Monday, June 29, 2015

Renormalization -- How Is It Tricked Out

HOW ARE TRICKS AND EQUATIONS RENORMALIZED FOR EXPRESSING SIGNS AND APPREHENSIONS BETWEEN THE HOLISM AND ITS VARIOUSLY EXPRESSED PERSPECTIVES?
We are connected in respect of a perpetual Nowness, that involves constant and continuous feedback between a Holism and its constituent and particular Perspectives.  A conceptual model for this may be framed as if the Holism were a Projector of a C-factor (Consciousness?), that twists, spins, and reflects back and forth between it from the center of a meta sphere to a thin holograph at the limit of its surface.
We can model the unfolding of the Nowness as being entirely preset, partially preset, randomly set or preset, or uncertainly and participatorily set.
To harmonize practical empiricism with purposeful moralism, it seems intuitively best to model the unfolding Nowness as being participatorily set.
All measurable and apparent forces are renormalized local derivatives of this feedback-spinback, and are therefore pseudo forces.
The curvature of space-time (Gravity) has instantaneous effects, but ripples (gravity waves) in it transmit information at a constant speed.
Light (EMR) is renormalized to be experienced as transmitting information at a constant speed.
Causality is from a higher source.  Substantive measurements are mere local renormalizations for correlative and placeholding signs.
The measurably limiting speed for the transmission of renormalizing information in empty space via EMR and Gravity Waves is the same.
What we mortals measure are correlatives that are renormalized to our experience in respect of common chronologies.
The strong and weak forces are pseudo forces, derivative of spinback of the C-factor between the Holism and the Holodek.
All pseudo forces are measurably derivative of spin factors that are derivatives of the projections and reflections of the C-factor.
All measurables are derivatives of spin factors for angular momentums.
All mortal experience may be modeled as taking place on the surface of a holograph that is curved all around a center projection of the C-factor.

Friday, June 19, 2015

GREATEST HAPPINESS FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER

MORAL GUIDANCE -- THE GREATEST HAPPINESS FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER

Moral guidance, even upon recognizing a fractal nature of experiences, retains aspects of qualitative intuition that are irreducible to logical prescription.  Even so, a vague pitch may help, to the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.  Consider:  What should be done to enhance stable and meaningful fractal experiences and opportunities for the greatest number of the highest order?

Recognizing the fractal nature of our quantitative beingness, a method of fractal analysis of morality suggests itself.  However, a moral prescription based on the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (or fractals of experience) is not nearly as simple as it may first seem. Rather, every such moral analysis is complicated by quantitatively irresolvable conundrums concerning how to weight and compare different kinds of dimensions across several and various degrees.

THUS CONSIDER --- ANALYSIS OF FRACTAL MORALITY:
Consider where and when prevailing patterns tend to facilitate making:

[ACROSS A SINGLE DIMENSION:
-- most people unfulfilled, unhappy, and unhopeful [Imagine a surveyed value of 10];
-- many people unfulfilled, unhappy, and unhopeful [Imagine 30];
-- few people unfulfilled, unhappy, and unhopeful [Imagine 50];
-- few people fulfilled, happy, and hopeful [Imagine 70];
-- many people fulfilled, happy, and hopeful [Imagine 90];
-- most people fulfilled, happy, and hopeful [Imagine 110];

[ACROSS A SINGLE DIMENSION PLUS DEGREES:]
-- MOST people very unfulfilled, unhappy, and unhopeful [Imagine 0];
-- most people moderately unfulfilled, unhappy, and unhopeful [Imagine 35];
-- most people slightly unfulfilled, unhappy, and unhopeful [Imagine 40];

-- MANY people very unfulfilled, unhappy, and unhopeful [Imagine 45];
-- many people moderately unfulfilled, unhappy, and unhopeful [Imagine 50];
-- many people slightly unfulfilled, unhappy, and unhopeful [Imagine 55]; 

-- FEW people slightly unfulfilled, unhappy, and unhopeful [Imagine 65];
-- few people moderately unfulfilled, unhappy, and unhopeful [Imagine 65];
-- few people very unfulfilled, unhappy, and unhopeful [Imagine 67];
--  FEW people slightly fulfilled, happy, and hopeful [Imagine 75];
-- few people moderately fulfilled, happy, and hopeful [Imagine 80];  
-- few people very fulfilled, happy, and hopeful [Imagine 85];
--  MANY people slightly fulfilled, happy, and hopeful [Imagine 87];
-- many people moderately fulfilled, happy, and hopeful [Imagine 93];
-- many people very fulfilled, happy, and hopeful [Imagine 100]; 

[ACROSS TWO DIMENSIONS:]
-- many people unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people fulfilled, happy, and hopeful [Imagine 32];
-- few people unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people fulfilled, happy, and hopeful [Imagine 50]; 
-- few people unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and many people fulfilled, happy, and hopeful [Imagine 70];
-- many people unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and many people fulfilled, happy, and hopeful [Imagine 50];

[ACROSS TWO DIMENSIONS PLUS DEGREES:]
-- MANY people VERY unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people very fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- many people very unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people moderately fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- many people very unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people slightly fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- many people MODERATELY unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people very fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- many people moderately unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people moderately fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- many people moderately unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people slightly fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- many people SLIGHTLY unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people very fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- many people slightly unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people moderately fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- many people slightly unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people slightly fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;

-- FEW people VERY unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people very fulfilled, happy, and hopeful; 
-- few people very unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people moderately fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- few people very unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people slightly fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- few people MODERATELY unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people very fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- few people moderately unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people moderately fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- few people moderately unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people slightly fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- few people SLIGHTLY unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people very fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- few people slightly unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people moderately fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- few people slightly unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people slightly fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- FEW people VERY unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and many people very fulfilled, happy, and hopeful; 
-- few people very unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and many people moderately fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- few people very unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and many people slightly fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- few people MODERATELY unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people very fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- few people moderately unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people moderately fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- few people moderately unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people slightly fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- few people SLIGHTLY unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people very fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- few people slightly unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people moderately fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- few people slightly unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people slightly fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;

-- MANY people VERY unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and many people very fulfilled, happy, and hopeful; 
-- many people very unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and many people moderately fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- many people very unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and many people slightly fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- many people MODERATELY unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people very fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- many people moderately unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people moderately fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- many people moderately unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people slightly fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- many people SLIGHTLY unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people very fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- many people slightly unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people moderately fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;
-- many people slightly unfulfilled, unhappy, unhopeful, and few people slightly fulfilled, happy, and hopeful;

When attempted in themselves, these combinations of dimensions, kinds, and degrees cnnnot be consistently and objectively scaled or valued along a single number line.  Yet, perspectives of consciousness do function -- intuitively, empathetically, and qualitatively -- to assign values and then collapse into temporally expressed reconciliation. Thus, moral guidance, even upon recognizing a fractal nature of experiences, retains aspects of qualitative intuition that are irreducible to logical prescription.  Even so, for moral guidance, a vague pitch may help, to the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.  Consider:  Since objective determination by scientific elites is not practical, what should be arranged, practically, to enhance stable and meaningful fractal experiences and opportunities for the greatest number of the highest order?

