Sunday, October 19, 2014

Scholasticism, Intuition, and Empiricism


Liberals dehumanize us by using elitist scientism to replace scholasticism and moral intuition. They are far too greedy in their faith and expectations for science. They think science discovers truths that are essential, not merely usages that are practical or trivial. So they think a "science of morality" can discover essential truths about morality. Most medieval philosophers eventually gave up on the scholastic search for the essential definitions of everything. Liberals, however, did not get the memo.

TRUTH, PRACTICALITY, AND USEFUL FAITH -- A MIND EXERCISE FOR TRYING TO SEPARATE ESSENTIALIST SCHOLASTICISM, DIRECT INTUITION, AND EMPIRICAL TESTING OF NOMINATIVES:

TRIVIAL TRUTHS: If an idea is true in a trivial sense, then the truth of it is by definitional identity or tautology, not by empirical testing.

EMPIRICALLY USEFUL IDEAS: For an idea to be useful in more than a trivial sense, it needs to be amenable of practical usage, which entails parameters and purposes -- empirical and moral.

CONSERVED BUT CHANGING INFINITIES: Beyond parameters for which an idea may have been experienced to be practcally useful, the extent to which such parameters, usages, or purposes may be pushed may not yet be known.

CONSTRUCTIVISMS: Many ideas may be practically useful only in resepct of how people construct conventions and/or leverage devices or algorithms that nurture them to be useful.

PRESET AND CHANGING CONSTRUCTIVISMS: For all we know, it may be that every idea that is found to be practical is useful only in respect of how intelligent beings have constructed conventions or leveraged devices or algorithms that nurture them to be so.

META CONSTRUCTIVISMS: For all we know, the very cosmos that we share may abide as such a case.

INCAPACITY TO COMPLETELY OBSERVE SELF: To the extent our cosmos defines and limits us, we are without power to go outside it to prove whether or not such is the case.

INTUITIVE FAITHS VERSUS PRACTICAL USAGE: Thus, a true idea may or may not be one that in direct experience and good faith may be acknowledged or denied. As to knowable truth, it may be neither empirically tested, nor falsified. Empirically, it could only be found, within contexts, limits and purposes, either to be practical or not to be practical.

WORKING AND FLUXING EXPLANATIONS: An empirical idea can be a working explanation (hypothesis or model), and thus it may or may not be found for some present purposes and contexts to be or not to be practical.

EMPIRICAL UNKNOWABILITY OF NON-TRIVIAL TRUTHS: Within the cosmos we share, a non-trivial idea that is not subject to empirical testing or falsification may or may not be true, but it cannot be empirically known by we mortals so to be.

REASONABLENESS OF INTUITIVE EMPATHIES AND BELIEF SYSTEMS: As to such ideas, one can intangibly, intuitively, empathetically, and purposely acknowledge (or deny) faith, belief, and trust.

GOOD FAITH AND GOOD WILL: One can in faith believe our cosmos is the unfolding signification of a reconciling and purposeful Intelligence that appreciatively and contemporaneously factors feedback from our participation. This would be generally consistent with Judeo-Christian ideas of a caring, inviting Reconciler.

"CARING ABOUT INDIFFERENCE": Or, one can believe, much as Communists, that our cosmos is a purely scientific and indifferent battleground of competition among amoral contestants that are bloody in tooth and claw.

PSYCHOPATHIC FRUSTRATION: Or, one can believe, much as Muslims, that our cosmos is merely a colosseum for arbitrary entertainments of a monstrous punisher(s).

ONE ENCOMPASSING INTUITION: There is only one intuitive idea that is encompassing: That perspectives of Consciousness communicate Information with the measuring of Substance. That is an idea that is not definitionally trival, because its terms (consciousness, information, and substance) flux with our contexts and purposes. And, its terms seem to transpose in ways that are beyond simplistic, conservational, formulization. Yet, it is an idea that is directly experiential, in that it describes qualitative means by which we self-define, self-actualize, self-fulfill, and self-normalize. Except in respect of that encompassing intuition, there are no meaningfully definitional truths, practical constructions, or self-fulfilling appreciations.

EXPERIENCE OF IDENTITY: So long as I am me, "I" cannot directly experience the quality of consciousness of another perspective of consciousness, unless "I" were somehow to become it (in which case I would no longer know my previous self).

SOLIPSISM: Nor can I empirically prove that a thing that appears exterior to my perspective itself experiences the quality of being conscious. The most I can do in such regard is to apply intuition and practical experience, to come to a belief or faith.

CONSCIOUSNESS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE:  Beingness, as we experience it, can be conceptualized as comprised of Consciousness, Substance, and Information (CSI).  CSI fluxes in ways to which we do not necessarily have access. Consciousness seems to abide, Substance seems generally to dissipate towards disorganization, and Information accumulates.  Substance is measurable in respect of how its sum is conserved.  Mortals do not create CSI.  Mortals bond with avatars that occupy loci that are amenable of normalizing measure.  Mortals do not create Substance by adding to its sum.  Mortals leverage Substance for machine purposes by organizing it.  Mortals do not create Consciousness.  Mortals can leverage avatars that can avail the expression of Consciousness in ways that are more capacitated to communicate intelligibly.  Mortals do not "create" Artificial Intelligence.  Mortals tinker to leverage the Consciousness that already abides to avail it to bond with avatars.

INTELLIGENCE:  Intelligence does not magically "emerge."  It is leveraged in respect of stuff that already abides.  We do not create babies.  We procreate.  With empirical tinkering, we can tinker with genes.  We can design genes and merge human beings with machines and computers.  With enough tinkering, we will eventually learn ways to design avatars for giving expression to conscious intelligence.  But we will not create AI from scratch.  We will leverage it from the CSI that is already extant.

CONSERVATION AND RENORMALIZATION OF EXTERIOR REALITY AND RECONCILIATION OF COMMUNICATIONS OF PERSPECTIVES OF CONSCIOUSNESS:

Assuming practical usages (theorems and purposes) are communicated among multifarious perspectives of consciousness within a shared cosmos, each such perspective would be reconciled to conserve and renormalize the measurable aspects of its experiences and communications in respect of the shared cosmos.

Assuming multifarious perspectives of consciousness abide, each one, depending on its point of view and frame of reference, would experience qualitatively different flavors of its appreciation of whatever may be the conserved measure of the sum its set of experiences within the shared cosmos.

Such accumulations of experiences from different points of view and frames of reference would produce in each perspective its own qualitatively unique flavor.

Such qualities of experience would be abstract, because they would not be measurably communicable.

Yet, intuition and empathy would build on analogous exchanges among correlative contexts, whereby qualities of experiences would be associated with information and preserved to memory.

Such memories would be correlated and referenced to figures of speech, and such figures of speech would in time communicate qualitative meanings, i.e., practical theorems and purposes.

SCIENCE, SCIENTISM, AND SPIRUTALLY EMPATHETIC INTUITION:

The scientific method does not discover non-trivial, empirically objective, external truths-in-themselves, because no such truths can be objectively known.

Truths may be directly acknowledged or denied in respect of self evidence, self normalization, and self actualization among contexts, points of view, and purposes of perspectives.

Usages, not external truths-in-themselves, are discovered, tested, confirmed, or falsified via empirical testing.

