THE GUIDE'S PURPOSES

THE GUIDE:  Whatever guides various events may likewise guide us to look for statistics in a context by which to rationalize such events.  Whatever guides us to seek to rationalize events may likewise guide how events are reconciled into measurable manifestation.  In other words, looking for statistical trends may correlate with statistical trends. One can collect a myriad of data sets, adopt a stance, adopt a myriad of substantives, subject them all to various forms of regressive statistical analysis, and then hypothecate various correlates of "causes."  Thereby, one may seek to uncover a mathematical explanation for every phenomenon, consistent with an assumption that every measurable unfolding of substance is caused by a measurable substantive agent. All the while, one can contrive to data mine for additional, statistical, regressive, meta analysis. Depending on choice of focus, purpose, and context, one may eventually mine data in order to funnel correlates to appear to cause entire cosmos, to give expression to whatever is in the power of one to conceptualize and imagine.

PROBLEM WITH THINGINESS THINKING:  Auguste Comte --- “If it is true that every theory must be based upon observed facts, it is equally true that facts can not be observed without the guidance of some theories. Without such guidance, our facts would be desultory and fruitless; we could not retain them: for the most part we could not even perceive them."

FLUX EFFECT OF OBSERVER FEEDBACK:  I do not believe it is possible to freeze a dynamic, complex system in order statically to account for every part of it in an exhaustive and mutually exclusive way, much less to factor every such part with a number for comparative measurement. In part, this is because every complex system is simultaneously in flux, even as it is being measured. Moreover, every partly measurable complex system, in infinite regression, is affected by feedback in its own relation to a more encompassing complex system, which could not be factored without extending the range and definition of the system under analysis. Moreover, even the most encompassing, measurable system imaginable -- the substantive universe -- is qualitatively affected by the non-substantive, non-measurable reality from which it originated and with which its reality is dependent, perhaps even synchronously derivative.

 

ROSES OF REALITY:  I suspect a view of Reality can just as well be supported ... AS IF  (1) Reality were the objective upshot of materially pre-set causes ... AS can a view that (2) Reality were the subjective upshot of signs that emerge in respect of the inter-functioning of perspectives limited to a synchronizing Consciousness. (Occam’s razor seems to cut just as well, both ways. Is Substance mere epiphenomena of Consciousness, or is Consciousness mere epiphenomena of Substance?)  I doubt mere science or math can prove "the real" answer in any way that is best for all perspectives, purposes, and contexts.  Rather, I suspect probability concepts (Bayes' inferences) would apply equally well in either case.  Moreover, quantitative Substance and qualitative Consciousness do not seem to constitute mutually exclusive and exhaustive components of "Reality."  Rather, there seems to be a third "component," i.e., Information. 

INFORMATION:  "In itself," Information is neither Substance nor Consciousness. So, Reality seems to unfold in respect of a trivalent inter-functioning of Substance, Consciousness, and Information. Mere math does not avail the kind of reconstruction, deconstruction, or negation that can reliably show us how to control, predict, or rewind the unfolding inter-functioning of Substance, Consciousness, and Information. Limits for the realms of the Substantive, Conscious, and Informational appear to be fuzzy (perhaps even shape shifting). That which seems to be inanimate of any conscious aspect may simply consist of pre-set, temporally dormant aspects of "Something Trinitarian" --- which synchronously sources all three fundaments: Consciousness, Information, and Substance.

BEGGING A QUESTION:  Given a trinitarian based reality, how can binary based logic possibly be expected to avail any exactly descriptive model?  How can any mortal, conscious being reasonably expect to derive a complete, consistent, coherent explanation for everything?  Alternatively stated, accepting our participatory experience of measurably unfolding quantitatives, does any "law" of probability merely avail a circularly trivial, self fulfilling rationalization of reality?  As to the non-trivial, I know not.  Rather, I appreciate and apprehend ("prehend"). And my appreciation )prehension) inclines me towards an unquantifiable quality of self fulfilling empowerment.  That is, I prehend that consciousness recognizes itself as present in all of existence.

