The equation of understanding
Can somebody blame the "5" for being the result of a "3+2=" equation?
The "5" can only be a "5" because the "3" and the "2" were added together to produce it. The "5" is ...blameless.
Our opinions (and by extension our actions) are exactly like that: They are just a "5" arising out of math equations like the "3+2".
Disassembling opinions
Our opinions are produced by adding all the data that we have, processed by all the intellectual tools that we know, and then filtered through our cognitive biases to produce the end result (our conclusion / opinion). It's a mathematical, or algorithmic process - depending the viewpoint.
Just as the process applies to us, other individuals will add their data, use their intellectual tools, and filter this through their cognitive biases to produce another result, which will be their opinion.
Any attempt to try to say to another that our "5" is better than their "7" is futile - because for them, their "7" has a solid backing by something like a "3+4=7". How can others deny their conclusions, unless they have doubts on their own data or their way of processing their data (in which case they may be open-minded for alternative results) ?
Thus the best way to convey our opinion is to disassemble it to its constituent parts.
Once this is done, what we want to do is to share an assembly kit where the other party can take our "3" and "2" (in this analogy, these are our data, and the way we tried to analyse this data) to replicate a "5", while also pinpointing where possible cognitive biases exist that would prevent that from happening.
After doing so, the other party has far better chances of "assembling" a "5" as a result, and maybe seeing things from our perspective and getting convinced in the process.
Once one understands the mathematic and algorithmic substrate from which all opinions are generated, they will never again fault an opinion. They will only try to find the causes on why another individual reached such a conclusion. What are their data? What are their ways of processing their data? What are their cognitive filters/biases? These questions are far more important to understand than the end result.
Disassembling behaviors
Given that thought-conclusions can be the basis of consequent acts-behaviors, the elements that are used to arrive to our conclusions, not only hold the key to understanding how to properly discuss an issue, but also the key to understanding the behaviors of ourselves and others. This understanding can then allow for an expanded concept of compassion and forgiveness.
This definition of forgiveness is something like this: A "5" has never done something wrong. It can only be a "5" as a result of a "3+2". In other words, the end result from an individual who processed his data and opted for a certain action, was a mathematic / algorithmic inevitability from the moment the "3+2" were in place.
In knowing this, there is no reason to blame, or "forgive" someone for wrongdoing - as the result has always been "correct" in the context of the "input" of a certain equation. The "5" (opinion, or action arising out of an opinion) has always been correct in the context of a 3+2 background that the individual has.
It may sound naive in a world with all the "evil" that exists, that one can forgive anything based on mathematic or algorithmic inevitability... yet I will ask again: Can somebody blame the "5" for being the result of a "3+2=" equation?
This is no different.
The God-perspective
The above perspective, is really the God-perspective on human affairs. If you know precisely the conditions, data, intellectual tools, emotions and cognitive biases of a specific human being, you pretty much know, with deterministic precision, how their thought and actions will go.
An all-understanding God cannot be anything but an all-forgiving God - in the sense that he sees nothing to forgive - there is no wrongdoing involved: Everything is a result of a prior procedure which set the result into motion - into an ever ending chain of events extending from the past to the future. A gear pushing a gear. A mathematical equation feeding another mathematical equation. An algorithm feeding another algorithm.
What is there to "judge"? What is there to "punish"? The gear moving because it was directed by another gear? The result of an equation that had to process certain inputs? An algorithm that produced a certain action based on its inputs?
A God that would punish a gear for moving in response to another gear, or a 5 for being the output of a 3+2, would be an idiotic God: In the eyes of an all-knowing God there can only be infinite understanding and nothing less. And even we, as "mere humans", can approximate it.
No, but we often misinterpret the 8 for a 3, while we think that we are correct in that 3+2=5
Others that see "3" for an "8", can say to us "Hey! you are wrong! 3+2=10" and this makes no sense to us.
In other words the problem is in what we perceive to be a "3" or a "2" and we can see this in all "religion" debates. Everyone is right in their conclusion about what God is or isn't, because everyone calculates different numbers.
Our "3" in the context above, is our data. Our data, is our knowledge (right or wrong), personal experiences, etc etc.
The "2" is our intellectual tools that we have to process these data.
We all have our 3's and 2's and subjectively they always make sense - otherwise we wouldn't be using them as data, or as tools to process our data. Objectively, they will not always make sense, because others will have their own 3's and 2's (different values).
If A+B = C, then obviously the A of the christian and the A of the muslim will be different in value, because for each one, their data set about what god is, has different properties.