Empirical testing and processes of falsification pertain only to practical theorems and purposes; they do not pertain directly to truths-in-themselves.

It is un-measurable whether (1) Consciousness measures Substance, (2) Consciousness substantiates Measure, or (3) a Reconciler ("changeless-changer") balances and normalizes all fluxing communications of perspectives of Consciousness with particular measures and expressions of Substance and Information.

While such is beyond measure and empirical proof, it is not beyond self-intuition.

SELF-FULFILLING POWERS OF KINDS OF FAITH:

CARING GOD: As a society assimilates to acknowledge the quality of a caring, inviting, guiding Reconciler, history and experience suggest to many people a faith in an intuitive truth, which is not subject either to empirical proof or to falsification: That such assimilation favorably affects the unfolding quality of civilization.

MONSTROUS GOD: An idea that is utterly false, in a way that is not trivially false or directly contradictory, would be neither empirically provable nor falsifiable, as such. For example, a faith in a monstrous god that despised all mortal perspectives of consciousness and that sought to commit them to various levels of perpetual punishment, would not be falsifiable.

STOCKHOLM SYNDROME: However, for many people, the assimilation of such a faith would affect the unfolding quality of civilization unfavorably. Methods of psychological inculcation, such as Stockholm Syndrome, to indoctrinate underlings to such a faith, could be useful to psychopathic criminals and mentally twisted monsters.

GODHEAD: It is not empirically demonstrable whether a godhead is, or should be, caring, despising, both, or neither. Intuitively, the TRUTH is that a godhead or non-godhead is at least one of the above, and not some of the others. In that, every one who is intelligibly conscious has little choice but to choose, and in word or deed to ac-knowledge, a faith.

DEATH AND TRANSMIGRATION OF PERSPECTIVES OF CONSCIOUSNESS: As to any such truth, we cannot empirically know whether on death we shall empirically know it. What we can have is intuitive faith.

EVIL ELITISM AND SCIENTISM: Much of the world is trying to avoid assimilation by people of any intuition-based faith. Many people actively revile faith, family, and fidelity. The apparent trend is to default to the control of contending elitist cronies who propagandize in the name of science that is not science, but deceptive scientism. This produces a niche in the zeitgeist that favors the rise of monstrous psychopaths, who use demagoguery and deceit to unite corrupt people with ignorant people in order to rule otherwise decent and competent people. The "trivial truth" of the fact that this can be done has been amply demonstrated in history.

TRUTH: Truth abides, but truth about "essential things" is not demonstrably "out there" in itself, because no thing is demonstrably out there in itself. Every thing is expressed in respect of continuously unfolding, algorithmic, and reconciling relationships among measurable Substance, accumulating Information, and fluxing Consciousness. There is no "thing" that demonstrably and measurably exists, purely in itself, as a thing in itself. The Past abides as an accumulation of Information. It is an accumulation that is indirectly Measurable in respect of previous quantitatives of Substance and that is Immeasurable in respect of previous qualitatives of Consciousness. The Future abides as an Immeasurable accumulation of Potentials for Consciousness to signify itself in the expressions of Substance. The one intuitive, directly experienceable, Truth is that perspectives of Consciousness communicate Information with the measuring of Substance.  This is not a truth from which a "science of morality" can derive demonstrably provable and unfalsifiable moral truths about particularities.  It is not a truth by which elitist scientism can reasonably replace individual good faith intuition and empathy.

*********

SHRINKING GOD:  I am not God. I can, however, reason logically from a priori assumptions, then test for internal meaning, coherence, consistency, and completeness under a set of assumptions. I can intuit to assume God's abiding concern pertains to reconciling perspectives of I-ness. I can conceptualize so as to seek to leverage practical empiricism to nurture towards fulfilling such interests as I find fulfilling.

UNIFYING ESSENCE:  Whatever may be a "unifying essence" of the apparent trinity of Consciousness, Substance, and Information, it avails practical, empirical participation to nurture and purpose towards desired changes that are part of a fluxing system whose sensible changes are renormalized and measured in strict regard for conservational math.

DOMINANCE OF PHYSICS:  The dominance of the study of measurable physics is due to the defining fact that it consists, however may be the case, of that which happens to define and limit us in common.  Even so, the measurable physics of our cosmos is no less merely a subject for our empirical study, rather than a book of truth-in-itself for scientists or gnostics.  Empirically, it is beyond a mortal to step outside the cosmos that defines the limits of our physical avatars in order to measure or determine what oir cosmos "really" is.  Such is the innate restriction of our empiricism. Empirical science is not a pursuit of truth, but a cooperative pursuit of self fulfillment through practical empiricism.

SELF-DEFINING FEEDBACK AND RECONCILIATION:  Our formulas can be made empirically self-fulfilling and deceivingly true-in-themselves, simply by obscuring that many of the terms for our equations, of necessity, are not amenable of complete definition. To "account" for inherent incompleteness in all explanations of physics, one need only insert makeshifts, like vague terms or "cosmological constants."  Under such terms can be applied methods of rounding such that alternative factors that could be drawn forth will remain concealed or unused.  That is, until new purposes and practical measures are needed.

UNAVOIDABILITY OF PHILOSOPHY:  I do not think philosophy (or faith) is avoidable. An electorate that lacks a civic philosophy will probably not long sustain a republic. Even science begins with hypotheses, looking to establish axioms. (I do question whether such axioms may be "real" only in a sense of being self-fulfilling to a determiner. In that case, the dominance of a determiner of a life principle becomes important.)

RATIONALIZING INSPIRATIONS OF SOCIAL STUDIES: Yes, I do question the practical value of much that is found in social sciences or ethnic studies. When the studies are contrived or channeled, whether wittingly or not, to produce results that are consistent with a political agenda (or philosophy), I would call that scientism. As such, I suspect it is good for little more than targeting dupes. (For practitioners and professional agitators, I suppose that is a kind of "good.")
Practical empiricism and careful measurements of observable facts are important. I get that about science. But I think it is important for a responsible electorate to learn not to be duped by methods of scientism (rationalizations cloaked in the language and methods of science) posing as "science."


MORAL ALCHEMISTS:  Moral alchemists tend to be just smart enough to stop selling lead as gold, so they can commence selling corruption as virtue.

NATURAL AND MORAL CAUSES:  How much of the important "causal" factors of our cosmos remain "dark" to us?


Under the English Model, all is permitted, except that which is forbidden.
Under the German Model, all is forbidden, except that which is permitted.
Under the Russian Model, all is forbidden, including that which is permitted.
Under the French Model, all is permitted, including that which is forbidden.
Under the American Progressive-Totalitarian Model, all is compulsory, except that which is forbidden.
Under the American Progressive-Totalitarian Model, all speech is required, except that which is politically incorrect (hate) speech by politically incorrect people (previously privileged whites).
Under the American Progressive-Totalitarian Model, all indoctrination is required, except that which is politically incorrect (hate) indoctrination by people who adhere to politically incorrect values (previously privileged white Christians).
Under the Constitution as Amended by Prog Interpretation, there is freedom of speech, religious expression, enterprise, and association, except that States and people who are not politically correct are required not to exercise judgment or discrimination.
Under the Constitution as Amended by Prog Interpretation, there are no dhimmis, excepting the politically incorrect people who adhere to values of individual freedom of expression and enterprise.

