth according to the individual that perceives meaning from it. I also share his skepticism about the inherent limits of the scientific method (the presence of unavoidable errors both in observation and judgement of processes) which prevents us to form an objective truth. That said I do believe that science is indeed a gateway to enlightenment but I also believe that there is a much more better form of philosophical thought to scientific approach than just blindly believing in the rationality/logicality of the universe when much of it isn't (why is the speed of light 'c'? , why is the weight of an electron a fixed constant? why and how does gravity occur? Why is our universe in 3D as opposed to 2D or 4D? etc ...) .

It was not until now that I realised that these problems could be considered as naturally philosophical. I now feel that continued engagement in philosophical dialogues and discussions in the pursuit of producing better ways of thinking is not only fruitful for science but also imperative for the advancement of our civilisation.

Postmodernism is for the intellectual inferior?

Postmodernism has garnered it's share of criticism. It has been accused for offering no forward path to the future and being too ideologically ridden.  

In the same way that a hammer is not superior to a scissor no school of thought is superior to the other. 

Applying postmodernist thought on things that we don't currently understand will enhance our understanding of it. For example it is tough to wrap our heads around the notion of a qubit which is neither a one or a zero but is a superposition of both. But through postmodernist lenses such an entity is has a very valid existence. Same may be applied to other branches of philosophy as well. They are just tools to understand the world around us. 

That said, if a hammer is given to a little kid who has no idea on how to use it, he/she is bound to get hurt. This may be why postmodernism is criticised a lot as giving rise to uncertainty and moral dilemma. The fact is western philosophical thought has no heritage in handling the concept of ambiguity. Truth, logic and objective truth is the foundation of western philosophy. My understanding of postmodernism comes from my experience with the eastern vedic scriptures and epics which discuss the idea of a grey world, where even gods are fallible in their judgement and there exists no absolute right or wrong. The right thing to do depends greatly on context. An individual who is able to make the right choices at the right time is someone who is exalted as a great hero even though his actions may seem contradictory or lacking coherence from an objective/western point of view.

"Postmodernism, in its best form, should be understood not as saying that nothing is true or that all meaning is arbitrary — rather it should be understood as noting that meaning and truth are prone to shifts and redefinitions over time based on circumstances." - Rational wiki

Moral Relativism vs Cultural Relativism

One of the biggest criticisms of postmodernism has been that it espouses moral relativism. Moral relativism is the idea that morality is relative to an individual and that they are free to do whatever that pleases them since nothing can be outright classified as immoral. 

Postmodernism espouses a form of cultural relativism not outright moral relativism. It is not a tool to justify immorality but rather something which promotes understanding between different forms of thinking as is the case with different cultures in the world. For example a person who has been brought up in a culture where polyamory is the not only the norm but morally expected of a person, he might find our notions of monogamy a stark violation of sexual freedom and may equate it to something akin to slavery. But from the classic western viewpoint polyamory is considered to be the immoral act. If both sides do not take any effort to understand each others viewpoint they simply label each other as barbaric and try to 'civilise' each other through any means possible (colonialism, slavery, conversion etc). But what if both cultures understood each others differences and instead decided to work together to build a better world? This kind of interculture brotherhood is seldom seen in western culture where absolutism had ruled the roost for much part of its existence and where most foreign cultures are seen as plain savages. This kind of misplaced moral superiority is what postmodernism tends to dispel and to usher in an age of progress through understanding.

Unfortunately the difficult language followed by postmodernist philosophers led many (even respected academics) to not fully understand what it stands for. It has been blatantly equated with moral relativism where anything goes which is clearly incorrect. Today in the age of the internet there are numerous resources that explain postmodernism in very simple language, so to have a comprehensive understanding of it is becoming an easier endeavour.

Postmodernism as a philosophical thought emerged by questioning the lapses in modernist ideology that eventually resulted in the two world wars. To understand why postmodernism is required, consider a situation where in the near future the Chinese nation becomes the sole superpower of the world. Without an understanding between cultures, the Chinese will inevitably rally towards global economic and cultural domination seeking to 'civilize' the undisciplined barbaric nations around the world that follow ancient, obsolete democratical principles. Now we don't want such a world now, do we?