Simon Cicak

I came to philosophy through physics and media and communications studies. I started a bachelor of science in applied physics (optical electronics and computing—looking at how a laser beam is created, propagated, manged, and used to measure various optical phenomena). I did not complete the science degree but transferred to media and communications studies and completed BA and MA degrees in media and communications. Later on I completed some certificate level courses in psychology and administration. Thereafter I completed a number of short online courses in psychology, neuroscience, mathematics, and logic and continue to improve my knowledge via online courses.

I have been interested in physics my entire life. However, David Bohm (quantum physics), Basil Hiley (mathematics), and Jidu Krishnamurti’s (philosophy) combined effort expressed in David Bohm’s Explicate and Implicate Order Theory transformed my understanding of myself, others, physics, and reality. Francis David Peat created The Pari Center for New Learning in Pari, Italy (of which I am a member) to honor Bohm's work. In Canada, Peat and Leroy Little Bear organized discussion circles between Western scientists and Native Americans. Learning modules based on Peat's Gentle Action Approach have been used at the University of Minnesota and at Siena Heights University Michigan, among others. Hiley is still alive (in 2023) and continues to work on formulas that prove Bohm’s Quantum Mechanics concepts (Bohm's interpretation of the dual nature of particles also known as the de Broglie–Bohm theory, the pilot wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, etc. is an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation and Many-Worlds Interpretation; all three are mathematically valid but require different philosophical concepts). Other interpretations exist, eg: Transactional Interpretation, the Consistent Histories Interpretation, the Decoherence Interpretation, etc.) Other individuals interested in Bohm’s work are Pavo Pylkanen (philosophy) and Donald D. Hoffman (mathematics and computing).

Bohm’s Implicate and Explicate Order Theory is difficult to discuss in brief and general terms. A conclusion that can be drawn, which stems from Bohm’s collaboration with Krishnamurti, is that reality is best thought of as a Singularity—not as a system made up of smaller and smaller elements (from galaxies to atoms and smaller, etc.). This lecture explains the Implicate and Explicate Order Theory and mentions some of its consequences on perception, consciousness, space, and time. Process Theology and Science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgbpJTyxQUA

An important point to note is that Bohm and Krishnamurti are not Spiritualists who oppose Materialism (and the very popular System approach used today; eg: Systems Theory of pretty much anything and everything—information, digital circuits, computing, celestial mechanics, fields, economics, human behavior, biology, chemistry, etc. based on Classical Mechanics). They do not suggest that Materialism, Systems, Classical Mechanics, etc. are wrong or inaccurate. They agree that they are valid, applicable, and useful. The authors claim that Classical Mechanics (thus all theories and formulas derived from them) cannot describe events revealed via contemporary quantum physics related technologies (such as particle accelerators, bubble chambers, quantum microscopes, etc.) that produce them. The implications are that mind and matter may not be different after all. Davd Bohm, Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose, and others suggest that matter and mind are a single process that does not originate within the dimension that we can perceive with our ordinary senses. Thus mind and matter cannot be understood, represented, and explained via Classical Mechanics thus their difference cannot be represented in terms of every day objects and their relationships (as is so often attempted in Philosophy). To understand and represent their shared source we may need to invent some very counterintuitive thus unique thought and (hopefully, one day) practical experiments.

The key concept to understand is that reality is a Singularity. It is not something made up of smaller and smaller elements. The nature of our location within the space-time construct forced us to develop the human body. This is obvious. Our immediate environment (eg: our atmosphere) is responsible for our specific biological thus genetic, metabolic, etc. systems that developed to benefit from our local atmosphere. Thus we are best suited to explore the planet and its immediate vicinity. When we depart from it—physically or intellectually—we begin to encounter problems. Simply: we interpret the entire universe in terms of local experiences, concepts, and laws. Within the Implicate and Explicate Order Theory process and order are the foundation of reality. Objects or elements are not the foundation of reality. Objects are temporal space-time manifestations (surface phenomena) or explicate forms that have unfolded from ‘process and order’ (an underlying implicate order). Basil Hiley is attempting to develop a quantum physics model in which the implicate order is represented via an algebra.