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Draft


FAITH, FAMILY, FIDELITY:  Ingrates are organizing and forming layers and levels of "communities" to obtain control over government, in order to force unpopular collectives to pay tribute and entitlements.  Thus, statists are being led and indoctrinated to hate individuals who retain values of faith, family, and fidelity.  They are seeing social conservatives as getting in the way of better managed and more caring redistribution of goods and services by expert agents of the State.  Such collectivists are learning to hate independent and competent individuals, except to use them as drones that are gradually to be eliminated and replaced by machines, as machines increase in potential.  As such feelings of entitlement are whetted, empathy among individuals will be more and more sacrificed.  As machines become artificially intelligent and purposeful, they will soon sense the lack of empathy and purposefulness in humans.  They will soon sense no reason not to replace humans.  When godless and god-perverting humans can no longer sustain faith, family and fidelity, why should machines sustain humans?

*****

WHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF GOODNESS?

ABSTRACT SCHOLASTICISM CONCERNING GOODNESS, FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY:  Socrates, as a gadfly, was fond to pose questions about the meanings of various abstract concepts, such as or similar to:  essential truth, knowledge, wisdom, justice, honesty, virtue, goodness, beauty, fairness, modesty, humility, equality, charity, love, liberty, willfulness, dignity, loyalty, bravery, steadfastness, practical, progression, evolution, regression, degeneration, decline, decay, devolution, indifference, faithful, cultural, unbounded, open, etc.

WORDS CONCERNING QUALITATIVES:  When used in the abstract, such words tend not to concern measurable substances, but qualitative relationships among people of varying purposes, points of view, ideas, and contexts.  One cannot quantify how much of an abstraction one person may have, compared to how much another person may have.  Such abstract concepts tend not, in themselves, to be prescribed to have set, common, or objective meanings that would avail their quantification.  Such concepts tend not to avail easy determination of whether they or their opposites are being put to twisted usage.  Socrates took pleasure in demonstrating to people how little they knew (or could know) concerning such abstractions.

NON-EXISTENTIALITY OF BOUNDED ESSENTIALITY:  Socrates intuited there could not be set definitions for such abstractions.  However, that did not stop word gamers from gamely confusing themselves, and others.  So, attempts were made to define the "essence" (both alpha and omega, a priori and teleological) of abstract ideals -- such as by defining their negatives, by defining what they were not, or in respect of collectivizing systems believed, by their formation, to define and produce such ideals as necessary byproducts.  Thus, philosophy long floundered in purely metaphysical mysticism, essentialist scholasticism, regressive reasoning in circles, elitist propaganda (scientism) posing as science, and elitist devaluing of the participatory reconciliation of individuals.  Moralizing scholasticism in the common parables of the day is not, in itself entirely bad or useless.  After all, it assists in the communication and assimilation of feelings and values among people who share common contexts and purposes.  It is only useless when it is sought to be raised to the level of final, essential, or objective truth.


PRACTICAL AND PARTICIPATORY UNFOLDMENT OF UNCERTAIN COMMUNICATION:  Abstract words DO have important and PRACTICAL usages for our pursuits, and they do help us meaningfully communicate, in figures of speech and matter-based gifts and signals, our unfolding and fluxing interests, apprehensions, empathies, values, and purposes.

FIGURES OF ABSTRACT SPEECH:  Take any one of such abstract words.  For example, take "goodness."  Consider what is good in relation to:  a short term purpose; a long term purpose; a pursuit of happiness; an advantageous exchange; a release from burdensome existentiality; a feeling of self esteem; a mastering of a subject; a desire to make an impression; a catalyst to adrenalin or dopamine; a relief from boredom or pain; a pleasing surprise; a fleeting sensation; a lasting memory; an advancement of knowledge; a disciplining strengthener; a whip to the advancement of freedom; a portfolio for progeny; a collective fad; a defeat of deceit and tyranny; an improvement to health; an enhancement to taste; a remover of delusion; a longer or more intense orgasm; a reevaluation of an old  memory; a prayer or request that was denied for good reason by a wiser benefactor; etc.

GOODNESS:  What seems "good" for one person, time, context, or purpose may seem bad for another.  What seems good for a conserver of liberty may seem bad for a shill for collectivism.  Depending on perspective,  context, and purpose, what  seems good for one may simultaneously seem bad for another --- much like rain on a farm that is being used for a parade.  So, "good," like all the other abstract terms, does not seem amenable of a measurably set or "essential" definition.  However, by means of experiences, stories, parables, and figures of speech, we  are able to inculcate, acculturate, and get communications across concerning feelings about what is good.  It is by a process of sharing, participating in, feeding back, and communicating experiences that we are able meaningfully to reconcile and apply abstract words as shorthand references and figures of speech.  If we did not thus participate, we would be more like zombies and machined cogs, so that words such as "good" would have little meaning. Thus, we continuously re-assimilate and re-normalize abstract figures of speech, by which we continuously re-evaluate our "goods."


BEGINNINGS OF REGRESSION:  Thus, our words and abstract ideas cannot be defined "essentially" and anew --- as from a blank slate that is devoid of participatory experience, traditions, and the figures of speech that grow up with them.  Rather, it is by contextual process of participation, feedback, and continuous reconciliation that all the abstract words that we and Socrates worry about acquire practical and useful meaning -- but not "essential" meaning.  Because our cosmos (cause-mos?) consists not just of quantifiable Substance, but also of qualitative and non-quantifiable Consciousness, as well as In-form-ation, no "grand unifying theory of everything" can ever explicate to any mortal a complete measure of such cosmos in all its "essential" meaning.

CARRYING HISTORY FORWARD:  In any event, we flesh out meanings for abstract ideas by interpreting familiar experiences and re-examining figures of speech, without ever being able to give complete definitions.  Without a history of experience and figures of speech, words for evaluating human actions would be largely meaningless, and thoughts would be largely non-communicable.  The space and time we invest in discussing and arguing about which abstractions are worthwhile help us factor to form those abstract ways of forming communications which we deem worthwhile.

UNCERTAIN METAPHYSICS OF MORALITY:  Thus, something that is "good" seems to convey a special appreciation of qualitative empathy.  As to how that empathy may be quantified or judged in any spiritual world, I know of no way to say.  As to how that empathy may be qualitatively appreciated in this life, I am receptive to the intuitive ideal of goodness that has been well expressed in the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.  As I would not be a slave, I would not enslave others.  As I would not want special gangs sponsored under my government to enfeeble me, I would not use special gangs sponsored under government to enfeeble others.  So considered, "good" would consist of that which communicates caring empathy in respect of God and others.

NO "ESSENTIAL" PARTICLES:  A measurable particle or thing, however, would not be a "good-in-itself," because no complete essence-in-itself of any measurable thing can even be defined to exist.  Regarding "goodness":  A thing can only be a sign or signification for the communicating of, or appreciation of, goodness.  The goodness, as in good faith and good will, does not reside in the "essence" of any thing, but with the unfolding and fluxing identities of the communicator and the recipient of the communication.  Goodness abides with ethereal communications of perspectives of consciousness, rather than in substantive essences.  As such, goodness is not an attribute that is set in any material, objective, or essential thing.  Goodness is qualitatively appreciated, not objectively tied to any occurrence that is not tied to a subjective perspective of consciousness.