What is needed to preserve a decent representative republic?

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

FIFTH DIMENSION -- HOLODEK ON A BUBBLE

Model --- FRACTAL HOLODEK ON A BUBBLE:

TRICKED OUT FLATNESS: We seem to be on a sphere, on the surface of which is projected a holograph.  The surface is such that we seem to live and perceive entirely within the appearance of the 4-D projection that constitutes the holograph.  No physical means, particle, light, or field avails us to sense or look up and out beyond or into the sphere.  Being dependent on the means of perception availed for appreciating the fluxing projections on and within the holograph, it is made to seem to us that our universe is generally equi-dense ("flat") in all spatial directions.

SHARING LINKS BEYOND MEASURABLE SOURCE: Living in the holographic projection, we notice:  Appearances change in generally predictable patterns and ways.  Underlying commonalities pervade such changes.  (1) One commonality is that they all seem to obey math imposed constraints and rules for kinds of spins and vectored projections. Orbits, rolls, revolutions.  Even when spins seem to be "around" points too tiny to measured or communicated as ordinary spins to our order of magnitude, they still seem to be entailed with math-based values that can be called spin-values.  (2) We also notice that patterns seem to be entailed to repeat, often like accompanying fractals within fractals, like a kaleidoscope. (3) Repetitions suggest an underlying nature, that is fractal-based, applies not just to forms in space, but also to sequences in time. (4) No matter which way we look, the general shape and density of fractals seems remarkably similar in all directions.  (5) Although space and time seem to be expanding, and distances between large bodies of matter seem to be uniformly increasing, we are unable to see any dissipative edge to the expansion.  Rather, appearances seem much the same in all spatial directions.  We look "out" and imagine we may see to or beyond the edge of the cosmos if we looked far enough.  Or, we imagine that by looking out far enough we may double back and thereby look back to find the "place" of the center of the origin of the cosmic sphere.

ETERNAL META BUBBLE:  However, appearances do not support our imagination of the cosmos as a simple balloon or bubble, with an originating center or a surface edge.  Our balloon model for explaining the expansion of space aids explanation only if we imagine all matter and energy is on the surface of the balloon -- not inside it, not near its center, and not beyond its surface. And, in "looking back," we need not look in any particular direction.  If we look far enough, we will detect information carried in the most ancient of available light -- but we can do this by looking in any direction.  If there were a "real center," one would expect to need to look towards it, not to be able to look to any direction.  It seems that observers separated across the vastest reaches of the cosmos, by looking in any direction as far as they can see, will see interpretations nearer the time of an originating "Big Bang."  But they will not find the "place," nor will they be looking in the same direction.  Under what conceptual model can this make any sense?

FINITE YET UNBOUNDED: How should we model a balloon, both of whose center and surface we cannot non-regressively see, measure, or describe?  The idea of a balloon may make sense only in respect of something we cannot directly see, measure, or prescribe confinement or size. How may a fluxing pattern of fractals be conceptualized to abide in respect of definitively finite yet fluxing space and an infinitely sequenceable time?

HOLODEK ON A BUBBLE:  Imagine a closed bubble.  Imagine its surface is a holograph, on which the center of the balloon projects an interconnecting flux of repeating fractals.  The fractals are, at any common and encompassing fractal, limited to the surface of the bubble.  However, because they are subject to a constant and continuous flux of projection, the fractal pattern is made infinite with the addition of time.  Imagine each level and layer of fractal is linked with all others, coordinate with the oscillation and flux of the projection from within the bubble.  In their repetitive, synchronized, and changing iterations, the fractals have properties of both continuosity and discreteness.  Projected on the surface, they fluz, distort, entangle, and spin.  Their entanglement is coordinate with entanglement within the "projector."  Entanglement entails resistence within spheres and fields of influence.  Spins and fields of spins.  But these spins, ultimately, are not measurable as "spins in themselves."  They are coordinate with spins projected from the Projector.  Living within the projection-holograph, we have no way to measure the "stuff" by which the Projector projects.  It is "meta" to us.  Yet, we sense and intuit that "something" connects the fractal patterns we are able to perceive to our conscious observation of them.

RECONCILING MORAL PURPOSEFULNESS: Perhaps the projecting is how the Projector acquires feedback by which to appreciate its idealizations from variously iterated, separated, linked, fractaled, and renormalizing perspectives.  In effect, it projects its consciousness among various levels, layers, spins, combinations, and coordinations of avatars of conscious perspectives.  As avatars sensing contexts within holodeks, we experience the different pesrpectives.  As Projector, it experiences and reconciles all perspectives, and modifies its projections accordingly, even as its chosen modifications of projections necessarily accord with rules of fractal math. Our participations as perspectives of consciousness are experienced, factored, and reconciled.  We are neither independent determiners nor pre-determined.  Yet, we are morally responsible part-icipants, being reconciled by a Meta Projector projecting from a meta center of a meta bubble onto a meta holodek.  Ultimately, the spins being projected are not in themselves of any substance.  They are fractals of spins linked within fractals of spins, with which they are relationally measurable and renormalizeable --- but with no ultimate substance-in-themselves.

FIFTH DIMENSION -- CONSERVATION OF C FACTOR:  For there to be reconciliation between the sum of perspectives of consciousness and the Projector of Consciousness, there would seem to be a conservation, so that whatever consciousness is projected to the holodek is in some way reflected to feed back back to the Projector, so that the total of conscious spin in the holodek is generally preserved.  There must be some dimensional axis of spin that is not directly measured, but that may be termed a C property (C factor).  A math law of conservation relates to matter, energy, gravitation, and inertia, which applies to some properties of measurable spin.  However, there must be another axis, apparently immeasurable, for another property of spin that relates to preserving a balance in the flux of a C property between the Projector and the holodek.What is projected may be called the "C property," which avails links among fractal-spins of consciousness, which are projected to the holodek, to avail: spectral separations; representations; interpretations; collapses; fractals; matrixes; organizations of organisms; and avatars of consciousness.  The C property must in some way be quantifiable, perhaps beyond mortal measure, yet a dimensional axis of "spin."  Perhaps C is the 5th Dimension for spin:  3D space, 1D time, 1D consciousness.