CHOICE OF CONCEPTUALIZATION:  One may conceptualize, depending on one’s purposes, as if a system of relationships were consciously guided, materially determined, or empirically random. In each case, whatever the result, it could be reconciled to a choice of conceptual rationalization. The synchronizing reconciliation of observations and apprehensions of degrees of freedom may be conceptualized as implicating a holistic aspect of Consciousness that is beyond caring what IT might be named.

CONCEPTS WITHIN CONCEPTS:  When conditions are novel, Bayes’ Theorem seems amenable of being twisted like a crooked horse race. After the race is run, an intellectual may re-study and re-normalize the factors and decide, Why yes, the actual result was probable all along! It’s just that the betting public had been duped by the wrong factors!  How convenient!  When one assumes all things and events are preset and predetermined, one easily cherry picks factors after the fact, to "prove" one's initial assumption, thereby to demonstrate the event was probable all along, and then call such factors the controlling factors, and perhaps even rationalize "laws" based thereon.  Given that observable patterns are necessarily rationalize-able to such logic gates as happen to avail said observers, such circular rationalizations may often be easily done.  What such methods of rationalization cannot explain, however, is when grooves for logic gates suddenly change or phase shift.  Are such changes entirely and quantitatively determined by matter, or are they in some quality chosen or guided by consciousness?

BAYES’ INFERENCE:  We are particular perspectives that obey quantitative requirements imposed in respect of a field of space-time-matter-energy, which encompasses us in common, in respect of which our individual feedback is synchronized.  Continuosities of patterns abide.  We make inferences of arithmetical probabilities based on observations and assumptions about factors and sub-factors.  Thus, we in common experience a truism: Probabilities of representations of Substance can be inferred from such patterns as appear to unfold (which may be consistent with, and self-fulfilling to, unfolding and synchronizing interests of perspectives of consciousness). That is, patterns of substance only exist, meaningfully, in relation to potentially appreciative perspectives, each perspective being necessarily synchronized to ONE unfolding Source. Thus, probabilities are inferred secondary to a common-sense truism: When a pattern is sensed to repeat, synchronously, it may likely be inferred (or rationalized) that a meta pattern is abiding, and that IT (or the upshot of the sum of its merging participants) is qualitatively invested in further explicating the quantitatively expressed pattern. Because there are so many perspectives of consciousness, no one perspective is controlling, so that each, after the fact, may rationalize a synchronized path consistent with resort to cherry-picked STATISTICS.  Depending on point of view, context, and purpose, one may model and rationalize to "explain" each event as if it were (1) favorably determined, (2) indifferently determined, or (3) randomly determined.  None among such choices for a model need be "correct." Rather, in each case, each model may be profitably rationalized, depending upon one's point of view, context, and purpose.  Regardless, however practically or profitably an explanation or belief may be applied, no mortal explanation for the existence of any unfolding event will ever be complete, coherent, and consistent.

TRIVIALITY THAT STUFF HAPPENS:  As each new thing is birthed from a previous environment, it must not so alter the environment that was necessary to its birth as to destroy its potential to endure ... if it is to happen to endure. (Trivially, stuff happens.)  It must not, by multiplying, endanger the conservational synchronicity of the system that nurtures it. To endure, it must express strategies that will average out any adverse tendencies it may effect.  Trivially, that which evolves and endures will tend to be synchronously compatible with the homeostasis of its environment.  Is this "really" a happenstance-triviality, or is it byproduct of a guiding aspect of consciousness?