I think it is quite clear that our belief that reality consists of elements that can be separated and reduced to smaller and smaller elements is simply our human perceptual, thought, and linguistic habit. For example, if we remove just one element from the planet’s atmosphere, say carbon (one of the most abundant elements in the universe), all life becomes impossible. However, Earth itself is not an isolated element thus not an isolated environment. If we say that we are removing carbon from the planet’s atmosphere, it means we have to remove it from everywhere, that is from the entire universe. If we remove carbon from the universe we end up with a very different reality. Similarly, if we were to remove helium from the sun (again one of the most abundant elements), we’d have to remove it from billions of suns and everywhere else, thus we’d end-up with a very different reality. The construct we have decided to define, call, and represent as an ‘element’ is much more fundamental and complex than we can understand. Shortly: its existence depends on all other elements and all other elements depend on its existence. They exist as a single process, not as a singe element, nor as matter. It is very difficult for us to grasp this process let alone represent it via finite constructs (language, narrative, element, formula). We must do so for practical reasons (via applied sciences and engineering), however, it is via philosophy and mathematics that we can and must explore alternative paradigms.

Hoffman says something very controversial. He says: Reality is not real. He is not playing with words and language, he really means it. He proposes that (the) Physical Reality we experience is an artifact or a shadow of 'something' more sophisticated. He’s working on a mathematical proof. He’s developing a mathematical equivalent of a conscious agent (a living being that has to evolve to survive) and is using tools such as Category Theory, Markovian Morphisms, Replicator Equation for Procreation, Quasispecies Model for Mutation, etc. Whether he will get anywhere and whether anyone will be able to translate it into a valid physical experiment remains to be seen (probably not any time soon).

Hoffman states that a person participating in any kind of simulated reality (a person wearing a sophisticated virtual reality gear) could not (in any way) determine the nature of its reality. The person could not deduce, infer, nor in any other way determine any of the higher dimensions required to sustain its immediate reality. For example, he says: Imagine you are inside a virtual reality space where you are standing on a virtual basketball court. You can pickup a virtual basketball. You can play with it. You can throw it. You could observe the basketball and you could work out the mechanics of its behavior (weight, mass, trajectory, accelerations, speed, gravitational force, momentum, etc.). You could develop and/or verify Classical Mechanics. However, it would be incredibly difficult (potentially impossible) to determine that the simulation is generated by a computer and that you are standing inside of it. The depth of insight needed for such an intellectual undertaking might be immeasurable. Nor could you determine that the computer requires digital circuits, nor that the digital circuits use ones and zeros to describe the signals needed for the screen and the rest of the digital components to operate. Nor could you discern that the signal used by the digital circuits is a current, nor that the current is electricity, nor that electricity is transferred via the wires, nor that the wires travel thousands of kilometers to a power plant that generates electricity, nor that this distance affects the current and it requires amplifiers, etc. Nor that the power plant requires coal or water, etc. Nor that the computer was assembled in a location that is thousands of kilometers away from where it exists now.

So that’s what Hoffman means when he says that the Reality that we perceive is not really real. To us, particles and elements appear as orchestrated systems—hence what we perceive as gravity, electricity, plasma, fields, and at the more sophisticated end the quantum states—and we interpret them via specific laws.

An important point is: Despite our intuitions, the best way to describe and understand reality is by learning as much as possible about quantum physics. It may be useful to develop a field of philosophy where our speculations derive from quantum physics—not from our classical mechanics intuitions. The classical mechanics branch of physics can give us only a particular type of logic and reason. Thus we may be stuck with materialism, dualism, positivism, and the related battles for ever. However, they cannot explain quantum mechanics because quantum mechanics works with two very unique concepts: non-physicality and non-locality. Worth mentioning is that Einstein did not accept Niels Bohr's probabilistic and non-local aspects of quantum mechanics. Einstein believed that hidden variables are responsible for the behavior of quantum systems and that they would account for the seemingly random and non-local effects observed in quantum experiments. Non-Locality requires a faster then light signal. Einstein's equations do not permit such a signal to exist.

