the 2nd Formula of Human Consciousness

So here we are, at our second formula, the "Information Formula." This time, let's begin with a question. The question? Do we really need a formula to define "information?" Doesn't everyone already know what information is?

The answer. Defining "information" is actually a lot harder to do than you might imagine. Why so? Because the basis of knowing that something is "information" is knowing whether it is true or not. No coincidence, this question happens to be one of the deepest philosophical questions we could ever ask ourselves. In fact, it is the question every Greek skeptic, from Socrates to Carneades, tried to answer from the Fifth Century BCE on.

Did they ever find an answer? Can you ever know if something is true?

The Greek skeptics would say you can't know, and for the most part, they were right. Oddly enough though, their philosophical predecessors in the prior century discovered there actually are some few things we can know with certainty to be true. In fact, even today, we can still see the things they saw as true as being true.

Am I saying these things are always true? Yes, I am. In a very real sense then, these things can be said to be "perfectly" true.

So why haven't we all been taught this idea, that there are some few things which are "perfect" truths? Because these Sixth Century Greek philosophers believed this idea to be beyond the grasp of ordinary folks, so much so that they shared this idea only with those in their secret society.

Who was this secret society? We do not even know what they called themselves. We do know the name of one of their founding members though, and today, we refer to this group as his group. His name was Pythagoras, and he is famous for discovering the formula which bears his name, the Pythagorean theorem [that the square of longest side of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the two shorter sides].

Now think about what I've just told you. Isn't it odd. Anyone who has taken geometry in high school knows Pythagoras' name. Yet almost no one knows what Pythagoras thought most important in life; the idea of "perfect" truths. Why? Because to him, they were the way to know there is an actual Divine Source.

What else do we know about this secret society? Nothing really, other than their ideas about there being "perfect truths." As for how this idea, that there are "perfect truths," applies to information, to see, start by asking yourself this. How often is Pythagoras' theorem true? The answer? Always. Of course. In fact, this idea is one of the few we humans can ever know perfectly. It is indeed a perfect truth.

Now let me ask you this. To which variable in the Information formula would this idea apply?

Certainly, not to the "meaning" variable. In fact, who knows how many real world objects Pythagoras' theorem could apply to let alone what these myriad of things would mean to people. Nor could it apply to the "time" variable. Again, how could we ever know how long any of these triangles would last? We couldn't. In actuality then, the only thing we can say with certainty about the idea of "perfect truths" is that it, at times, can be a kind of "information," and that this "information" is what defines something as being true. For instance, it defines Pythagoras' theorem as being true. It is true because the information in this theorem is always true.

Now consider what I have just said. "Truth" is defined by the unchanging nature of its information. Moreover, while meaning and time can always change, a perfect truth can not. This makes "truth" a kind of "information," in that it is something we can say about things which informs us about a part of their very nature. It also makes the cases wherein a perfect truth exists very, very valuable. Like Pythagoras' theorem, which in fact is still as perfect as the day he first stated it. And just as valuable.

Now consider how "always true" information functions very similarly to a scientific "constant." For instance, consider how the "always true" constant in Einstein's famous formula functions. What I'm saying is, Einstein's famous formula contains two variables; "energy" and "mass." As does my Consciousness formula, which contains "meaning" and "time." Both my "meaning" and "time" variables then are relatives of Einstein's "matter" and "energy" variables in his Theory of Relativity. More important, when perfectly true, my "information" variable functions very similarly to how his constant functions. To wit, his constant; the speed of light squared, grounds his whole theory. In fact, without this constant, there is no theory.

Einstein himself stated later in life that his assumption about this constant being true was his greatest mistake. I see this as sad. He was not mistaken. He simply did not know to question the visual scale at which the observer witnessed this light. Thus, he saw things outside our visual scale as needing to live up to the same formula as things within our visual scale. Sadly, I know of no physicist today who even notices this discrepancy, let alone realizes it could lead to a "universal" statement of the relationships of matter, energy, and time.

For a moment though, let's allow that Einstein's constant is true. Would this make his formula an example of a perfect truth? Yes. In fact, would you now be surprised to hear me say I know it is true, when I am in no way trained in physics? My answer. I am a wheel maker, just like you and everyone else. Moreover, we all get to theorize, given we are still asking questions about our world.

So what makes me so certain I am right though? Simple. Einstein's formula meets the Emergence Truth Test. The information in Einstein's Relativity formula is always true. Only the time and meaning vary. Or in Einstein's words, they are "relative."

So why do so many people now doubt this as true, including Einstein himself? Because they all believe that in order for something to be true, it needs to be true in all places and in all times. However, would these doubters for but one moment recall the title of Einstein's formula, they might notice the clue all have so far missed; that his formula is about things being relative, not absolute. Thus, this theory is true in all places, at all times. Just not at all scales, in all places, at all times. Similar then to how Pythagoras' Theorem always holds true, but only for right angle triangles, Einstein's Theory of Relativity also always holds true but only within the scale in which visual matter exists for us. In our world, visual matter exists between black holes and quanta. More on this idea later.