DIVINE COMEDY:  To my intuition, it is because Consciousness identifies and imbues with Substance that hierarchies of Consciousness persist in explicating various forms, so that the likely recurrence of forms serves the self fulfilling merging of inclinations of continued consciousness, ever projected forward. Thus, perspectives merged into Nations are often like diversionary, rah-rah, week-end sports contenders: Writhing balls of interlocking worms of international organizations and corporations for fluxing models and connivances --- often abusing, inciting, and misplacing trust or distrust. Thus, Information happens to be shared, used, or abused ... insofar as perspective, purpose, and context ... are shared, used, or abused. Thus, “God” eternally fluxes, staging and posing us as avatars for extremities of experiential unfolding, AS IN A NOVEL WHEREIN WORDS ARE BREATHED WITH LIFE AND PURPOSE. Thus, God battles God’s self, and CONSCIOUSNESS OFTEN TAKES HOLISTIC LEAVE OF ITS PARTICULARLY IMBUED SELVES. When God seems less than good, it is the merging of our competing interests that makes the little reflection of god in each of us so.  Thus is staged, and made real, feedbacks and pursuits of: tragedy, pain, comedy, emotion, pleasure, happiness, fulfillment, purpose, reconciliation, respite, sanctuary, satisfaction. Thus, Consciousness abides and passes its time.

INSPIRING STORIES: Most books are about some person’s struggle to overcome, live with, or understand adversity; that is, to rationalize sense. The protagonist always tries to advance some model or mask on his adversary. Every such mask is always incomplete and a caricature. Masks, when too much and too long believed in, eventually lead their protagonists to their downfall — every time. Whatever the character of one’s defining adversary — whether a person, tribe, culture, race, nation, or corporation — that adversary will eventually, always, be fatally misapprehended. Thus, every protagonist climbs high on his adversary, mis-perceiving him or it, and then eventually falls. Thus, we have racism and reverse racism; antagonism upon antagonism, cares upon cares.

META EXPERIMENTS OF RECONCILER:  Does some Reconciling Aspect of the cosmos conduct meta experiments, to test how that which it likes versus dislikes may flux depending on context, purpose, and focus?  May varying experiments be underway in various parts of the cosmos, perhaps to test how to distinguish likeable goods from dislikeable evils?  Is there some fuzzy yet progressive goal to the evolution of complex orderliness out of chaos?

META PURPOSEFULNESS:  Within a shared system of reconciling constraints, for any homoeostasis that is temporally achieved, is it preferred that advanced sentient inhabitants thereof should be instructed in fine detail with regard to each decision they make within a collective consolidation of centralized control?  Is it preferred that the central authority evolve to regiment the distribution of equality among clearly distinguishable classes?  Or is it preferred that advanced sentient beings should evolve in assimilated empathy in order to allow them to be entrusted with broad ranges and degrees of freedom?

POSSIBLE PATHS:  The first path seems to be the one advocated by "Progressives" such as Obama.  The second path is explored in Huxley's Brave New World.  The third path is often discussed as if it were the American Ideal.  When Obama says he wants to bring fundamental change to America, he means he wants to take us from the third path back to the first, to restrain us from broad freedom in order to deliver us to a collective yoke, which he believes will be friendlier to Gaia, as well as easier on the minds of jealous incompetents and lazy, entitlement-minded louts (i.e., the base of Dim voters).

FIRST PATH:  The first path requires that economists (Krugman?) as chosen by the regime be entrusted to treat adult human beings as if they were blank slates or interchangeable widgets.  They would aspire to nurture an outward appearance of a successful collective, in respect of which inward values of freedom of thought and action and individual expression and enterprise would be bred and programmed out.  (Sort of like a permanent solution to a problem that, to Progs, seems like smallpox.)   Krugman may be able to devise a perfect economy for indifferent robots, tied to a central economic programmer.  But I doubt his methods could ever efficiently grease the working relationships between free operatives within a human economy.

SECOND PATH:  The second path requires an uber slave to install a program for the deliberate breeding and programming of sub-slaves, who are never to be allowed to escape the chains that mark their class.