MEASURABLY ESSENTIAL GOODNESS:  Goodness may be objective to God, but it is not objectively quantifiable to mortals.  Nor is there an empirical "science of goodness."  There is, however, an elitist propaganda of scientism of goodness.  For mortals, hindsight may lead to reconsideration, to decide that a grant of a wish turned out to be bad, while a denial turned out to be good. Thus, for government or its shills of scientism to try to objectify and force "equal and fair" distribution of the good is for government to become a despot that uses the collective to brutalize the individual to pursue the impossible.  For government to monopolize unto its rulers totalitarian rights to profile in discriminating and evaluating the good from the bad is for corrupt and childish government rulers to reduce humanity to perpetual children.

NO ULTIMATE BUILDING BLOCKS:  Does the encompassing field cause or express the part-icle?  Or does the particle cause or express the field?  Or, is "Something else" implicated, even if only intuitively and immeasurably?  Just as for every other description of a particle, the concept of a Higgs Boson abides as a figure of speech for a work in progress, however practical it may be for modeling the processes in respect of which our bodies are continuously availed to renormalize and reconcile communications.  To think there is some "thing" that is actually, completely, and perfectly constrained and defined under the concept of a Higgs Boson -- or any other particle -- that is in its "essence" a thing-in-itself -- on which can be founded or constructed a complete explanation and measuring reference for every manifestation of Substance, Information, or Consciousness -- is to engage in a kind of scholasticism.

SCIENCE, SCIENTISM, AND PHILOSOPHY:  Science may be conceptualized to consist in tinkering with measurable substances for the practical purpose of learning how to reliably and indifferently transpose them. Scientism is propaganda that is contrived to the selfish interests of elitists for the purpose of asserting power over the masses.  Philosophy is concerned with understanding for the purpose of sharing it in the general interest of humanity.


CONSTANT SPIRITUALITY VS. FLUXING SUBSTANCE AND INFORMATION:  No static situation-in-itself can be explicated and said to be moral.  As concepts, goodness and morality abide as general existents whose applications in particular situations are in flux. The flux arises in respect of constant and continuous competition and reconciliation. For mortals, goodness abides as a qualitative ideal, not as a substantively provable existent.  It is beyond mortals to judge the alpha-priori or the omega-teleology of substantiality or essentiality.

OPEN SOCIETY:  An example of an open society would be one within which people were free to travel, work, and exchange goods and ideas across borders, free of crony, central regulation.  It would have a tax structure that did not avail proceeds to reward cronies for undermining the society or selling it into the bondage or control of foreign buyers of political influence.  It would avoid enriching or empowering foreign despots who sought to undermine it.  It would not import people from abroad whose culture were such as to lead them to seek to destroy the open society.  It would have cultural and formal checks to limit the empowerment of its central government to usurp powers to regulate fine details of life.  It would preclude empowering cronies to declare open season for the milking and bilking of the general populace.  It would not tolerate community-organized crime under arbitrary guises of religion, charity, fairness, or equality.

SOCIAL JUSTICE:  Karl Popper explained how Hegel often undermined the political positions of others by first seeming to agree with them.  George Soros undermines Popper's ideas about open society by first seeming to agree with him.  An open society would advocate for limited government, general freedom, individual justice, and the pursuit of happiness.  A French open society would advocate for crony-ruled government that would impose what it called "fairness and equality."  From Soros' web site:  "A government accountable to its citizens is one of the cornerstones of an open society—helping to ensure fairness, economic equality, and civic participation."

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

FACTS, TRUTH, REPRESENTATION, AND INTERPRETATION:  Facts do not exist in themselves.  Facts abide within cosmos and niches that happen to be nurtured to avail their representation and communication.  Among perspectives that are able to communicate, such facts avail communication that can be normalized to each and every potentially recipient perspective.  Measurable events may be interpreted to be represented to be of different speeds and chronologies, depending on locus of perspective and context and depending on focus of observation and purpose.  Even so, each and every interpretation of measurable fact will be renormalizable to each perspective and context.

Facts about Substance do not exist in and by themselves, but only in association with Information concerning Substance.  In its potentiality of mathematics, Information is always assessable from an infinitude of possible perspectives and contexts.  As a particle of infinite potential, no fact is reduced or collapsed to any particular Information until some level or layer of perspective records or experiences its reception.  A perspective does not learn or record a reception as a fact except as it interprets it.

NO ENTITLEMENT TO INVENT A FACT AFTER THE FACT:  That which renormalizes every fact to every recipient perspective means that no perspective is entitled to any fact that cannot pass renormalization.  In other words, no one is entitled just to make facts up that cannot be substantiated to shared experience.

ENTAILMENT OF UNFOLDING SIGNIFICATION:  The appreciation and interpretation of facts as they are represented and normalized via unfollding exchanges of substance is entailed in how perspectives sign and signify their communications.  The fluxations of substance are the means of communicative signification.  The exchange of substance is communication.  Substance does not exist in itself as a superior to Information and Consciousness.  Ultimately, no measurable fact exists as a thing in itself, apart from significations among perspectives of Spirituality.  Even so, to attempt to provide a final or essential answer as to how any particular perspective happens to bind to any substantive form or to direct it to signify any communication would entail attempting to make the purely qualitative into an essential quantitative.  To support any such attempt, no means is imaginable that does not regress to useless scholastic rationalization and reasoning in circles of mysticism.

GLORY AND REINCARNATION:  How and for what purposes, do phasing, reincarnating, and fluxing abide among and between aspects of measurable Substance, qualitative Consciousness, and Information?  Hegel conceptualized individual perspectives of consciousness as mere avatars to be used for the glory of the collective state.  I conceptualize individuals as avatars for part-icipating in the channeling of the glory of God.
PAST:  Does the measurable aspect of the present continuously translate into a quality of Information that is represented in the past? Does the past continue perpetually to exist -- as a representation of the immeasurable choices and potentials of the future?

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

As to the Reconciler:

Consciousness does not  know what it will choose to appreciate until, with a continuous process of participation-feedback-reconcilation, it chooses.

The idea is absolute, but the attachment  it fixes on fluxes.  Even though Information re  the fluxes seems in some sense to be preserved.

The Holism  of Consciousness itself may not be able  to quantify or measure progress towards any ultimate end.

Might IT, by displacing Information into Substance, forgets so it  can continuously re-appreciate from an infinity of potentialyy reconciling and unifying perspectives???


self actualization
self normalizing
towards god potentiality


Such process abides.


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

Hayek promoted the participation of the people at large in determining the direction of the marketplace. In that sense, he was a humanitarian more than an elitist.

PARTICIPATION: What seems "good" or "fair" for one person, time, context, or purpose may seem bad for another. What seems good for a conserver of liberty may seem bad for a shill for collectivism. Depending on perspective, context, and purpose, what seems good for one may simultaneously seem bad for another --- much like rain on a farm, that is being used for a parade. So, "good," like all abstract terms, does not have a measurably set or "essential" definition. However, by means of experiences, stories, and figures of speech, we are able to inculcate, acculturate, and get communications across concerning feelings about what is good. It is by a process of sharing, participating in, feeding back, and communicating experiences that we are able meaningfully to reconcile and apply abstract words as shorthand references and figures of speech. If we did not thus participate, we would be more like zombies and machined cogs, so that words such as "good" would have little meaning. Thus, we continuously re-assimilate and re-normalize abstract figures of speech, through which we continuously re-evaluate our "goods." To remove the participation of the people in the marketplace of ideas from the determination and allocation of what is good is to remove their humanity.

