This is perhaps why I usually dislike debates regarding metaphysics; we are free to move vertically through different abstraction levels… quite differently from when we must stay within one abstraction level and reason ourselves to a reasonable conclusion (horizontally). Logic, mathematics, rationality, sensibility, science etc. are horizontal in this regard; they have rules to follow. Somehow, metaphysics escapes such boundaries, and consequently we will end up meaning different things (thus the term ‘meta’), yet using the same language, and sometimes even the same words. I guess language is insufficient in transmitting metaphysical meaning?
We need to specify what we mean, which paradoxically puts us further away from the whole. So yes, I fully agree with you that ‘uncertainty’ is called Chaos Theory. However, perhaps we must be more precise in our utterance: Hence, ‘Chaos Theory’ is merely one way of interpreting ‘uncertainty’… among many other ways. As you can see, now, we have already moved away from the whole. So yes, I have chosen to use quantum ideology and the infinite universe as a point of departure (which is probably as broad as I can comprehend), but that’s only because I cannot find any better point of departure. From here on, I zigzag through abstractions (sometimes vertically and sometimes horizontally). And within that infinity and uncertainty, I believe there’s a possibility that, what we call consciousness, can be born and exist. It is when we try to find rules for explaining it further, that we loose sight of it.
It eventually boils down to: “How can we be certain that there exists a reality outside our creation of reality”? I one way, such question seem nonsensical, but in another way, it’s most relevant. Kind of like the silly conversation where A says “the universe is infinite” and B responds with “what’s beyond that”.
The same goes for ‘consciousness’: What is consciousness? Well, it appears to be a ‘word’. What else? Well, it’s kind of ‘thinking’ but it’s not only that, it seems to have qualities of being ‘aware’ of thinking, etc. etc… ad infinitum. We can never fully explain what we mean by consciousness; therefore we cannot fully explain what consciousness is. We must always start from a more or less arbitrary point of departure.