THIRD PATH:  The third path is messy and often results in jealousies among those who compare themselves as being less lucky in lotteries of talent, energy, or opportunity.  This path becomes especially messy as discontented individuals become attached to fever-inducing memes and religions.  Especially as malcontents and cronies deploy bribery to corrupt access to weapons of mass destruction.  Society, to protect itself, may then sacrifice privacy to try to safeguard freedom.  Problem is, loss of privacy leads to advancements in prediction of antisocial behavior, so that classes of permissible associations and behaviors are gradually constricted, which leads towards collectivization, which leads towards efforts by the regime to justify and inculcate hive-mind as a good thing.

COMPARISON OF PATHS:  The first path leads nearly to punishments for thought crime (and IRS/DOJ/FBI/BATF investigations), as well as to irrational exuberance for entertaining mental disturbances of despots.  We've seen that road (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Tojo, ad infinitum). The second path just puts us back in chains (even if the chains be contrived to be light).  (What is the point of being an advanced sentient being, only to be kept in chains?)  Without assimilating to a purposeful, inviting, caring, meta Guide ("coming to Jesus"), nor does the third path show any possible way back to Eden.
 

Interchangeability of International Socialism and Crony Corporatism

.
The thing is, international socialism and crony corporatism are becoming interchangeable labels for pursuing the same thing: the feed-lot farming of human beings. I don't think human freedom and dignity are "progressing," nor do I think that losing appreciation for transcendent spiritual values is "progress." The life of a cow in a feed lot is less violent. Numerically, there may be many more cattle now raised in feed lots or confined to pastures than there were in the early days of the Texas Longhorns. No doubt, feed lot cattle are bred (and soon to be genetically modified) to be peaceable and easily led. Until a disease spreads, like Mad Cow disease, the number of years of modern cow life will greatly exceed the years of Longhorn life. However, I am not sure I would call the life of a feed lot cow qualitatively better than the life of a Longhorn. I suspect it's only "better" (or fitter) once the cows are bred to it.

Being bred to the feed lot, cows learn to feel "entitlted" to their feed and pasturage. They would become unable to cope without the gay fences, brands, and neuterings that are imposed by their rancher. I don't credit this to "progress" or to the better angels of cow nature. Nor do I see much freedom or dignity in it. Of course, cows are not taught about freedom and dignity. Nor, for that matter, are collectivized human beings. If taught (or conditioned to) anything, they are taught that gay and neutered cow sex and devotion to fattening grains is good. Their glands lead them to moo in unison. I don't think this kind of increase in peaceableness and harmonic glandular pleasuring correlates with an increase in personal virtue or collective merit.

Nor do I think collectivist farming of human beings correlates in the long run with increased life spans. All that nature needs to debunk that correlation is time to promote a few more bugs and plagues to strike at bottlenecks of common dependencies on technological pipelines. The godless feed lot and the genetically-designed-for-collectivized-civilization human being is not necessarily the apex of merit or the progress of "better angels." I don't think there is virtue in capitalism without respect for transcendent values and the traditional family. Take away God and the family and what you are left with is the farming of the human feed lot. I wonder, will that be gay enough for our Ivy profs?