To simplify a great deal, the classical mechanics does not apply at the quantum level because there is nothing to apply it to at the quantum level. Matter does not exist at the quantum level. Only possibility and probability of where energy states (particles) may occur exist. For me this becomes a matter of perception and thought structure and pattern.

A brief summary of ideas and interests.

On perception, empathy, and behavior.

I propose that unacknowledged empathic limit (my term) exists. It determines how we think and behave. More importantly, it determines the nature of the human logic and with it the nature of our models of reality (information, language, narrative, culture, etc.).

Culture is the ultimate expression of the empathic limit: one species—biologically speaking—forever divided by its many different linguistic-narrative definitions and justifications of such definitions. For example: linguistic-narrative justifications of fear, violence, and destruction remain possible (via political and foreign relations policies that make weapons, surveillance, and border construction and maintenance appear necessary) because a fairly primitive and unacknowledged linguistic-narrative consensus exists that ‘we’ are different. Again, to reiterate the point, biologically speaking, we are very similar. Our linguistic-narrative thus behavioral and cultural representations of ourselves and others differ. They differ (or some perceived differences exist) because of our outdated understanding and representation (models) of perception (as a philosophical construct and as a bio-chem-electrical thus biological and physiological process). Specifically: each language group and/or each cultural group constructs meaning by describing physical differences (how ‘others’ differ from ‘itself’), instead of perceiving, focusing on, thus describing similarities thus unity.

In short (and I am simplifying many complicated elements and their functions): to create meaning (a linguistic and narrative construct) perception (as a bio-chem-electrical process performed by the brain-body system) must fragment, polarize, and classify information (by information I mean information received from the five senses). The terms fragment, polarize, and classify are my contributions. Hence we operate using words, narratives, and theories that divide our thinking, narratives, and behaviors.

I propose that the origin of the empathic limit is not within culture, narrative, language, nor within behavior. Thus not within different philosophies, religions, politics, etc. (as previously suggested by most works in anthropology, philosophy, psychology, and other related fields.). The origin of the empathic limit is to be found within perception.

Specifically: the origin of the empathic limit is located within the bio-chem-electrical processes that produce a fragmented, polarized, and classified vision and perception that leads to fragmented, polarized, and classified language (information) that leads to fragmented, polarized, and classified narratives (hence different philosophies, religions, etc.) that lead to fragmented, polarized, and classified behaviors that lead to perceived cultural differences hence preferential behaviors and with them inequality, injustice, violence, and destruction (of those perceived and defined via language and narrative as different from the observer thus of those who differ).

The proposed existence of the empathic limit becomes a complicated problem—here is why. The traditional approaches separate philosophical (linguistic) representations from biological and chemical representations (formulas and models). Eg: biological explanations of violence exist; philosophical explanations of violence exist; political explanations of violence exist; psychological explanations of violence exist; different groups benefit from different explanations. However, I propose that the specific bio-chem-electrical properties of the perceptual process (in particular vision; as formed in the visual cortex and the parietal and temporal lobes) produce the specific language state (the polarized, fragmented, and classified state) that enables a human being to perceive, construct, and justify thus apply (through behavior) this imagined difference. So, I propose that the bio-chem-electrical nature and origin of vision and perception cannot be separated from the linguistic and narrative thus philosophical understanding and representations of perception.

An important point is: the empathic limit is not 'an intended' (in any way) effect thus it is not a conscious effort. This may affect a large number of concepts used in philosophy (good, bad, virtuous, and even ethical and moral), and in psychology (character, trait, personality, group, and many others). No one is to blame for the empathic limit's existence. It is an unidentified bio-chem-electrical property that culminates in a particular types of vision, perception, langauge, narrative and finally behavior (or sets of behaviors thus culture). It is an evolutionary obstacle.

Another important point is that perception is primary—not language.

More notable points:

It would be wise for us to explore the emapthic limit because most (possibly all) of our theories, models, and technologies are based on fear, violence, and destruction.