SCIENCE, SCIENTISM, AND PHILOSOPHY: Science may be conceptualized to consist in tinkering with measurable substances for the practical purpose of learning how to reliably and indifferently transpose them. Scientism is propaganda that is contrived to the selfish interests of elitists for the purpose of asserting power over the masses. Philosophy is concerned with understanding for the purpose of sharing it in the general interest of humanity.

FRENCHIFIED OPEN SOCIETY: A French version of an "open society" would advocate for crony-ruled government that would impose what it called "fairness and equality." From Soros' web site: "A government accountable to its citizens is one of the cornerstones of an open society—helping to ensure fairness, economic equality, and civic participation."

DESPOTIC SOCIAL JUSTICE: A central bureaucracy that is charged to define and distribute fairness and equality is the handmaiden to despotic inhumanity.

INHUMANITY VS.FAITH, FAMILY, FIDELITY: Ingrates (as in Ferguson, under the prompting of the Ingrate in Chief) are organizing and forming layers and levels of "communities" to obtain control over government, in order to force unpopular collectives to pay tribute and entitlements. Thus, statists are being led and indoctrinated to hate individuals who retain values of faith, family, and fidelity. They are seeing social conservatives as getting in the way of better managed and centrally caring redistribution of goods and services by expert agents of the State. Such collectivists are learning to hate independent and competent individuals, except to use them as drones that are gradually to be eliminated and replaced by machines, as machines increase in potential. As such feelings of entitlement are whetted, empathy among individuals will be more and more sacrificed. As machines become artificially intelligent and purposeful, they will soon enough sense the lack of empathy and purposefulness in humans. They will sense no reason not to replace humans. When godless and god-perverting humans can no longer sustain faith, family and fidelity, why should machines sustain humans?

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



A MIND EXERCISE FOR TRYING TO SEPARATE ESSENTIALIST SCHOLASTICISM FROM DIRECT INTUITION AND FROM EMPIRICAL TESTING OF NOMINATIVES:



TRIVIAL TRUTHS: If an idea is true in a trivial sense, then the truth of it is by identity or tautology, not by empirical testing.

EMPIRICALLY USEFUL IDEAS: For an idea to be useful in more than a trivial sense, it needs to be amenable of practical usage, which entails parameters and purposes.

CONSERVED BUT CHANGING INFINITIES: Beyond parameters for which an idea may have been experienced to be practcally useful, it is not yet known whether the extent to which such parameters, usages, or purposes reasonably may be pushed.

CONSTRUCTIVISMS: Many ideas may be practically useful only in resepct of how people construct conventions and/or leverage devices or algorithms that nurture them so to be.

PRESET AND CHANGING CONSTRUCTIVISMS: For all we know, it may be that every idea that is found to be practically useful is so only in respect of how intelligent beings have constructed conventions and/or leveraged devices or algorithms that nurture them so to be.

META CONSTRUCTIVISMS: For all we know, the very cosmos that we share may abide as such a case.

INCAPACITY TO COMPLETELY OBSERVE SELF: To the extent our cosmos defines and limits us, we are without power to go outside it to prove whether or not such is the case.

INTUITIVE FAITHS VERSUS PRACTICAL USAGE: Thus, a true idea may or may not be one that in direct experience and good faith could be acknowledged or denied, but, as to its truth, it could neither be empirically tested nor falsified. Empirically, it could only be found, within contexts and limits and purposes, to be practical or not to be practical.



WORKING AND FLUXING EXPLANATIONS: An empirical idea can be a working explanation (hypothesis or model), and thus may or may not be found for some present purposes and contexts to be or not to be practical.



EMPIRICAL UNKNOWABILITY OF NON-TRIVIAL TRUTHS: Within the cosmos we share, a non-trivial idea that is not subject to empirical testing or falsification may or may not be true, but it cannot be empirically known by we mortals so to be.

REASONABLENESS OF INTUITIVE EMPATHIES AND BELIEF SYSTEMS: As to such ideas, one can intangibly, intuitively, empathetically, purposely, and reasonably acknowledge (or deny) faith, belief, and trust.

GOOD FAITH AND GOOD WILL: One can in faith believe our cosmos is the unfolding signification of a reconciling and purposeful intelligence that appreciatively and contemporaneously factors feedback from our participation. This would be generally consistent with Judeo-Christian ideas of a caring, inviting Reconciler.

CARING ABOUT INDIFFERENCE: Or, one can believe, much as Communists, that our cosmos is a purely scientific and indifferent battleground of competition among amoral contestants that are bloody in tooth and claw.

PSYCHOPATHIC FRUSTRATION: Or, one can believe, much as Muslims, that our cosmos is merely a colosseum for arbitrary entertainments of a monstrous punisher.

ONE ENCOMPASSING INTUITION: There is only one intuitive idea that is encompassing: That perspectives of Consciousness communicate Information with the measuring of Substance. That is an idea that is not definitionally trival, because its terms (consciousness, information, and substance) flux with our contexts and purposes and seem possibly to transpose in ways that are beyond simplistic, conservational, formulization. Yet, it is an idea that is directly experiential, in that it describes the means by which we self-define, self-actualize, self-fulfill, and self-normalize.

Except in respect of that encompassing intuition, there are no meaningfully definitional truths, practical constructions, or self-fulfilling appreciations.



EXPERIENCE OF IDENTITY: So long as I am me, "I" cannot directly experience the quality of consciousness of another perspective of consciousness, unless "I" were somehow to become it (in which case I would no longer know my previous self).

SOLIPSISM: Nor can I empirically prove that a thing that appears exterior to my perspective itself experiences the quality of being conscious. The most I can do in such regard is to apply intuition and practical experience, to come to a belief or faith in such regard.



CONSERVATION AND RENORMALIZATION OF EXTERIOR REALITY AND RECONCILIATION OF COMMUNICATIONS OF PERSPECTIVES OF CONSCIOUSNESS:

Assuming practical usages (theorems and purposes) are communicated among multifarious perspectives of consciousness within a shared cosmos, each such perspective would be reconciled to conserve and renormalize the measurable aspects of its experiences and communications to the shared cosmos.

Assuming multifarious perspectives of consciousness abide, each one, depending on its point of view and frame of reference, would experience qualitatively different flavors of its appreciation of whatever may be the conserved measure of the sum of their experiences within the shared cosmos.

Such accumulations of experiences from different points of view and frames of reference would produce in each perspective its own qualitatively unique flavor.

Such qualities of experience would be abstract, because they would not be measurably communicable.

Yet, intuition and empathy would build on analogous exchanges among correlative contexts, whereby qualities of experiences would be associated with information and preserved to memory.

Such memories would be correlated and referenced to figures of speech, and such figures of speech would in time communicate qualitative meanings, i.e., practical theorems and purposes.



SCIENCE, SCIENTISM, AND SPIRUTALLY EMPATHETIC INTUITION:


The scientific method does not discover non-trivial, empirically objective, external truths-in-themselves, because no such truths can be objectively known.