Obviously I cannot "blame" the muslim for being a muslim or the christian for being a christian. If you are raised in a certain way, given certain data about "god", develop or acquire certain intellectual tools, you'll end up with a certain belief system. Naturally, the disagreements and conflicts arising from each belief system are predictable, given how each one grew up. And, as you say, people will think that they are right, based on their own equations on their different data/numbers.
I don't jump into the religious realm too much on here... but this incredibly well written and hit home for me. I have always had a knack of thinking the way you describe when it comes to kids. I expect them to make mistakes so it is incredibly easy to not hold anything against them. Sometimes, they just come out to "5"... but they are learning and maybe I can help them to figure out how to be a "7". For some reason, this magically stops for me when they reach their 20s. I have been looking at adults like they should "know better" and not make mistakes. Your post has caused me to think about that position a bit. A post that makes one think is probably the highest compliment I can pay. So thank you.
Thank you too.
Btw, the child analogy is always a very fitting one to demonstrate the same issue.
For the human condition, all our problems are a result of our immature state. Obviously, if you ask a 4yr old if they are immature, they don't know the answer. Neither do we (as humanity). We think we are ok. That's why when we fall it seems like a disaster. We believe that humanity is in an adult state and can't fall, yet it is in its childhood. It is only expected that one that doesn't know how to walk will fall a thousand times before they can build their balance. We've created huge expectations and obviously we can't meet them.
A "God" (real or imagined), in all his wisdom, would never have an attitude to humanity compared to a father and his child. If the parent can expect the child to fall a thousand times and see nothing punishable in this, then how can God see humanity as a race that needs punishment for its falls - while humanity, as a collective, is growing up and learning how to walk?
On a social level, about the 20 y.o. adults that you mention, yes, even our teens and young adults, are subject to the same determinism. A person at 20 yr old doesn't have the data (life wisdom) of a 50yr old. Their body might have grown but their equations lack data (personal experience counts towards that data) and methods to process their data. A 50yr old can sit and judge the 20yr old, but it is useless to do so.
The 50yr old can just make a thought experiment on himself on whether his own thinking has evolved compared to when he was 20 and how he would have made different choices based on the wisdom he accumulated in life. Once this is done for one's own self, one understands that it's counterproductive to judge others. The accumulation of knowledge, experience and wisdom cannot be cheated. One must go through life to earn these. And these, in turn, will change the output of one's equations.
Under a different Steemit account, I wrote a brief post asking if there might be a mathematical basis for sin. The equation I referenced wasn't simple addition (3+2=5) but the iterated formula of the Mandelbrot set (z=z^2 + c), where sin could maybe be defined as any result in which the number became "trapped" and reduced to 0. Anyway... fascinating stuff, and a great post @alexgr.
Thank you.
Regarding sin, as I see it, there is no sin involved (although the behavioral mathematics are interesting). An immature state begets immature results. A child that doesn't learn how to walk => falls.
If a parent can understand that the child that falls does nothing wrong or punishable, I would expect a God to behave at least at the same level of wisdom regarding the immature state of humanity. (We tend to think we aren't immature, but we are. And we are definitely very far from from the enlightened-end of the spectrum...)
Your assumption is that given a certain set of conditions, only one result is possible. Quantum mechanics suggest that there can be multiple possible results given the same conditions. Some outcomes are of course more probable than others. Also, if we are going to get metaphysical here, it could be argued that a person's "soul" or "mind" could actually be the final determining factor on which outcome actually takes place. Since this soul is metaphysical, it would not be bound by the laws that govern the physical world. A God could then hold this soul accountable for the final decisions it makes.
Actually there are infinite results possible and since there is also an infinite number of parallel worlds, all of them will be played out. However what I've written above is in relation to the one world that our mind can perceive at any given point of time.
The mind will indeed determine the outcome, however the mind is reactive to stimuli - meaning that if I tell someone "don't think of a black cat" they will think of a black cat.
The minds reactivity renders it a re-active force / a gear which is moved by other gears. Naturally, our concept of free will goes down the drain.
The "soul" is in another layer of reality which is beyond this realms causality and chain-events/chain-sequences. In general, this world is mechanical / mechanistic in its operation except a few "islands". One of these islands is the "soul" - which is another way of saying, our self beyond this virtual reality-simulation. The man behind the keyboard (spirit self), instead of the avatar inside the game (human self).
All choices originating from the non-mechanized aspect, that break physical causality and mind-reactivity, introducing "anomalies" into the predictable equations of the mechanized world, are always implementing a God-type perspective anyway, so there would be no "accountability" in the negative sense because the wisdom involved is already God-like (the soul has access to non-linear time and its wisdom is for all intents and purposes infinite in comparison to typical human understanding).
A lot of "5's" are in jail, when all we have to do as a society is to create the conditions for a different equation. well written.
kudos.
nice math