Agreement Reality ~ In the Space of the Social Imagination...

When you start reading this article, keep in mind the numerous discussions put forward on this blog about agreement reality. It is where we exist (in agreement) and the only place we can truly exist in any sense of being 'real'. Regardless, of what we think is happening as the process of reality that seem to define what is real whether using tools, telescopes, computers and whatever else... its only what we agree on that really counts and provides us with some kind of 'reality'... the social reality that is only located in the social imagination. And, understand the intention is not to mock or defame but to show the truth as it really is... in agreement reality ~ efg.

Since Edwin Hubble first discovered in 1929 that galaxies are getting farther apart over time, allowing scientists to trace the evolution of the universe back to an initial Big Bang, astronomers have struggled to measure the exact rate of this expansion. In particular, astronomers want to determine a number called the Hubble parameter, a measurement of how fast the cosmos is expanding as we speak. The Hubble parameter tells us the age of the universe, so measuring it was a major goal for many astronomers in the latter half of the 20th century.

The problem, however, is that measuring the Hubble parameter is, perhaps unsurprisingly, quite difficult. There are multiple methods for doing so, and modern observatories are coming up with different numbers depending on which method they use. It seems the number obtained based on the appearance of the universe shortly after the Big Bang is significantly smaller than the number obtained when looking at measurements involving objects closer by.

The early universe Hubble parameter, derived from observations by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite, tells us the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. Meanwhile, the local cosmos measurements might yield an age nearly a billion years younger. If that smaller age is correct, it throws off the entire timeline of cosmic history, and could mess up our understanding of when and how various major events happened in the evolution of the universe.

To be clear: This discrepancy isn't so huge that the Big Bang theory is in trouble, or that we have to rethink everything we know about the cosmos. But the discrepancy is large enough that some cosmologists — scientists studying the history and makeup of the universe as a whole — are suggesting the field is in crisis.

Adam Riess, the Johns Hopkins cosmologist who shared the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics, has argued strongly that we can't ignore the discrepancy, because it keeps appearing, over and over again, in too many independent local cosmos observations to be a fluke. "If the universe fails this crucial end-to-end test (it surely hasn't yet passed), what might this tell us?" Riess wrote in Nature. "It is tempting to think we may be seeing evidence of some 'new physics' in the cosmos."

That could be the case, but "I would say it's at least as likely that we still don't understand what all the subtleties in these measurements are," says cosmologist Arthur Kosowsky of the University of Pittsburgh (who was the author's Ph.D. advisor), "and eventually they'll converge to a single value [for the Hubble parameter]." (of course they will eventually converge because eventually we have to have agreement)

Indeed, the discrepancy could come down to little more than hidden biases in the measurements. To use an analogy, if you have an air rifle that pulls very slightly to the right as you shoot at a target, all your shots may be clustered around a single point, but that point will be to the right of the actual bullseye. The rifle introduces a systematic error to your normally good aim, right?

But the analogy is imperfect because in cosmology, we don't know where the "bullseye" (agreement) is: The precise value of the Hubble parameter can't be calculated independently of measurements. Complicating matters further, none of the observations measure the Hubble parameter directly. 

Instead, they link different observable phenomena to the rate of cosmic expansion. The trick is to use multiple independent measurements as a check on one another, hoping that any systematic effects can be spotted in the process. (hoping for agreement)

For example, the Planck satellite's early-universe observations — those that tell us the universe is expanding more slowly — are based on something called the cosmic microwave background (CMB), which is light left over from about 400,000 years after the Big Bang. However, we aren't seeing this light as it was way back then; we're seeing it after it's passed through clusters of galaxies and entered the Milky Way, with extra light from other sources added in. To get anything useful out of CMB data, astronomers have to subtract everything that isn't primordial; while they're very good at that, there might still be room for systematic bias in the way the subtraction is done.

Measurements based on closer objects — which yield a slightly younger age — are based on type Ia supernovas, which are the explosions of super-dense objects called white dwarfs; the pulsations of very large stars; and the gravitational distortion of light as it passes by galaxies. Each type of measurement has its own set of systematic biases that must be corrected (be made subject to agreement). It's also worth noting that while their Hubble parameter values are close to each other, they aren't in precise agreement either. In other words, all of these observations are complex enough that their results aren't completely settled.

New types of observation are underway, which might help identify where bias exists in Hubble parameter measurements. Removing those biases would bring the Hubble numbers into agreement.

But what if the numbers are right? That could be indicative of some previously unknown phenomenon in the very early universe, from the epoch before the first atoms formed. Perhaps dark energy, which we know is driving cosmic expansion to accelerate in the modern era, played a role far earlier than most cosmologists think. Maybe there are extra particles that were important when the universe was smaller and denser, but whose influence was diluted over billions of years. None of these possibilities are perfect, but whatever the right answer, it's a big deal.