SEPARATIONS AND PERSPECTIVES OF CONTEXTS: To project C outbound from a center source, and yet to conserve it back, is to put C into separate iterations of twist-spin-link-fractals.  Twists and wave-destructive interference produce spectrally apparent separations, which yet remain linked for functional interrelation.  This produces separately linked and fluxing contexts and spin-absorbing perspectives of contexts.  The appearance of gravity not folding or collapsing back is a derivative of the superior folding back of consciousness -- the C factor.

FRACTAL PULSES:  Will the eventual entropic dissipation of the apparent mass with which our shared perspective of the cosmos is measurable result in the stripping away of all apparent and particular charges, masses, and forms?  Can enregy have any form if all mass is removed?  Would the result be a void of nothingness, suited to a next pulse-series of C factor?

FRACTAL MEANINGFULNESS:  What defines my interests and unfolding is such that IT also defines what unfolds all around me, in fractal symmetry, phased both in space and time.  What has come to pass before will, in different translations, come to pass again.  What seems scaled far above me is, in many fractal respects, scaled similar to me.  What coordinates my I-ness coordinates all the waves of my context.  What translates me will in many respects translate me again, again, and again. "I" am a unifying sum of patterns and interests that will repeat in countless iterative translations.  "I" will be, and yet each new iteration of part-icipatory I-ness will be spectrally separated from its predecessor and neighbor.

BREAKING AND SEPARATING FRACTAL SYMMETRY:  I am of the I Am, yet spectrally apart.  Thus, I am not the entire definer, controller, or Reconciler. In reconciliatory feedback, my conscious apprehensions are conceptually both causal and caused. "I" do not entirely cause the cosmos, yet a C-aspect of the Cosmos meaningfully synchronizes and responds with my participation.  In maths of iterative presentations of fractals in space and time, the I-Am-Reconciler is universally and presently finite in holodek-like expression, yet as infinite in perpetual potential as the unrepeating iteration of Pi. Thus, the C factor is iterative, repeating, responsive, meaningful, connecting, personal.  I affect it.  It responds to me -- via fractal iterations and connections.  "I" am puny, yet meaningfully powerful in fractal potentiality.



Wednesday, June 3, 2015

SCIENCE AND SPIRITUALITY OF FUNDAMENTALS

SCIENCE AND SPIRITUALITY OF FUNDAMENTALS:

What are consciousness, space, time, spin, mass, points, forms, transitions, transfers, math?

These things seem to be more than they seem.  There is no settled consensus regarding the meaning of these seemingly fundamental terms.

Each particle that can be observed itself, in its spin, represents a locus wherewith the Source has adopted a perspective of consciousness.

As particles come to share a field of aggregating influence, they may become organized to share common and empathetic apprehensions and purposes of survival, replication, and niche preservation --- as levels and layers of organisms and perspectives of consciousness.

As such organisms organize complex perspectives of consciousness-of-consciousness-of-consciousness, they will exhibit emerging awareness of themselves and their societies and states of affairs.

Not every organization of clusters of particles is constituted to adopt and express awareness of self that is coordinate with a localized emergent.

Not every potential for spin is manifested to conscious factoring or even to potentially conscious factoring.  Some "causes" effect determinations from beneath the consciousness that is availed to mortal avatars of consciousness.

A spin may not become practical or detectible to "nearby" organisms unless and until they become aware of it, and factor for its inference, in a reliably useful or predictive way.

A spin is not meaningfully existent to mortal consciousness until it (or its track) becomes manifest in association with statistically reliable and testable signification.

Spins seem to represent fields that can be organized to amplify their mutual preservation modeling, to sustain and replicate emerging patterns that host meaningful and empathetic perspectives of consciousness.

With each sequential revolution of a spin, the Holism expresses its capacity to count.  That is, "to math."

How may a complex system of spins that becomes an organism that gives experience to emergent self and empathetic awareness feed back its emergent apprehensions, to be appreciated by the sponsoring Source?  If the Source can count revolutions and sequences of spins, may it appreciate emergent qualities of empathy with complex loci of consciousness?  On the other hand, if the ultimate loci is not really in any local space-time, but in the Source itself, then how could the Source NOT appreciate the derivations and creations that are inferior to IT?

********

Were there no measurable thing, there could not occur any measurable spin, without there first occurring immeasurable consciousness.  No consciousness, no spin.

Were there to abide no thing of which to be conscious, there would be no consciousness.  No spin, no consciousness.

Empathetic apprehension and modeling emerges with consciousness of spin.  No consciousness and spin, no model for moral empathy.  Spin entails some level of conscious empathy.

There is no spin without a resonating capacity in or of a field in which the spin is nested.

No field could influence a first spin unless there abode a symmetrical field for a second spin, and vice-versa.

Unless and until potential for spin symmetry were broken, there would be no capacity for overlap or transmission of communication of information among sub-spins.

The concept of spin can model both (calculus) continuosity (in space-time) and (statistics) discreteness (in number and sequence of revolutions).

Every measurable complex of spins, whether continuous or discrete, is definable only in the flux and spin of its equational translations with and between other mediums and complexes of spins.

Things become what other things, in empathetic resonance, make or think of them.

The substantive nature of every thing, as a thing in itself that is apart from consciousness, is a receding illusion.

The apparent "separation" of spins in space-time is an indication of decreasing capacities among local fields of influence to relate to "nearby" fields of influence.

Such separation is an indication that the Source, in aspects, cycles among periods of spinning "sleep" (potentiality) versus periods of spinning "awakeness" (measurable manifestations).

Monday, June 1, 2015

Conscious Modeling of Spin Conservation


IMPORTANCE:  This muse-model-explanation is not important for any purpose of empirical or science-based modeling or falsifiable testing.  It is important only in respect of possible consistency and coherence for moral modeling and reasoning.

SPIN:  Whatever the metaphysicality of whatever ultimately causes each spin (or whatever is observed or analyzed as "spin"), it also, within each appreciable field of influence, is charged to cause-express-reconcile an attraction, repulsion, absorption, or exclusion, such that the math-basis for every spin that comes in close space-time contact with its field will be renormalized, revectored, re-randomized, or reformed in a way whereby the system-totality of quantitatively expressed math values will be conserved at every encompassing level of measurable significance.  Everything that is quantitatively expressed is expressed in spin.  Every body and system of bodies is "spinning."