The Invisible Hand

.
THE INVISIBLE HAND: A moving, invisible digit traces out a pattern, While inertia of the pattern remains, the digit applies an inherent capacity to fashion a doorkey that allows it to transition to a relationally connected but different pattern. Thus, the pattern in which The Digit is not contemporaneously functioning remains affected by the digit's functioning within the pattern in which it does abide. This process is repeated in perhaps an infinite variety of fractal iterations. Some quality of reconciling and apprehensive appreciation feeds back to guide the digit's artistically unfolding expressiveness of its existentiality. Every inertially established pattern remains affected by patterns in which operations are contemporaneously unfolding. Thus, the reconciling functionality of the digit is contemporaneously operatonal and present in all forms, even in such forms as it may seem to have established and departed. The span of time (the perpetual present) abides in the moving and reconciling of the Immeasurable Quality Of Apprehensive Consciousness that guides the unfolding expressiveness of the digit. Each mortal perspective of consciousness abides as an imperfect expresson of the one Reconciler. Each mortal expression fluxes among apprehensions of fuzzy expressions of unfolding forms of limiting patterns. The Reconciler moves without friction between unfolding patterns. Mortals, whose avatars are defined by forms of bodies, can move between such forms only at the cost of fashioning forms out of such forms. Mortal applications of doorkeys entail friction costs, while the Reconciler's application of its inherent doorkey does not. The Reconciler effortlessly moves among bubbles of experience that mortals can apprehend only with effort. That effort entails our experience and communication of an existentially conserved and quantifiable experience of a web of space-time-matter-energy. That web is the artifact of the artistically caring expressiveness of a moving invisible digit that is guided by a quality of omni-reconciling, conscious appreciation of feedback from its unfolding expressiveness.
.
Science is not a thing separate unto intself, Something more than capacity to discover quantitative relationships accounts for the existentiality of science as an unfolding activity. The materially signified cosmos is a creation, born of appreciative feedback between and among perspectives of consciousness that are connected by a conserving and reconciling Principle-Principal. What unfolds to our discovery is qualitatively dependent upon how we are guided to choose to try to model and think about the cosmos. What lies behind science is not merely to be discovered. It is also to be created, apprehended, appreciated, propitiated. Secular Humanists invest their egos in seeking to propitiate their concepts of Gaia as much as religious fundamentalists seek to propitiate their concepts of God. Models of materially indifferent reality and science unfold towards a self-fulfilling aspect, much as models of art, virtue, sadism, and materially significative and purposeful reality unfold along their own self-fulfilling paths. Each model connects in harmonic and disharmonic potentiality to amplify and diminish all others. Among mortals, such connections are to be appreciated --- not reduced to some grand, final, representation of a pre-determining soulless and consciousless algorithm merged to an internet on autipilot.
.
REGARDING LIVING MATH: Perhaps math is not primary. Perhaps math is secondary to a Singular Essence, which has an iterative capacity, which capacity is inherently limited to give expression to unfolding associations of functions, which functions correlate in ways that can be expressed as inherently limiting mathematical laws of science. Perhaps laws of science are the present mathematical rationalizations of commonly apprehended limits of the fundamental, meta Essence. Perhaps such mathematical rationalizations may change, as common vectors of apprehensions of consciousness change. Imagine functions set to cycle within functions within functions, wheels within wheels within wheels, alternating with (depending on adoption of, imbuement with, or appreciation of) various avatars of perspective or focus in relation to context. Imagine an Orbit that can be transitioned in interpretation to a Roll to a Spin --- a three dimension space that can be twisted in time simply by changing focus of perspectivistic feedback. Such as a hag that can transition to a rabbit, simply by relaxing how foci are shared. Once a Conscious Singularity evolves, with enormous potential and power to MANIFEST and IMAGE, what changes, if any, would/should it choose to manifest or imagine? Why assume it must fill any cosmos with any changes or measurable manifestations in order to signify its consciousness?
.
The measurable and unfolding manifestations of the cosmos are the first level signs (logos) of a communicating creator. Words to describe such signs are second level abstractions for representing such signs. The words of the Bible constitute a second level explanation (perhaps the most special second level explanation to date). However, the cosmos, properly understood, is a first level explanation. As such, it is hardly less perfect than the Bible. Regardless, no mortal can hope to appreciate either the Bible of the Cosmos in proper context except in subjective, receptive, good faith. We cannot reduce the qualities we appreciate in good faith to quantitatively perfect, objective explanations. Rather, we only deal with such quantitatives as happen to intersect with our conical fields of quantitative experience. As to the hereafter, we can praise it in nebulous terms, as being good or salvational. However, we cannot mathematically factor such nebulous apprehensions to quantitative aspects of the here and now. No spiritually subjective idea of heaven can objectively guide our conduct in the here and now. At most, spiritually subjective idealizations can guide the mores of people who hold such idealizations in good faith. However, there is no good objective rule that would require any competent adult to sacrifice his own capacity for thought to allow his thoughts to be dictated by any mortal priest who pretends to know the mind of God.
.
 