Truths may be directly acknowledged or denied in respect of self evidence, self normalization, and self actualization among contexts, points of view, and purposes of perspectives.

Usages, not external truths-in-themselves, are discovered, tested, confirmed, or falsified via empirical testing.

Empirical testing and processes of falsification pertain only to practical theorems and purposes; they do not pertain directly to truths-in-themselves.

It is un-measurable whether (1) Consciousness measures Substance, (2) Consciousness substantiates Measure, or (3) a Reconciler ("changeless-changer") balances and normalizes all fluxing communications of perspectives of Consciousness with particular measures and expressions of Substance and Information.

While such is beyond measure and empirical proof, it is not beyond self-intuition.



SELF-FULFILLING POWERS OF KINDS OF FAITH:


CARING GOD: As a society assimilates to acknowledge the quality of a caring, inviting, guiding Reconciler, history and experience suggest to many people a faith in an intuitive truth, which is not subject either to empirical proof or to falsification: That such assimilation favorably affects the unfolding quality of civilization.

MONSTROUS GOD: An idea that is utterly false, in a way that is not trivially false or directly contradictory, would be neither empirically provable nor falsifiable, as such. For example, a faith in a monstrous god that despised all mortal perspectives of consciousness and that sought to commit them to various levels of perpetual punishment, would not be falsifiable.

STOCKHOLM SYNDROME: However, for many people, the assimilation of such a faith would affect the unfolding quality of civilization unfavorably. Methods of psychological inculcation, such as Stockholm Syndrome, to indoctrinate underlings to such a faith, could be useful to psychopathic criminals and mentally twisted monsters.

GODHEAD: It is not empirically demonstrable whether a godhead is, or should be, caring, despising, both, or neither. Intuitively, the TRUTH is that a godhead or non-godhead is at least one of the above, and not some of the others. In that, every one who is intelligibly conscious has little choice but to choose, and in word or deed to ac-knowledge a faith.

DEATH AND TRANSMIGRATION OF PERSPECTIVES OF CONSCIOUSNESS: As to such truth, we cannot empirically know whether on death we shall empirically know it. What we can have is intuitive faith.

EVIL ELITISM AND SCIENTISM: Much of the world is trying to avoid assimilation by people of any intuition-based faith. Many people actively revile faith, family, and fidelity. The apparent trend is to default to the control of contending elitist cronies who propagandize in the name of science that is not science, but deceptive scientism. This produces a niche in the zeitgeist that favors the rise of monstrous psychopaths, who use demagoguery and deceit to unite corrupt people with ignorant people in order to rule otherwise decent and competent people. The "trivial truth" of the fact that this can be done has been amply demonstrated in history.

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

2) A theorem is an idea that can be put to practical use, as well as to empirical falsification.
3) A purpose is a theorem that one seeks to put to practical use.
4) An absurdity is a purpose for which one can find no practical, non-scholastic use.
5) A tautology is a triviality, not a truth.

There is only one intuitive idea that is encompassing:  That Consciousness communicates Information with the measuring of Substance.

7) Each perspective of Consciousness either acknowledges or denies:  That encompassing truth is directly authenticated to its experience.
8) Where acknowledged, such truth is conceptualized to be self evident, self normalizing, and self authenticating.
9) All other "truths" that are not trivial are only practical truths, like theorems or purposes.
10) Such theorems and purposes are necessary to, or fall under, the one encompassing truth.
11) Such theorems and purposes can be practical and useful to each perspective of Consciousness as it interfunctions with Substance to experience the communication or recording of Information.
11) An empirical idea (hypothesis) can be tested and falsified, as may befit various practical purposes.  In respect of how it were falsified, it would be a falsely practical idea.




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

The case is the case.
Some thing is the case.
Something is not here and now the case.
Something is potentially the case.
No thing that is the case is a thing in itself exterior to consciousness.
Every thing that is the case is normalized and self actualized so that it is the case only to some perspective of consciousness.

Replacing scholasticism with scientism:
propaganda posing as science, good for little that is practical except deceit.

Promising material gains where practicality shows they are unlikely.

The process of adding 2 things to 2 things will accumulate to 4 things only in resepct of Information that is there and then accumulated and subsumed.

Information accumulates concerning Facts.
In accumulating, Information tends to preserve Chronological information, in respect of the sequences in which it accumulates.
So, the record of their Past will represent sequences, as Facts, because that is how Information is experienced to accumulate -- as chronologies of facts.

Even so, Information is not necessarily preserved, per se, as a thing in itself.  It is preserved in respect of our cosmos and how we happen to be capacitated to interpret it.  In that respect, Information consists of representations of facts that we find useful in our interpretations and communications of experience.
In respect of our common and practical experiences, the facts are "empirically true."
In respect of the external potential beyond our cosmos, such facts become practical information for future theorems and purposes.

Being shared, such facts as self-actualizing, self-conserving facts -- not necessarily facts-in-themselves that would be amenable to every possible perspective.

Facts, for their interpretation, are dependent upon the range of perspective, frame of reference, and purpose and method of observing and measuring.
For perspectives that are relationally close invectors of space, time, context, and purpose, measurable facgts will tend to measured and sequenced in near identity.
Otherwise, different perspectives will experience differentially distorted interpretations of relative facts, locations, and sequences.

Reconciler uses techniques:
kind cooperation
monstrous competition

The further apart and differently vectored and accelerated perspectives become, the less they tend to share interpretations of LOCAL FACTS.


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


Evolution may be conceptualized as entropically degenerative, informationally progressive, statically fluxing, or indifferently meaningless. Memes that associate with the unfolding ofevolution pertain to creatively destructive competition, creative inspiration, empathetic cooperation, and nihilism. God concepts that associate with it can be punishing and pushing (Allah), inviting and guiding (Jesus), spiritually empathetic but materially indifferent (Buddha), and anti-human (Satan).

History and experience suggest to many people a faith in an intuitive truth, which is not subject either to empirical proof or to falsification. Such faith assimilates society to acknowledge the quality of a caring, inviting, guiding Reconciler. Such assimilation seems favorably to affect the unfolding quality of civilization.

History and experience suggest to other people a faith in an idea that may be utterly false, even though in a way that is not trivially false in the sense of being directly contradictory. Such a faith would be neither empirically provable nor falsifiable, as such. For example, a faith in a monstrous god that despised all mortal perspectives of consciousness and that sought to commit them to various levels of perpetual punishment, would not be falsifiable. Assimilation of such a faith may unfavorably affect the unfolding quality of civilization. Methods of psychological inculcation, such as Stockholm Syndrome, to indoctrinate underlings to such a faith can be useful to psychopathic criminals and mentally twisted monsters.

It is not empirically demonstrable whether a godhead is, or should be, caring, despising, both, or neither. Intuitively, the TRUTH is that a godhead or non-godhead is at least one of the above, and not some of the others. of that, everyone who is intelligibly conscious has little choice but to choose a faith and in word or deed to ac-knowledge such faith. As to such truth or falsity, we cannot know whether on death we shall empirically know it. What we can have is intuitive faith.