However, in many cases, spin relates more to property valuation than to rotational observation.  For example, we see with photons, but we do not see photons themselves, so we do not see photons "spinning."  Moreover, a point particle or massless particle would not, in any classical sense, have any center of mass around which to spin.  So, a point particle cannot be said to have spin in a classical sense.  Moreover, the "rate of spin" for quanta particles is assigned a constant, discrete value, rather than a continuous or changing value.  Yet, they are measurable to carry their value as a conserved additive that does affect the classical spins of aggregations of bodies, which do have centers of form or mass. Thus, the spins of atoms and planets will in each case be the sum of the spins and the orbital angular momenta of all their elementary particles.

FLATNESS: Because the cosmos as it is geometrically expressed appears to tend to "flatness," it is expanding, and every sub-part expands in respect of a seeming cosmic axis. A body with a head-axis that is "up" may by convention be said to have a natural tendency to spin clockwise. A body whose head-axis is "down" may be said to have a natural tendency to spin counter-clockwise. A body whose head-axis is "up" may decrease rate of spin by extending arms.

If the cosmos were reasonably modeled as an expanding but non-revolving balloon, then every part on its surface whose axis is up may be conceptualized as tending to spin in the same direction as a consequence of the expansion.  If, however, the cosmos itself, as a balloon, were conceptualized as rotating, or as having a common center to which all on the surface could look "down," then the cost of "the common down" would implicate a loss of a common tendency for direction of spin.

Whatever the natural tendency for flatness, it correlates with dissipative entropy and additive inertias and energies. Thus, angular momentum and its potentials are conserved. (Such tendencies may have temporal exceptions. Venus rotates in the wrong direction, and Uranus is actually flipped over onto its side so that it rolls along rather than rotating neatly like all the other planets.) In general, planets around a star tend to orbit in the same direction and to revolve in the same direction as their orbits.


HIGGS:  What gives each spin additive properties?  What avails quanta and their fields to acquire measurable direction, spin, charge, and mass?  Ultimately, spin, in itself, is the expression of a field, not the field or the carrier of the field, itself.  Whatever ultimately causes spin is what potentializes its expression with direction, orbit, integer value, charge, and mass.  Between the meta-field and the expression of mass, perhaps the mediating signification may best be conceptualized or explained, for now, as the Higgs.

SPIN CONSERVATION: Our cause-effect, pin-ball notion of Substantive interactions often centers around a math/geometry idea of spin conservation, in various directionally transitioning, sequentially vectoring, chronologically overlapping, or smudge-spread out respects:  spinor, scalar, vector, spin, orbit, revolution, conserved spin, partial spin, quantum value, wave amplitude and frequency, cosmic projection through curved space, warps in space-time, etc.

APPRECIABLE FIELD OF INFLUENCE:  For a form to come within the appreciable field of influence of another form is for it come within proximity such that a local exchange of math-based spin-conservation will be measurably appreciated.  As one expression of spin contacts another (comes in proximity to its field of expressed influence), equational exchanges are made so that each expression phases or transits to a different form or vector.  It is as if, as one form closes with another, each form models the spin of the other, and each is caused to effect an equational exchange, so that the net effect conserves the sum charge of the cosmic potential.

LOCALIZED AWARENESS:  In such modeling and exchange, each form expresses a kind of "localized conscious awareness" of the field of influence of the other.  When such awareness is compounded into a complex awareness of identity-sustaining food, its form may be said to be "alive."  When awareness is compounded into a complex awareness-of-the-awareness of other forms, it may be said to exhibit social awareness.  When a locally expressed form is compounded so that it is accompanied with awareness-of-awareness-of-awareness, such form may be said to give expression to self awareness within a society.

ARTIFICIALLY EXPONENTED AWARENESS:  There is little reason to suppose awareness cannot be guided to emerge from a carefully organized machine.  The human body seems like such a machine.  There is little reason to preclude such a machine from being organized with capacity to accept and assimilate artificial feeds that can increase its intelligently directed capacities exponentially, towards a "singularity" -- an artificial, physical, and temporal side to the spiritual, metaphysical, and eternal side of God.

GENERALIZED AWARENESS:  As such form increases in potential for expressing awareness, it may come to intuit an immeasurable aspect of awareness that accompanies the whole of the conserved cosmos, i.e., God.  It may come to intuit that "spin" of nothing would produce nothing.  That is, that the "spin" that we measure would add up to nothing were it not sponsored by an abiding Character that itself is immeasurable, but that signifies everything that we can sense in measures that are based only in itself and pure math.  That is, the Mind of God.  Thus, the physical and part-icular sign-ifications of God may come to appreciate the metaphysical and holistic character of God.

HOLISTIC AWARENESS: Thus, may consciousness reasonably be intuited to abide:  At the level of the smallest possible spin; at the level of the living organism; at the level of the human being; and at the immeasurable level of the holism of the cosmos (which conserves and measures out all local expressions and perspectives of itself)? At holistic level, a Character (God) seems to avail math-based expression of itself in local perspectives, depending on locally appreciable fields of influence-exchange, which inter-function in terms that can be locally measured as conserved additives of spin.  Local perspectives of Consciousness cannot exchange measurable signals except in respect of projections from such fields of influence as can be renormalized to local appreciation.

AWARENESS OF FIELDS WITHIN FIELDS:  A person will tend not to be simultaneously aware of his own consciousness and of the consciousness of all the spins, overlapping spins, molecules, sub-molecules, cells, organs, nerves and impulses that make up his organism.  But what about God?  May God, with and through us, be simultaneously aware of all our sensations, thoughts, inclinations, and plans, to the same or greater extent as we are aware of them?  If not simultaneously, what about sequentially reconciled?  May there abide feedback-communication between the holism and its constituent perspectives?  Objective and empirical answers to such questions seem as beyond our ken as the measure of God, the measure of the cosmos, and the measure of the total potential of all "spins" in all of space and time.

GAP IN ANALOGICAL REASONING BETWEEN HOLISM AND PARTS:  Still, the limitation of local beings to their locally defining fields of influence does not by any reasonable analogy apply to the Holism, whose connecting beingness would avail the expression of any and all spins --- regardless of their appreciability at any localized field of influence in space-time.