"I don't have a crystal ball better than anyone else, but I think that these measurements are just really hard," 'cosmologist' Kosowsky says. However, his caution doesn't mean he wouldn't be happy to be wrong. "I'm rooting for it to come out the other way, that this is actually showing us something exciting about cosmology." (rooting for an agreement)

Online Source ~  https://www.yahoo.com/news/growing-crisis-cosmology-105501754.html

Full Title - The Growing Crisis in Cosmology found in 'The Week', Author: Matthew Francis, dated Feb. 20, 2020.

Multiple Intelligences in the Social Imagination...

According to Psychology Today, article by Dr. Neel Burton, from Nov. 28, 2018 (updated June 7 2019), there is no agreed upon definition or model of intelligence. By the Collins English Dictionary, intelligence is ‘the ability to think, reason, and understand instead of doing things automatically or by instinct’. By the Macmillan Dictionary, it is ‘the ability to understand and think about things, and to gain and use knowledge’.

Ah, there is the key phrase (agreed upon) and thankfully right from the 'get go' = start.  If you don't know my position by now you will. Which is... there is no social reality nor social imagination without agreement. How does that work exactly? Well, our entire life, which exists in the social imagination, is entirely based information received and exchanged and is so because it is either agreed on or not in the place we are in over a period of time. That means, in order that something becomes a 'real person/place/thing' information has to be received and agreed on as having meaning to us in the place we are.

When you take time to really consider and apply what is going on...all information (no one thinks alone) is socially acquired, agreed on and shared in the social imagination. Once that happens, it is applied and becomes a kind of meaningful product (including concepts such as: liberty, justice, love) which over time is/are continually used to sustain the one and the many in the place where they are;  and, it is especially strong in its original form thus becoming deeply embedded into the social imagination as an/the absolute truth.

All those that claim to truly understand a truth in something is only through agreement and once that happens they circulate that truth. Interestingly, in its most original form one might consider that arriving at a truth is quite remarkable even intelligent. But, it never happens in as an isolated event.  What anyone in a group or the group as a whole determines as a truth is so because it works for them in the place where they are: village, town, country, and nation. Such 'truths' create the shape of what we imagine as  'culture'.

This is in fact the only measure of 'intelligence' within a group is that it understands what/who it is and is not in a place over time within the scope of its continual engagement and agreement in its social imagination... which becomes its social reality.The human mind is like a computer, either accepting bits of information or rejecting. Meaning is a product of that process. And, it can become a future framework for accepting or rejecting new or other information.

Now, this brings me to a theory which for unknown reasons I just came across yesterday. Probably, it is because having studied in Europe and studying classical social thought, not wild notions like 'multiple intelligence would explain it. Having already been informed of what intelligence is, how could anyone, think or imagine multiple intelligences?

What are  multiple intelligences?  Supposedly, multiple intelligences are specific 'modalities' but let us say categorized abilities and or strengths: spatial, visual, musical, emotional, linguistic, artistic and so on. Now, perhaps one can agree that it takes an innate talent to bang two sticks together with some degree of syncopation on a box and when certain people hear it they like it. But that is not an example of intelligence. There really aren't any multiple intelligences.

Of course, each person has certain abilities or strengths that another might not have. But as you read, strengths and abilities/learned skills are not actually intelligences but rather people agreeing that some activity is either useful, pleasant or generates more leisure, wealth, and or health. Now, having a skill or ability or strength as an individual is not just the individual's doing because every individual is shaped by the group the larger social imagination in a place over time; a social imagination that belongs to him/her and the group. A social imagination that introduced from the very beginning of life and it always starts in a mother's womb and then in her arms.

Does race, ethnicity, gender play into this process, this social imagination (locus of the mind) in a place, that produced usable truths for the one and the group? Yes! What I am saying is that they may or may not have a recognized skill or strength without the group agreeing on its role and or purpose in the place they are. So to say that there a multiple intelligences doesn't really explain anything in the social imagination, the social reality.

If you were a pearl diver but lived in the mountains, you would never have the chance to be what you seem to have an intelligence for. No one in your group/culture/society or we should rather say 'social imagination' would ever agree that you had a talent because it would never be useful in the mountains... in the place where you are/they are. 

Does that mean we could potentially all have the same talents/skills/intelligence? Maybe... Its just not that easy to say.. How long would it take for you to become a successful pearl diver even if you went to the place where they are and studied pearl diving which if you potentially could do if given a chance and even be good at it. Well, in 'their' social imagination, they would likely not accept you as a 'pearl diver' on the same level as they are.

Do multiple intelligences exist? No, and its dangerous to think that multiple intelligences exist as isolated phenomenon without a proper context like the social imagination. Doing so leaves out the very essence of what a human being is and is not... a composition of 'information' acquired from interpersonal 'social' interaction in a place over time. 

Without that context, there is no reality, no reason for intelligence whatsoever. Because, it has no role and or impact to make and how could such a thing or concept be appreciated as such without social context and place. Multiple intelligences are really no more than different skill sets, abilities, talents one or many can acquire or learn but again such things exist in agreement in the social imagination. 