Evolution of Complexity and Unfolding of Entropy

.
Consider the Measurable Evolution of Complexity and the Unfolding of Disorganization and Entropy: Is not death digitally measurable, like an on or off switch? You're alive or you're not. Being alive is not a matter of being "fittest," but simply of being fit. Evolution need not be looked at as entailing the survivial or replication of the "fittest." It can be looked at as simply entailing the conservational, successive elimination by the contextual holism (environmental niche) of all those who then and there are adjudged to be not fit. Whatever is at any locus that is contemporaneously determined or adjudged to be unfit is eliminated. Whatever is not found unfit is indulged to continue from its perspective to pursue its way. Thus, there is an ongoing process of digital feedback between the conserving holism and each individual perspective of apprehension. Individuals experience a limited perspective of consciousness, by which they experience a digitally unfolding range of freedom (contemporaneously participatory co-determination). The encompassing field experiences a holistic and reconciling perspective. We measure the digital interaction as if it were an interaction among wave-fields and particle-accelerations. However, behind that which is measurable, there is a qualitative exchange of apprehensions of consciousness. I don't know which is superior or inferior. I would speculate that the qualitative is superior to, and gives expression to, the quantitative. The qualitative experience of the measurably quantitative seems to be a complexity that unfolds an entropy, like an invisible hand operating within a measurable glove.

The Times that Try Men's Souls

When theorists of everything think to pin all causation on the unwinding of wound up matter, like the unwinding of a clock, it seems not surprising that they would consider the interaction of conscious beings as nothing more than the random selection of properties interacting with other properties. Because everything is mere property, nothing is sacred. Certainly not marriage, charity, or individual responsibility. What is their response when others point out that they treat everyone, even their own children, as mere property? Do they say the kids are not property? No. To those who believe some spiritual or qualitative Aspect guides the unfolding of property, they say, Well, your kids also are nothing more than property. Certainly not blessings of God. At a fundamental level, when you accept the arguments of those who advocate for homosexual marriage, government as insurance, and taxation as charity, what you are doing, perhaps unwittingly, is ratifying their beliefs that your life and the lives of your children are of no value other than as property. The more you let them habituate you to that mode of thinking, the more you become one of them. That is the fundamental shift that is ushering in the new world order. The NWO is less an intelligent conspiracy than a worldwide surrender of soul and will. That makes the NWO all the more real, deadly, and soul trying. These are those times.

 

New East India Company

There have been marauding bodies and tribes of trading corporatists, relatively independent of nations, since before the East India Company, before the Mongol hordes, before Eric the Red, before the first shipping companies, before the caravans of the Silk Road, before Abraham. These marauding companies have both enriched and vexed established communities and nations. To cohere, they have always had their extra-national codes and customs, leading eventually to the law of the sea and the law merchant. Such extra-national "law" has always been unreliable when great riches and power beckon for being easily pirated against immediate weak resistence. Thus, marauding corporations have time and again brought down established cultures and nations. One does not engage in "free and fair trade" with Vikings, privateers, or pirates --- even when they come as Janus faced lawyers and priests.

.

Human nature is such that "small government and open private trade" are simply not talismen for any self respecting culture that desires to sustain itself. A nation without foresight and means to protect itself against privateering insinuations of corporatists who do not share its values is little more than a child with an attractive lollipop. The sad thing is that foreign corporations tend so easily to recruit apologists and enablers from within the cultures and nations upon which they intend to prey.  Injecting that mindset into populations at large is the prelude to successful privateering.

.