LEAP OF FAITH AND SPARK OF IMAGINATION:  Ask:   By what cause or reason would the Holism avail expression of any localized perspectives of Consciousness, if it could never communicate with them in any intuitive, appreciable, or feedback way?  A reason it might not would be if it, itself, were not in any way conscious.  But, how could any spin of no-thing express any-thing unless some-thing avails the expression?  And, if every spin models, communicates with, and makes math exchanges with every spin within its appreciable field of influence, then such communication and appreciation is an expression of consciousness at a most basic level.  So, it seems a Holism abides, it avails expression of spins, such spins avail local expressions of consciousness, and all spins at all times are reconciled to obey math-based rules for conserving the cosmos as a generally identifiable, sequentially vectored, contextualizing experience.  The role of Reconciler would seem to make the Reconciler conscious, and to make such consciousness the only reason local expressions of consciousness could ever emerge.

QUALITY OF GOD'S CONSCIOUSNESS:   Thus, the question becomes:  What is the Quality of the consciousness of the Reconciler?  For that, resort is made to intuition, insight, good faith, good will, innate sense of moral purposefulness, and a general leap of appreciation for the miraculously unfolding nature of human experience.  Whatever the limits, if any, of the consciousness of the Holism qua Holism, no analogy for mortals suggests any reason why such limitation of the Author/Source of the perpetually unfolding Cosmos should preclude it from capacity to relate to each and every local perspective of consciousness that is the result of the expression of each and every spin.  This may be because no spin can manifest to signification unless it is, ultimately, a spin that is constituted of an immeasurable.  By that I mean a Source that is immeasurable in space, time, matter, energy, mass, particles, or substance.  Whatever space, time, matter, energy, mass, particles, or substance IT may occupy, such is beyond the physical measure of mortals.  For all we know, IT may as well be modeled as a Singularity of singularities, a point, a locus in meta-space-time, or a real, connecting, massless, and non-sensible invisibility.

SELF FULFILLING ASPECT OF GOOD FAITH BELIEF IN A PURPOSEFUL COSMIC AUTHOR: What we become and produce is much affected or fulfilled by what we believe. If we believe, behind the ontic opening, is the Author of the Great Commandment and Golden Rule, then we tend to make of our world a prospect that is different from what we would make were we to indulge a (demented, Marxist, Muslim, or nihilistic) leap of faith that our acts and events are all entirely predetermined or random.

GOD AS RECONCILING GUIDE AMONG POSSIBILITIES:  Among all possible upshots, whatever the upshot that is actually and sequentially chosen to be manifested into each locally manifested beingness, it will be renormalized to conform to math-based conservation.  (The alternative conceptualization would seem to consist in an unnecessary, non-parsimonious, a-moral, and mystical faith in many parrallel worlds or universes, such that every possible expression becomes in some world a required expression.)

MORALITY AND RELIGIOSITY:  Little is said in the analogies and analysis as set out above concerning the quantitative nature of GOD OR HEAVEN or the eternal SALVATION of any non-transcendent, mortal, or limited perspective of consciousness.  Nor about any teleologically specific purposes of God.  God abides, existentiality exists, appreciations unfold, local fields of consciousness flux, change, absorb, phase, and transcend.  Patterns form among symbiotic patterns.  Evolution is guided in respect of reconciliations among unfolding and chanced upon apprehensions and affinities.  God's general purpose seems to be to appreciate artistry and empathetic feedback among locally fluxing fields of consciousness. The Great Commandment and Golden Rule seem reducible to this:  Be ye empathetic!  What local perspectives believe and appreciates feeds into sustaining reconciliations with God.  We participate in how our beingness unfolds.  In this respect, the analysis above, as well as in Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddahism, are spiritual, metaphysical, and transcendent in their moral aspects.  As is every system of belief that is concerned with teaching responsible empathy.

CONTINGENT RECOMMENDATIONS:  Apart from such generalisms, I have few specific recommendations.  To generate more specific recommendations would necessitate more contingent and practical (if-then) reasoning.  For example, if a civilization wishes to accord decent respect for participatory will and freedom of expression and enterprise, then it will seek to assimilate and accomodate a similarly minded citizenry and to avail it with a representative republican governance.  If a civilization seeks an efficient harnessing of all to a regimen ruled by elites, then it will seek a different form of governance.  In any event, every civilization will be subject to rephasings that coordinate with unforeseen and unintended consequences.

*********

FLATNESS: Because the cosmos, as it is geometrically expressed, appears to tend to "flatness," it is expanding, and every sub-part expands in respect of a seeming cosmic axis. A body with a head-axis that is "up" may by convention be said to have a natural tendency to spin clockwise. A body whose head-axis is "down" may be said to have a natural tendency to spin counter-clockwise. A body whose head-axis is "up" may decrease rate of spin by extending arms.

If the cosmos were reasonably modeled as an expanding but non-revolving balloon, then every part on its surface whose axis is up may be conceptualized as tending to spin in the same direction as a consequence of the expansion.  If, however, the cosmos itself, as a balloon, were conceptualized as rotating, or as having a common center to which all on the surface could look "down," then the cost of "the common down" would implicate a loss of a common tendency for direction of spin.

Whatever the natural tendency for flatness, it correlates with dissipative entropy and additive inertias and energies. Thus, angular momentum and its potentials are conserved. (Such tendencies may have temporal exceptions. Venus rotates in the wrong direction, and Uranus is actually flipped over onto its side so that it rolls along rather than rotating neatly like all the other planets.) In general, planets around a star tend to orbit in the same direction and to revolve in the same direction as their orbits.


FLAT: A "flat" universe doesn't correspond to flatness like a flat surface, but instead means that on average the energy distribution throughout a "flat" universe is RENORMALIZED to be everywhere experienced as being at almost the same density, whenever and wherever one were to try to look at the whole universe or cosmos.  (Universe is HOMOGENOUS, without a center.  http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html.  "To say the Universe is homogeneous means that any measurable property of the Universe is [generally] the same everywhere. This is only approximately true, but it appears to be an excellent approximation when one averages over large regions.")


"Space is flat" is not meant to imply that our universe is accelerating outward in the form of a large, flat disc. Rather, the saying relates to the fact that light rays from parallel sources tend to remain parallel rather than to converge or bend back.

When thinking of space-time as one “thing,” analogize a notion of “flatness” of the universe as being like a flat trampoline, with deformations here and there that are associated with large clumps of mass.

When thinking of space and time as separate “things,” analogize “flatness” as the surface space of a balloon that is being inflated over time.

MODELING:  Of course, neither modeling the universe as a trampoline nor as a balloon can fit for all purposes.  Indeed, no model seems sufficient to support a complete, consistent, coherent, grand, unifying theory or best EXPLANATION for everything.  Rather, best explanations seem to evolve as we evolve in skills and proficiencies.