In saying that, I should ask is there more than one social imagination in the world? Yes, of course. 

*Note ~ The last blog dealt with agreement reality and how its possible to have 'mutual' agreement with other cultures/groups on certain things either as they are absolute truths or that there is an advantage in agreeing on something outside of ones own culture residing in another; ... "though, we have a few things worldwide that everyone can agree on, we are still not fully in agreement on everything. For not all things appear the same to everyone in exactly the same shape or form. 

Yet, we all do seem to agree that the sun is a star.  Now, in relation to this blog discussing 'multiple intelligences', agreeing on the sun being a star is rather a no brainer since most everyone in the world seems to agree. :-) on that which hardly qualifies such agreement as an example of multiple intelligences arriving at the same conclusion. 

But, certainly in order for the sun to be a star in any social imagination it has to be agreed on which still is not an example of multiple intelligences arriving at the same conclusion; but rather illustrates that certain absolute truths stand alone...without agreement by anyone. Human beings everywhere can recognize an absolute truth when they see it because stems from the absolute intelligent source... The Creator's.
 

Agreement reality in the Social Imagination...

Agreement reality is not just thinking something is real because someone told you so... Its arrived at perception of a thing through social interaction (social dynamics of give and take) and that leads us to agreement (man is inclined toward resolve by nature of the entropic universe) and it becomes 'real' to us. The process is much deeper and wide spreading over time. Keep in mind, once agreement happens, its form is subject to decay. Only a constant agreement process keeps reality going. Its a necessary constant in the social imagination. How/why?

Agreement reality has its thread of dissemination via communication always starts the same way for every living creature including mankind and that is with the very first immediate social contact; with mother. Her social information package and sense of security and or stability in society matters a great deal. The kind of information she imparts tells you (provides you with information) about the basic construct into which you were born.

That information contains good, bad and ugly information because this world is in a state of entropy. Every mother has embedded in her such information. That is why/how the information you get becomes information that you necessarily trust or distrust and accept as true or not.  If a baby senses it can’t trust its mother for safety, warmth, love and nourishment as a basic truth… it will take that distrust or lack of positive sustaining information (untruth) with it and use it as a baseline in society; unless, of course, other information ‘truth’ is interjected and overcomes the lack of positive information issued earlier. 

Now, what is truth? The first truth is our humanity, a created being.  How was our birth possible, how were you created? In the ‘more’ traditional or natural biological way, it means that a ‘baby’ child is the result of copulation between a male and female. Thus, this in itself becomes a basic truth of our being, as in the very foundation of our human existence. This is understood as a complementing union ... one that produces fruit. It is not a union of conflicting protocol or conflicting intercourse that produces no good thing in and of itself. 

The second truth is found and crystallized in shared and or learned information in a place over time. Now, the more we regard shared/learned information as ‘the truth’ is due to the fact that appears to be if not the most then certainly more positive and sustaining us in the place where we are. That is why no culture will ever disagree with such information...like the sun is a star and it sustains life on earth. 

We 'socially' imagine that we have an idea of some kind of truths in our lives, acquired through information given us (by ‘mother/father’ - parents) or shared and learned in a place over time as having positive benefits and or sustainability. Thus, they become both real for us. And, though we have a few things worldwide that everyone can agree on, we are still not fully in agreement. For not all things appear the same to everyone. Yet, what we can all agree on the sun being a star because its is at least one truly apparent truth in any place. And, the only other truth that is equal to that is that we live in an entropic universe. 

Therefore, no matter who you are and are not, not all information you receive at the beginning nor throughout your life is always or in anyway 100% free of decay …as in mis/disinformation. Even that which we call ‘science’ or evidence that something exists as it was or is… means only that a group of people somewhere or everywhere agreed that it is and it is just this – information that has a certain amount of realness about it having been experienced positively and continuously… sustaining us and life around us as we think/imagine it is which is all piled into agreement reality. 

Now, why is that men strive to find or have as in possess truth or a quality of realness in their lives? Why do they strive to agree on anything and or fight to get people to agree with them? Those are good questions. Oddly, I don’t find too many people talking about that in sociology or psychology. There is more talk about gender identity. But, there is more interesting discussion about agreement reality and truth within computer programming and especially when it pertains to Ai. 

Does such discussion lean toward the idea that we ‘mankind’ are some kind of organic computing entity, designed to be in agreement with each other so that the program does not succumb to total corruption ‘takeover’ and or chaos? It seems that way, doesn't it? 

Would it be necessary for the designed computing entity ‘mankind’ to recognize an upgrade if interjected in order that it has a means of escape through a default mode or the ability to accept the authority of the upgrade in order to override total disagreement  as in total chaos? Perhaps, we should even say 'resurrected' from disagreement/chaos upon accepting the saving ‘compatibility’ upgrade as the one and only original default mode directive/command? 

I think so… give the command to save me! "Be my rock of refuge, where I can always go. Give the command to save me, for You are my rock and my fortress" ~ Psalm 71:3.