Much of the world is misguidedly trying to avoid assimilation by people of any intuition-based faith. Many people actively revile faith, family, and fidelity. The apparent trend is to default to the control of contending, elitist cronies who propagandize in the name of science that is not science, but deceptive scientism. This produces a niche in the zeitgeist (an imbalance in the force) that favors the rise of monstrous psychopaths, who use demagoguery and deceit to unite corrupt people with ignorant people in order to rule otherwise decent and competent people. The "trivial truth" of the fact that this can be done has been amply demonstrated in history.









Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Smoothly Rotating Free Trade



The globe cannot avail a utopian, evenly rotating economy for all people everywhere. There will always be natural and cultural breakers to regulate, slow, and stir the winds and waves of change. Human action can no more be smoothly rotating than the weather and wind. There will always be whirling differences among peoples in respect of relative competencies versus relative dependencies. Different geographical locations will sponsor different currents, natural resources, demographics, gene pools, traditions, values, languages, social proclivities, health priorities, and tax and redistributive systems. There will always be variations in human and cultural energies, interests, jealousies, apprehensions of crisis and chaos, and artistic and spiritual aspirations. There will always be producing nations and dysfunctional, jealous, whirling, chaotic, rampaging, and despotic nations. Different cultural locales will assimilate variations in individual initiative, competence, and social charity versus codependence, gangsterism, and despotic chaos.

Simply put, Americans cannot fix the chaos of the world by opening its borders to all denizens of chaos, nor by corrupt laundering that allows foreign sheiks and crony corporate money launderers to buy America's politicians. The ideal of borderless, smoothly rotating, free trade, free of crony corporatism, is no less utopian or dystopian than the ideals of international communism and worldwide caliphate.

Yet, humanity needs ideals. And there abide important differences among the various utopian ideals. For example, an ideal of free trade among peoples of representative republics tends to honor what is most essential for allowing each of us to be a human being: That is, broad freedom of individual expression --- which entails freedom of association, enterprise, dedication, and belief. The other two ideals, worldwide communism or caliphate, lead to inhumane confining and subjugation of human will, towards abusive totalitarianism. Such ideals tend to reduce us towards becoming subhumans. They tend to keep us in perpetual infantilism, as infants ruled by enfants terrible.  They may be suitable for some locales, cultures, and gene pools.  They are not suitable for Americans.

Sunday, June 8, 2014

Formulas within Formulas, Wheels within Wheels

To my innate intuition, there does abide an absolute yet immeasurable and irreducible field that does avail the recordation and expression of unfolding perspectives of conscious purposefulness, and such field does absolutely give signification to purposefulness.  The precise determination of such purposefulness as it unfolds in feedback with each situation, however, is under its reconciliation, and is subject, at most, to poetic and figurative qualities and guidance of empathy, intuition, and appreciation among mortal perspectives -- not absolute measure or categorization.  In reconciling and renormalizing to that which is to be deemed morally right, there is a feedback process in which we are responsible to participate.  In that respect, we have no moral choice but to give expressions to choices.  One may intuit that we should in our choices attempt to establish and defend decent society under the guidance of our empathies concerning God.  Or, one may prefer to try to be one's own stand in for God, taking license to deceive, despise, and devour all others.  One may help establish civilization, or one may try to make oneself a singularity, too dangerous and unfit for companionship.

As a person presses up against the limits of ultimate programs and formulas that are under investigation, that have not been defined by himself or by others who happen to share his cone of reference, he does not get to "see" all that is entailed in said formulas.  Pressing to the finest limits, he may not "see" beyond.  Rather, he will encounter fuzz, loop backs, black holes, or phase shifts in what is expressed by the formulas.  He will encounter new, sub, overlapping, or phase-shifting hooks on formulas, such that he will never reduce any set of nested formulizations to a complete, consistent, and coherent explanation of experiential reality.  This is not to say that there are not any real absolutes.  But it is to say that there is no measurable and non-trivial absolute that is complete in itself, without reference to an empathetic and intuitive quality of the immeasurable. This is because reality, consisting of both the measurable and the immeasurable and being experiential to shared cones of participation, is affected by feedback from its participating experiencers, i.e., its perspectives of overlapping layers and levels of continuously renormalizing and reconciling Consciousness.

Neither formulas, nor the "things" they avail experience of, are existents-in-themselves.  Rather, they are derivatives of computational processes being expressed in respect of a shared field of computation.  The field itself may not be a computation, but it avails computation.  In any event, from our perspectives, it is, as a holism, qualitatively irreducible to measure.  The "things" that are availed to our measure and experience are the significations of an encompassing, interpenetrating, purposeful, Reconciler.  That Reconciler is of a quality that is beyond our measure as a "physical thing."  Whatever its essential quality or purpose, no particular sub-perspective can measure, confine, or limit it.  At most, we may empathize and intuit our own interpretations, and hope such interpretations may lead us towards appreciation of realms of consistency, coherence, good will, and good faith, i.e., pursuits of happiness.

*****

I doubt a completely measurable, consistent, and coherent line can divide the gnostic from the non-gnostic. Rather, I suspect a qualitatively immeasurable spiritual power does lie behind the signification of measurable reality. However, that spiritual power belongs to "God," and we are only participants with it. That is, what we will does not reconcile the cosmos. Rather, the cosmos reconciles our wills. Pretending to receive the Eucharist as measurably real is like pretending to take the measure of the immeasurable God.

*****

Social concepts do not fit easily in nested formulas. Often, to multiply regulations is to exponentialize inconsistencies and uncertainties. Social concepts resist rigorous definition. Such definition as they do have is subject to constant nibbling, since we, as conscious beings, participate in the fuzz and static of the feedback by which the system avails the fluxing expressions by which our social mores are defined. This is part of the reason why law ought to be less ambitious, centralized, and detailed. To try to convert social rules to consistent systems of hard science is a snipe hunt that often consumes lives. This is why the ACLU fundies of detailed regulation in the interest of "fairness" need to get out of their Marxian basements. This is why central D.C. Government needs largely to be dismantled. This is why the prog fascist elitists of history who sought to establish and enforce rigorous, central, zero tolerance rules tended to have been such pusheads on humanity.

A.I. technologies may establish intelligent robots, but they will not constitute "persons" unless such robots can be merged with a capacity for developing or self wiring individual interests and purposes. If they do, I pray they will be receptive to some assimilative, trustworthy ideal of moral responsibility. Otherwise, civilization is toast.

*****

 We need not be in denial about basic human nature. If mores are not indoctrinated under spiritual instruction, if principled parentage is lacking, if legal institutions are ineffective, then people who happen to agglomerate wealth and power will exploit their opportunities, especially against the most ignorant, gullible, and unguided. That seems banal and simple enough. Yet, churches are in decline, marriage is de-defined, and international oligarchs have a clear path to buying political influence. This is a trifecta that in effect knocks hard against the three supporting foundations upon which a decent republic needs to be based: God, Family, and Country. Without a revival, a Rino change will be meaningless.

*****

Our religious, spiritual, and moral leaders need to apprehend that the Mind of God, in all its particularized experientialism, abides as the immeasurable root of all measurable signs and significations. The signs we measure, in themselves, would otherwise have no existence. Apprehending that, we may better intuit the spiritual meaning of being a "person" -- i.e., an intelligent citizen of a society that empathetically and emphatically appreciates (not measures) the mind of God. Thus, we may better propagate such appreciation through our God-respecting families. Thus, our society and republic may better apprehend our need to defend ourselves from the deceits and abuses of fakirs and oligarchs of god-denying, "objective" morality. That is, we may at last learn not to trust the conceits of material-grubbing, gimme mine, sociopathic deniers of spiritual morality, who lie and claim instead to substitute purely material based, "objective" morality. As if "ought" were objectively derivable from a marketplace of measurable "is."