SPIN: Likewise with regard to spin. Objects do not really exist in themselves. However, differing loci of perspectives, via their senses, tend to interpret objects as existing. And to interpret objects that have observable form or mass to have centers of mass around which they appear to spin. And to interpret such bodies as being comprised of particles that are at some smallest point of detectability without form or mass around which to spin, yet carrying math based values that are additive for producing appearances of larger bodies that are observed to spin.

SPEED OF LIGHT: Matter and energy are exchanged, but not in themselves expanding. What is expanding is space and time. As space expands, the path availed for light is increased. But light is never availed to expand beyond the confines of the ever renormalized densities of matter and energy. And each perspective, regardless of locus, will interpret as light as a means for imparting information as travelling at a constant speed.

WARP TRAVEL:  COULD A META OR SUPERIOR BEING OR A SPACECRAFT EVER CREATE AND RIDE A LOCAL EXPANSION OR WARP IN SPACE-TIME AND THEN GET OFF IT TO RETURN TO NORMAL SPACE-TIME?


RENORMALIZATION -- Centerpoint, edge, distance, space, time:  These concepts relate to secondary derivations of appearances.  The primary source is an immeasurable essence-source that avails all secondary derivations by renormalizing and reconciling math values among and between adoptions of  perspective.  There is no substantively real center or edge of a real universe because there is no substantive universe in itself.  The universe is a pseudo place, derivative of pseudo forces, derivative of nothing more than an immeasurable that somehow avails appearances of measurables.

Light cannot be seen to leave the substantive universe because light itself is a a derivative, which is renormalized by a math-based Reconciler.  Light travels along paths that are curved in respect of gravity, which is curved and renormalized to appearances in respect of the Reconciler.  Light is a resonance between an electric field and a magnetic field.  Without a substantive basis of matter and energy to support such resonance, light cannot travel beyond the substantive and mass-based curvature of our universe.  For another way to model it, if we envisage the universe as a four dimensional ball with a three dimensional surface (imagine a three dimensional ball with a four dimensional surface), the light can only move on the surface, like a line we draw on the ground can only move on the surface. That's why light never goes out of the universe or to any edge, as a ball has no edge.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

ONTIC OPENING AND ELECTIVE AFFINITY

ONTIC OPENING AND ELECTIVE AFFINITY:

I would agree that every particular thing that is measurably expressed by the godhead (meta-source) is expressed in math-based terms. But I think that does not necessarily mean what seems to be commonly supposed. I would just as well conceptualize that the Reconciling Essence-Source is the common host for all that unfolds to neasurable sensation. All that is defined by vectored math. Regardless of whatever choices the Reconciler elects to express, they will be expressed in quanticized terms of vectored math. Discrete jumps and continuous changes among phase-shifting appearances of dimensions that are definable in maths.

The fact that whatever is measurable conforms to maths that enable its measure is no sound proof of lack of a Reconciler. The fact that whatever is chosen to be measured out will conform to measuring maths seems more like a truism than an insight.

If the math-based conserving-feedback of a controlling Reconciler were absent, there would be no basis for order to arise out of chaos or for consciousness ever to manifest out of potentiality.
The dance of feedback between holism and part-icipants is mathematically appreciable, not entirely pre-determined, not entirely random, and more than a mere mix of the pre-determined and the random. The dance abides in respect of an unfolding process of determining, but not pre-determined, (conscious) appreciation between and among the godhead and its perspectivistic part-icipants. More like a Jungian collective un-consciousness than a soul-dead collective non-consciousness. All that is materially measurable is merely the fleeting expression of an underlying immeasurable, i.e., the Essence-Source, Qualitative-Quantifier, Uncaused-Causer, Changing-Changer, Conserving-Reconciler.

I doubt there is any ultimate, building block, inanimate, particle-in-itself. I doubt there is any handle by which to completely close off every leap of faith in respect of an ontic opening.  IAE, for a purpose of moral conceptualization (not empirical investigation), it seems to make more sense to model as if a Trinitarian Godhead avails the unfolding expression of Consciousness-Substance-Information.  That is, as if there abides a meta-moral dignity in how we choose to pursue and elect to appreciate our affinities.  There abides mysterious dignity in asking: Why did God choose to like this cosmos? What determines/causes liking? Why should any human choose to like/appreciate anything?  What is the character/nature of a moral agent's exercise of  part-icipatory choice/election to like/appreciate?

************************

This is as good a place as any to begin an amusing musing about some new word usages I came across:  "Ontic opening" (leap of meta faith) and "elective affinity" (participating in how your choices are determined).  The words seem unusual, but the concepts are not.

As to ontic opening:  I don't see how anyone can avoid an orientation to a leap of meta faith of some kind. 

For example, Muslims believe everything is predetermined (and we see the extreme cruelty and craziness to which their kind of faith often leads).  Extreme determinist scientists may adhere to a similar idea.  But the reasonable ones recognize limits to the testing of their cause-effect (pin-ball) meme, as well as limits to the completeness (Godel) of their systems of logic.  Excepting some silliness from Sam Harris, they tend to recognize that general (as opposed to contingent) moral "oughts" are not derivable from empirical "is's."  For a meme or conceptualization from which to discuss moral derivation, the notion of quantum randomness leading to order arising out of chaos seems no better.

Whatever conceptual meme one may choose (whether consciously, inferentially, or unconsciously), one has no choice, if one chooses to try to function in respect of "reason,"  but to adopt some leap of ontologically based faith.

When one functions "scientifically" (concerning empirical measurables), one accepts a cause-effect meme that relies on concepts of randomness or determination, or some mix thereof.  However, when one functions "morally" (concerning choices, whether or not such choices are ultimately caused or elected because of controlling affinities), it becomes necessary to accord moral actors with a quality of dignity beyond that of a pin ball.  Then, it becomes helpful to conceptualize a moral connection among and between an ontological Creator-Connector and other conscious part-icipants within the creation.  That is how one may conceptually derive the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.

Regardless of what one may believe about the "ultimate or final" reality of substantive bodies or part-icles, the story that was exemplified in the life of Jesus made "flesh of the Word" of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.  In that sense, at least, it is no disservice to discuss Jesus as the Son of God.


IAE, without some such leap of faith, society would lack a concept, parable, and language with which to communicate moral empathies.  An atheist may think to take issue with bible based literalisms, but an atheist who claims to "be as moral as any Christian" makes no sense unless he first implicates a belief in an ontological basis for some kind of morality.  That is, an "ontic opening."