Now to return to our opening question; "how can we know if something is true?" The answer. It will have the same essential qualities as Pythagoras' Theorem. What essential qualities? For one thing, that while the meaning of a formula can and will change over time, the information it refers to must maintain the same relationship to meaning and time no matter how the meaning or time change. Referring to Pythagoras' theorem then, his formula is as fresh today as the day he discovered it. What am I saying? That while people have valued this formula differently at different times, for instance, more on the day you needed to know it for a geometry test, and while people have experienced the passing of time change this meaning, as in what you might have once felt about it has changed over time, the information contained within this formula is as perfectly true as the day it was first written. The relationships stated in the formula have stayed the same.

Now take a moment to personally experience what I've just said. Is what I'm saying true for you? Do you care at all about Pythagoras' formula is right now? Probably not. Neither will you likely care as to how long it has been since you did care about it. Or even how long ago anyone cared about it. Except, of course, if you are currently enrolled in a geometry class, in which case, you might place a whole lot of value on the what, when, and why of this theorem.

My point? Time and Meaning are always relative. This means they can never be "perfectly" true. Information, at times though, can be perfectly true. Not at all times. Nor at all meanings. But sometimes.

When something is perfectly true then, it is one of the most amazing things you can know. Why? Because like Pythagoras' group of secret admirers once felt, this perfect truth grounds everything which relates to it. In other words, no matter how the other variables change, the fact that one holds "constant" means we can touch the truth in this formula. Why? Because in a sense, the constant part of the formula stands still while we touch it.

This means that while the Greek skeptics were right most of the time; that we cannot know if something is true, they were also wrong in that there are some few exceptions. More important, because science sees as true only those relationships which never change, they fail to see the beauty in much of the best stuff in our world. Including not only the beauty in what the Greek skeptics said but also the beauty in many other, thought to be immeasurable things, such as the beauty in love and compassion. These things are measurable, given you understand the Four Formulas of Consciousness. And how they apply.

Referring back to the previous chapters then, we see a perfect example of how discounting the non-physical world destroys the beauty in even scientific principles. We need honor both the physical and the non-physical in order to have a perfect truth. And this amazing idea is what the Pythagoreans believed to be beyond our understanding. On the one hand, they saw a perfect truth within a right angle triangle. And on the other hand, they saw this perfection as being the proof there was a world outside our ability to measure.

Were they right? Absolutely. But were they right that we cannot learn to see these two realms as true? In this later case, I hope to prove them wrong by teaching you to see how this very amazement is perfectly true and in equal proportion to the science present. How? By learning to see how the amazing feeling which comes from knowing a "perfect truth" is the equal partner to this true itself.

Which brings us back to our current discussion and to the question, "How can you know if something is amazing?"; meaning, "How can you know if something is perfectly true?" The answer? You ask yourself, "does the information within this thing remain constant no matter how time and meaning vary?" The information in Pythagoras' Theorem meets this test. Therefore, this information is always perfectly true and amazing.

More important still, because this theorem is perfectly true, if we can state the essence of this perfection, then we can have an even more amazing theorem. We can have a meta-theorem, a master test for perfect truth. So how can we state this essence as something which, in and of itself, it always true? We can state it as: "Truth" is something which is "infinitely variable but never changes." Said in its more detailed and complete form, we can say that "Truth" is something which has "infinitely varying time and meaning variables in a constant relationship to an unchanging information variable."

This is the Emergence Truth test. This is the test we use to determine if something is true or not. For instance, using this test, we can know for certain that a "square" is something which will always be true no matter how we employ this idea.

Thus, whether we make a big square or a small one, a hot square or a cold one, a new square or an old one, a valuable square or worthless one; while all these real-world squares will vary, the ideas which define them as being "square" will never vary. Not one bit.

These "ideas" then; that a square is "an imaginary shape with four equal and connected sides and four equal angles"; can be said to be the "information" contained within this formula. The complete and total information, in fact. Moreover, this information can also be said to be "perfectly true." And amazing. At least within the visual scale of our physical world.

Extending this to a more pragmatic realm, can you now see how grounding a theory in a perfect truth would be superior to one grounded in assumptions? Even sound assumptions? For instance, can you now imagine what it would be like to have a theorem which described the unchanging essence of peoples' psychological wounds? The truth is, there is such a theorem. It is in fact just one of many truths in a system we Emergence Practitioners at times refer to as, "Personal Geometry." Can you imagine what this means if we are right? It means there is a way to know with certainty what a person's wounds are. And whether they have been healed or not.

An "infinitely variable but never changing" wound pattern with which to test for woundedness? Can such a thing exist? Absolutely. In fact, we have been using this theorem to help people heal for over ten years now. So what exactly is this test for human woundedness? We'll explore this idea in a moment. For now, please remember this.

What I am positing here is that the idea of truth applies to information only. Never to time. And never to meaning. In fact, I am predicting that you will soon be able to apply the Information Formula to your very experience of this idea. What I mean is, I predict you will find this idea (the idea of "perfect" information) becoming proportionately more and more valuable (more meaningful), the more time we spend with it. For now though, let's take a look at whether my definition for woundedness meets my criteria for a "perfect truth."