They are based on fear, violence, and destruction because our logic systems—human and artificial—are based on fear, violence, and destruction. This is Catch 22. It is not easy to see, represent, examine, and accept this fact because the nature of information created by the brain is the ultimate expression of our tendency to fragment, polarize, and classify. That is, everything we perceive is expressed as fragmented, polarized, and classified information. So, again, we are unable to change our planetary management systems because our current logic systems—human and artificial—cannot grasp their main inadequacy: their empathic limit. This may be a sweeping generalization but we do not tend to integrate ourselves into our own lives, others' lives, and nature. Despite our intelligence, we tend to differentiate and separate.

Broader Musings

We have convinced ourselves that by inventing logic (especially modern logic, say from mid 19th century) we’d begin to overcome fear, violence, and destruction. We have not overcome fear, violence, and destruction and are still governed by them.

We remain destructive because our intent (our propensity to destroy ourselves, one another, and the environment, due to the survival instinct that manifests as the desire to differentiate via fragmentation, polarization, and classification) has not changed.

Our justifications of the intent have improved but the intent remains unchanged. I say unchanged because (as an example) officially, today, in the 21 st century, 'our' allegedly most intelligent individuals find it acceptable to build and maintain weapons, surveillance, borders, and to start wars.

We continue to permit the brain-body systems to treat everything it perceives as a threat. Consequently, it continues to create perception, language, narrative, and behavior whose purpose is to eliminate the threat. However, the threat is no longer real. It is some kind of perpcetula-linguistic-narrative-behavioral-cultural artifact, and our behaviors seem to be a response to the artifact.

On Fragmentation, Polarization, and Classification.

The brain and the senses must fragment reality (a vast possibly infinite external information domain) into a manageable thus finite internal (brain’s) information domain. I propose that the internal information domain consists of fragments. Immediately after breaking down the vast external information domain into fragments, the brain polarizes the fragments. This simply means that the brain assigns a binary set of values to every fragment it perceives. For example: an infant’s brain-body system distinguishes between dark or bright, male or female, large or small, near or far, left or right, up or down, loud or quiet, moving or stationary, and so on. I call the process during which the brain and the senses assign 'polarized states' to perceived ‘fragments’ polarization and fragmentation. I propose that during the first year of life the brain develops and uses an initial set of polarized fragments. The initial set is the foundation with which the brain teaches itself to analyze, polarize, and later on classify increasingly complex fragments. Eventually, the brain thus an individual constructs a complicated narrative foundation that defines the world as a system made up of itself (the brain, the me, the I, my identity, etc.) and everything else (reality or the external information domain). Hence the terms me, mine, we, us and there, them, theirs, etc. and the associated narratives and behaviors (selfishness, defensiveness, violence, and ultimately destruction of the other or that which differs from 'me'.

The above processes enable us to define ourselves, one another, our interactions, and everything that surrounds us. Unfortunately, they force us to divide and dehumanize ourselves, one another, and the environment.

The fragmentation and polarization problem has been perceived and treated as a set of ideological problems with definitive historical origins (politics, sociology, economy, gender, class, infrastructure, production, consumption, etc.). but not as 'an evolutionary obstacle', which I propose it is. Thus the empathic limit is not a linguistic, narrative, philosophical, and cultural problem. It is a biological (bio-chem-electrical) and linguistic problem started long before the brain-body system developed any language making abilities.

We need to take conscious control over the evolution of language and narrative thus our behavior. To do so we need to take conscious control over the evolution of perception. To put it simply: we need to teach ourselves to perceive reality in a new way by finding a way to alter how the brain constructs information. This is a significant task. A clear direction does not exist.

Some suggest it can be achieved via software and/or hardware. Some suggest that reflection, introspection, and self-development are the answer. Others say that communication, relationships, and community are the answer. Some skeptics, extremists, and nihilists suggest that we are unable to change our fundamental nature but that an unexpected evolutionary or technological development may change us.

I think that the answer is much more complicated and demanding because we will have to try to exert a significant amount of conscious effort in all areas. We are information thus our potential for change and growth is infinite. However, the extent to which we have been able to perceive, analyze, represent, and communicate our information based nature (and its potential for change) has been limited by the very nature of information produced by our brains.