*****



We are caused (we have no other choice) to choose among correlates, each of which constitutes a possibility that obeys the scope and range of the maths that define us. Whatever path the godhead guides us to choose, that path will be bound to the math that defines its contingency. But no known or knowable math confines the godhead, as it guides us, to any generally pre-set path. In how we interfunction with guidance from the Source, we follow such affinities as we elect. That is, we do not have perfectly free will, but we do give expression to part-icipatory will.
In that respect, what we become and produce is much affected or fulfilled by what we believe. If we believe, behind the ontic opening, is the Author of the Great Commandment and Golden Rule, then we tend to make of our world a different prospect than if we believe all our acts and events are predetermined or random.


*****

If God were omni-perfect without feedback from fluxing patterns and mortal perspectives, than God would not seem to have any need or interest in mortals. From mortal perspective, we are not equipped to imagine how any Being could be conscious at all, without interfunctioning with any flux of patterns to be conscious of. Why should I entertain an opinion about that which is not essential to a system of moral belief and of which I am without capacity to explain?

I think an opinion about a meta-Being or meta-state-of-affairs is needed ... to guide and facilitate communications concerning moral purposefulness. But I see no need to try to resolve in one's imagination whether such Being may be with or without fore-knowledge or power to change His own mind. Indeed, Muslims have bound up the idea of pre-determination to misled them into imagining God to be a fascist monster.

While mortal, no person is free to do whatever he wants merely by willing it. But every human being is conscious of participating in effecting choices. He makes his choices not in a void, but based on contextual affinities. He is not the entire cause of his own affinities. In this sense, no person has entire free will, but every person does have participatory will. Respect for the humanity of each person necessitates that he, as an adult, be accorded respect for his participatory will, i.e., his right and responsibility under God and within bounds of decency to make his own choices based on his own affinities.

We are caused (we have no other choice) to choose among correlates, each of which constitutes a possibility that obeys the scope and range of the maths that define us. Whatever path the godhead guides us to choose, that path will be bound to the math that defines its contingency. But no math known to any mortal confines the godhead, as it guides us, to any generally pre-set path. In how we interfunction with guidance from the Source, we follow such affinities as we elect. That is, we do not have perfect free will, but we do give expression to part-icipatory will.

In that respect, what we become and produce is much affected or fulfilled by what we believe. If we believe, behind the ontic opening, is the Author of the Great Commandment and Golden Rule, then we tend to make of our world a different prospect than if we believe all our acts and events are predetermined or random.

Without some such leap of faith, society would lack a concept, parable, and language with which to communicate moral empathies. An atheist may think to take issue with bible-based literalisms, but an atheist who claims to "be as moral as any Christian" makes no sense unless he first implicates a belief in an ontological basis for some kind of morality. That is, an "ontic opening."

It is a truism that whatever is measurable, to be measurable, will conform to (i.e., be conserved, synchronized, and reconciled to) measuring maths. Experience tends to confirm that similar results correlate with similar patterns. As we become more proficient in predicting how patterns of correlations unfold, we incline to interpret correlates as causes. We may call each pin ball the cause of each following effect, while ignoring the originating set up for each system of pin ball collisions. Or, we may imagine that some meta and immeasurable pin ball underlies everything, as the originator of all subsequent interactions.

Depending on our purposes, we may imagine the originator as dumb and inanimate, mathematically pre-bound, entirely pre-determined, bizarrely random, or electively appreciative of unfolding affinitiies. We may conceptualize that some level of holistic or meta consciousness abides as an innate attribute, or that consciousness is a quality that emerges only in respect of unfolding patterns of underlying and complex interactions of inanimate part-icles that are bound to math-based properties.

Regardless of preferred conceptualization, the implication of an Essence-Source, Uncaused-Causer, Changeless-Changer, Conserving-Reconciler, is, in itself, immeasurable. Since it is immeasurable, whatever the meta-properties one may conceptually attribute to it, such will entail a leap of faith, like a spark of imagination. For empirical investigations, one's imagination tends to be sparked with a cause-effect meme of analysis. For moral recommendations, one's faith tends to correlate with and leap to teleological purposes.

When one functions "scientifically" (concerning empirical measurables), one accepts a cause-effect meme that relies on concepts of randomness or determination, or some mix thereof. However, when one functions "morally" (concerning choices, whether or not such choices are ultimately caused or elected because of controlling affinities), it becomes necessary to accord moral actors with a quality of dignity beyond that of a pin ball. Then, it becomes helpful to conceptualize a moral connection among and between an ontological Creator-Connector-Connection and other conscious part-icipants within the creation. That is how one may conceptually derive, imagine, or communicate concerning the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Relationship Between Fields Of Continuity versus Discreteness


CONTINUITIES: There seems to abide no favored or standard unit of time or space that is simultaneously and equally applicable in common to all loci throughout the apparent and sensible cosmos. Rather, to be rational, every local measurement of mass, charge, vector, and wave function must be renormalized to be in reference to its local frame of reference. Only in that way does there abide a standard for CONTINUOUSLY renormalizing relations. Only in that respect does there abide a renormalizing-math standard that can be applied to every locus of continuity in space-time.

DISCRETES: As to a standard for renormalizing DISCRETE and digitizing relations among particles at the leaping quanta level, whatever the explanation of its system: No such math-based standard seems to abide, except based in statistical randomness concerning degrees of freedom and kinds of exchanges.

RECONCILIATION OF SUMS: A math-sum of manifestations of DISCRETES among locally vectored centers of quantum fields is always reconciled to a math-sum of manifestations of CONTINUOSITIES among locally centered vectors of electro-magnetic-gravitational fields.

MASS: The math-value for every selectively measured and manifested particle-field seems to express Mass when it is simultaneously vectored in respect of more than one kind of quanta that is other than the quanta correlates (photons and gravitons) for the electro-magnetic-gravitational field.

UNITY OF ELECTRO-MAGNETIC-GRVITATIONAL FIELD: Is every gravitational field necessarily bound up with an electromagnetic field? Imagine a common approximation or model for analogizing gravity as the geometrical effect of a disturbance caused by a large mass in a field, as in the case of a bowling ball on a large and taut trampoline. Then imagine small marbles rolled towards the bowling ball. The marbles will roll round and round, gradually drawing close to the indentation correlated with the bowling ball. The marbles will not orbit, because the trampoline injects friction as the marbles roll along it.

Now, imagine an electromagnetic field were added, so that the marbles rolled along in air above the trampoline, but towards the bowling ball. In empty space, where an electromagnetic field is added to the gravitational field, the marbles, once directed towards the disturbance in the field caused by the bowling ball, could be caused to approach it at such a vector as to be captured in an orbit. If the bowling ball itself were rolling towards an even bigger disturbance in the field, then the marbles could be interpreted as rotating in an elliptical orbit around the bowling ball.