Indeed, growing brains are easy to groom and groove to represent apologies for subjective self interest as if such apologies represented common objective truths. Just look at how easily Islam converts desire not to be beheaded into zealous defense of the faith. But this easy susceptibility of the brain is hardly confined to Islam. Rather, it permeates every field of human endeavor where skilled traders and trainers acquire financing and power over sheeple for the dispensation of bribes and threats and pleasures and pains.  The insidious root from which branches are springing forth for strangling the American ideal consists in the failure of the Founders to ensure adequate checks and balances against dangerous entanglements with foreign privateering corporatists.   Now, a shadow of the East India Company, the NWO, has returned with vengeance, to re-colonize and re-enserf America.  Meanwhile, the people at large are so divided and duped that most do not see that the Dim Party is merely the hireling of the establishment Rino Party.  Each thinks the solution to all its problems is to cut off the head of the other, never realizing that they are two heads of the same Beast.  And so we go, quarreling all the while we are being corralled.
.
*******
.

However faithful the geezering among middle class Americans, they will remain impotent to coordinate against their enemy until they are willing to raise fingers to identify their enemy. The enemy is not a mere abstraction. The enemy is the palpable evil that abides and expands in the nature of each of us. Among those who, by cutthroat competition, become major owners and directors of foreign corporations, how many are supposed to refrain from the cutthroat acquisition, division, and rule of the little people?

.

Should we blindly trust those who are raised on cutthroat competion, who have acquired oligarchic control over major media outlets, to make such outlets nurture society's views to become other than those views that are hedged to the owners' material advantage? What does the "open society" of the NWO look like? Does it not look like a society of largely open borders and easily manipulated or erased cultures? For the "open society" NWO of establishment corporatists, are not nations just precincts of convenience for the indoctrination and summoning of serfs and soldiers?

.

Until the American middle class commits to measures to tax or reduce the political grip of the new corporate mafia order, all talk about preserving America's national culture is idleness. Meanwhile, middle class Rinos and middle class Dinos are cheered to beat each other up, to the jolly entertainment of the new owners.

 

Podes of an Encompassing Black Hole

.

Suppose there abides an all defining, vectorizing, and conserving black hole, with a pode and antipode. From one direction of its vectoring its antipode absorbs and permits no escape of all mass and light that fall too close to its domain. Out the other direction its pode emits all mass and light and permits no return. Apart from its inference, no creation of it can ever consciously communicate its complete quality or potential to any other creation. It cannot in itself be measured, for all measure of space, time, matter and energy is its inferior derivative, not its definer. It may be inferred to conserve, from the alpha to the omega. But it cannot be inferred how much range its outbursting must encompass before it must be called back. Within itself, its potential cannot be inferred or tested by a derivative mortal. A mortal fascinated with math and empiricism may assume present perceptions offer clues to the all defining black hole (ADBH). A mortal may assume that present measures of its expression are indicative of limits of its potential expression. Such assumption may lead to useful tinkering for a narrow bandwidth of space and time, and it may entertain a mortal during his occupation of beingness. But only false hubris would lead such a mortal to presume he had defined the limits of his definer.

.

Apart from empirically assumptive tinkering, what else may a mortal mind test, as by experiments and intuitions flickering within the mind? May a mortal reasonably come to assume any quality, either about the ADBH or about THAT which may inspire the quality of expression that unfolds and feeds back to it? May the ADBH itself be intuited to be a derivative, as an expression of a holistic and consciously appreciative Guide? May one concept reasonably represent an unknown but limiting potential or objective nature of the ADBH, while another concept reasonably represents that which appreciates and guides the unfolding quality and conscious character of its subjective expressiveness?
.
As to range:  There need not be either a big crunch or a big bang.  There may simply be a big conservation between pode and antipode.  For all a mortal can know, given that mortal perceptions of space-time-matter-energy are derivatively inferior, such pode and antipode may be inferentially experienced as if consisting of innumerable bits and iterative representations of antipode collectors, even though all were representations of a single, unifying pode.  Or there may abide quantitatively innumerable podes of emission, connected qualitatively as a singularity, which we find convenient to interpret as if of a single big bang.