CONTINUOUS FIELD VECTORS: Is every gravitational field necessarily bound up with an electromagnetic field? Taken together, do they constitute one CONTINUOUS electro-magnetic-gravitational field? Is one fluxing electro-magnetic-gravitational field the math-basis for the continuous particle-vectors of all photons, gravitons, inertial masses, and energy radiations? Is the continuous, WAVE-LIKE flux of such field the calculus-math-basis for the wave function of such particle-vectors?

DISCRETE FIELD RANDOM LEAPS: What about DISCRETE-jumping-quanta-particles at the digital, random, and leaping level of statistical-math-basis? A purely geometric idea of a continuous geometric field cannot represent or correlate well with the digital-math-values for a field comprised of leaping, interconverting quanta. For such a field of discretes, should MASS-VALUES best be conceptualized based on a model of correlative Higgs Bosons? Should CHARGE-VALUES for quanta-level forces of attracton and repulsion be based on an idea of polarization and discrete-spins?

FLUXES SECONDARY TO RENORMALIZATION: Are continuous fluxes of electro-magnetic-gravitational fields and discrete jumps of quantized-particles "not real or directly relational in themselves," but only MATH-RENORMALIZED, to avail the storeage and communication of Information across the continuity of space-time and between the variously discretized local perspectives?

DEEP STUBBORN IMPRINTS: If so, then curvature of space-time and quanta leaps are not existents-in-themselves, but Mind-Constructs that are at a deep and stubborn level imprinted into every local perspective. They offer a way for each recording avatar and perspective of consciousness to record, translate, and interpret its mathematical locus of experience into sensations that are renormalized to its relational locus.

RENORMALIZATION TO LOCAL FIELD CENTER OF MASS AND CHARGE: In whatever way math-values flux and interconnect to describe a system, they must be experienced to every local recording and observation as being renormalized in such a way as to conserve constants for the speed of light and the acceleration due to gravity, based on locally unified field center-of-mass-and-charge.

LOCAL APPEARANCE OF CAUSE-EFFECT: But for the appearance that bodies (cue balls) can push and pull one another by setting up some kind of causal relationship or "contact," there would abide no way for different perspectives of consciousness to apprehend communications in measurable terms with one another as such.

LOCAL CAUSATION AND PARTICIPATORY WILL VS META CAUSATION AND RECONCILING WILL: For each locus, the present combined state of its photons and gravitons is not the cause of each next apparent unfolding. The present state is merely the correlative for the local renormalizing of measurable communications that accompany each next unfolding. The choice of each next unfolding manifestation of measurable substance is under the Meta-Conservation of the Reconciler. The Reconciler expresses itself through the various levels and layers of Participatory Wills of each and every perspective that is renormalized to whatever the frame of reference being experienced locally.

NO BEGINNING OR END TO MATH SPACE OR MATH TIME: The cosmos always consists with one system of math frames being pushed and pulled after and into another. The substantive space-time aspect of it, respecting an originating big bang or a final dissipation, is illusion. The only real aspect is an immeasurable qualitative that fluxes with its expression of Self Identity in terms made quantitative in respect of locally renormalizable math-values. That is, IT quantitatively renormalizes to local recordinga and appearances of perspective.

STANDARD REQUIRED, BUT NO NON-META STANDARD AVAILABLE: There is no non-meta, measurable recorder or observer that sets a standard for all loci in the cosmic system, except as to calculable sequence (chronology preservation). The experience of space-time may be distorted, stretched, expanded, compressed, but whatever the Information regarding events that may be shared among perspectives, its empirically calculable sequentiality is preserved. (Chronology Protection Device.)

GOD: There is no non-meta, measurable recorder or observer that sets a standard for all loci in the cosmic system, except as to calculable sequence (chronology preservation). The experience of space-time may be distorted, stretched, expanded, compressed, but whatever the Information regarding events that may be shared among perspectives, its empirically calculable sequentiality is preserved. (Chronology Protection Device.)

Math-value is constantly, continuously, immediately, and synchronously renormalized for the range of freedom that is allowed for the expression of every particle-field. Every particle-field is defined in respect of whatever may then and there constitute the center of its local mass and charge of reference. Every locus in the electro-magnetic-gravitational web of space-time and apparent-contact-sequence is renormalized to the perception and experience of whatever its local recorder or observer.

How and why is the measurable cosmos set to so much fine tuning effort to avail every local perspective with potential for experiences that are renormalizeable to it? Mere math, by itself, could not do this. Intuitively, some immeasurable quality or Character seems needed to synchronize, reconcile, activate, vector, and guide all the appearances that are presented to us in quantitatively renormalized terms. Does this not reasonably lead to intuition of a purposeful Meta-Reconciler?

If no-thing of what appears is related to any common standard for measurable reality, if all that appears seems to bubble forth in respect of math-values out of otherwise nothingness, then is not some Immeasurable-Meta Essence-Source implicated? After all, even a zero bank account is still more than zero. Rather, it is a bank account, with measurable potential that depends on a qualitative character of its sponsor.

LIMITS OF GOD: I do not need to try to figure out the limits, if any, of God. I don't seek a complete explanation of everything and every possibility. I am instead interested in appreciating, in a consistent and coherent way, how and what God seems here and now to be communicating to us.

*********

INFORMATION:

RELAY OF BITS OF INFORMATION: Photons and electrons relay Information about the contact surface of particles from which they reflect or originate.

INTERPRETATIONS OF COLLECTED ORGANIZATIONS OF BITS: Computing Beings interpret Information from collections of photons and electrons that are received as a result of reflection or origination from an Organized Body.

ORGANIZATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONS OF INFORMATION: Organized Information about Organized Bodies can thus be sensed, modeled, and interpreted. Abstract organizations (printed words and physical signs) can be modeled for preserving Information about sub-abstractions about sub-abstractions about sub-abstractions.

CONSCIOUSNESS: Appreciation of Consciousness is entailed in the renormalization of Information for a contemporaneous Observer-Appreciator with which Information is received and collapsed into a quantifiable state.

CONTINUITY OF IDENTITY: Continuity in the qualitative appreciation of Information does not destroy the Conscious Identity state of an Interpreting Observer.

SUBSTANCE: Potential for quantitative Measurement of Substance is entailed in the renormalitive absorption of Information with a non-consciously-observing Recorder-Storer. The Information that is absorbed may in some respects be kept in an ambiguous and unresolved state. Continued absorption of Information changes by erosion and accumulation the physical state of the Recorder.

INFORMATION: Information is that which is qualitatively appreciated by Consciousness and quantitatively measured by Substance.