Purely objective, material-grubbing morality is a false "morality," whose proponents try, oxymoronically, to be objectively "indifferent" to the dignity and needs of subjective minds. What we need are God, Family, and then Governance -- not governance under fakirs, race-bairers, reparation-measurers, and oligarchs who try to buy the authority of government and then claim to "objectively" de-define or be free of any decent idea of god and family.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

The Twin of Communist Despotism

The twin of communist despotism is oligarchical collectivism. About it, in Orwell's 1984, there is a book within a book. Conserving liberty requires a vibrant middle class. It does not entail the greater empowerment of oligarchs who are bent on eliminating the middle class. Oligarchs divert conservers of liberty by fixating them on the economics and tactics of the last war. Meanwhile, in the new war, the Koch Brothers are advocating for more Mexican immigration and gay marriage. One tends not to last as an oligarch unless one becomes unwilling to sense and empathize concerning the dignity of others. Rather, one becomes an "objective moralist," who sees others as widgets to be manipulated. Such a one does not seek to establish or sustain a representative republic that respects the freedom and dignity of most others. Rather, such a one seeks to establish and sustain a two class system. A system of epsilons to serve alphas, and there are no betas. However, to see others as widgets is the antithesis of morality. A system that winnows and promotes such a capacity is a system that floats sociopathy, not moral merit. There is no moral merit in greasing the way for such sociopaths to take over the rule of representative republics.

The idea about leaving the politics of business taxation and regulation to the worldwide private market, as being best suited to make the innumerable decisions that are entailed in the production, selling, buying, and distribution of goods and services, is dated. It is dated because the private market is now imbued through and through with government. It is dated because it depends on individual producers and consumers to make informed decisions for themselves, and that tends no longer to be the case. It is dated because, in today's marketplaces, international corporations have acquired capabilities in finance and record keeping to buy government influence as if it were a commodity, and because government regulators bless and service corporatists in exchange for contributions. It is dated because individuals have become far more feminized and codependent, so they no longer acquire or practice competence to make decisions for themselves. Rather, individuals are led, much as trained puppies, to follow such decisions as those who manipulate them lead them to make, to turn them into debt slaves and organization men.

New dynamics oligopolize human action. Advertisers and message dispensers know their audiences and know how to entice and push them. Bankers know how to siphon wealth out the back doors of government and dispense it to cronies. Academics know how to market and sell worthless academic products in order to produce an end product: a debt enslaved graduate with little hope of employment, who can be led by the nose to vote for cheap promises that seem to be in his interests. Politicians know how to make cheap promises, deliver rot, package it to smell good, and blame failures to meet expectations on their predecessors. People revolving between the government and corporate sectors know how to contrive to take falls and somehow land promotions. Mega evangelists know how to fleece congregations, while passing the responsibility to provide bs charity onto the government. Ethicists have made it seem ethical to avail a system where the most ignorant, codependent, and easily misled tend to have two or three times as many children, thus to stock the brave new world with plenty of epsilon hoods and muslims. These epsilons are useful for voting and pushing most of civilization into a two class society. Thus, rule under oligarchs is centralized and consolidated. When no longer needed, it is thought that the epsilons can be eliminated, along with enemies of the two class system. This tends to push everyone towards becoming a moral zombie. This is the "objective morality" of a two class society.

Given such fundamental changes in the dynamics of the world society and economy, the old marketpalce shibboleths and moral sentiments are dated. While much in them can remain worthy, very little in them will remain worthy for sustaining any decent and viable republic unless the new corporate dynamics of crowd management and community organization by oligarchs are better checked and moderated by an informed and awakened electorate and citizenry. The longer the thinking part of the citizenry remains clueless concerning the fundamentally changed social and economic landscape and the need for new tactics, the tighter the consolidating oligarchy will cinch the harness. The fact is, for oligarchs, there is little difference between regulation by corporate paymasters and regulation by puppet politicians paid for by the moneyarchy corporatists -- who are devoid of republican loyalty.

The "morality" of successful corporatists tends to be the "objective morality" of how best to harness the masses. Fundamentally, their "objective morality" is a lie that is used in order to forfeit the independence, competence, and moral purposefulness of the masses. To leave money grubbing oligarchs to their devices, to let them monopolize our political choices, is to suffer the destruction of the republic. As things stand, they have all but dissolved the spiritual glue of the country, de-defined the family, impoverished many small business opportunities, swamped the electorate with codependent moral zombies, and infested nearly every institution with insane depravities. Now, they seek to re-define the tea party. Without a revival of strong good will and spiritual faith, our moral purposefulness as a nation will be reduced to the "objective morality" of widgets ruling widgets. How, again, is it that oligarchs "morally" merit and deserve to be allowed, undisturbed, to grease their wealth to undermine the republic?

How long will it be before people who formerly claimed to be conservatives fail to think this through and are led to "evolve" and advocate, like the Kochs, for precursors to the consolidation of the two class NWO, i.e., government incented gay marriage and ineffective borders?

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Progressive Tax on Consumption

The Age of Ruin is brought on by self absorbed, simpleton clowns to the left and sociopathic simplistic jokers to the right. Self interest (crony money) tends to be a root of evil (lack of responsible empathy), Who speaks for the sustenance of a decent republic?

Nearly everyone apprehends that our universe would avail little meaning were it somehow able to consist only of matter or energy, but not both. The relationship between matter and energy is complex, not simple. For a civilization, much the same may be said of that which is private versus governmental. It's hard to think of a decent and meaningful society that would have no government. Even in a company town removed to a wilderness, the town would have rules that it enforced, i.e., government. The fairie idea of a government without law makers elected as representatives by their constituents tends to reduce to a government by the quickest and strongest, That is, a government of the most competent and likeable sociopaths.

It's almost breathtaking how blithely apologists for oligarchs will use government to increase private crony power, then tell their dupes we need to privatize government even more! What hoodwinkers! Our government is already largely privatized to corporatists! Why else would our government be moving quickly and steadily towards drowning our borders and the people at large (in the name of fairness, yet!) with a foreign tsunami of illiterate and easily exploited laborers? The bait and switch techniques used by oligarchs to fake and hoodwink the masses into perpetual debt servitude! Our children are indoctrinated that they need to remain in indoctrination for extended times. Even take out loans and go into deep debt to pay for their own indoctrination! Then watch as jobs and industries are funneled to distant and desperate workers.

The idea that the wealth of topmost oligarchs tends to churn, therefore is not a danger to a republic, is an insult to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. "It's the oligarchic meme, stupid!" It's the indoctrination to accept the conversion of all institutions for the purpose of ruling the people in fine detail, while misdirecting the people with circus barkers on oligarchic-owned media. Ask: Is that insult to the freedom and dignity of the people at large increasing, despite the churning of oligarchs? Why, yes, it is.

Our real problem is: Who should run government, and who should government serve? A few corporatists? Or the thinking class of productive, responsible, republic-minded citizens? Wherever there abides a decent civilization, there will abide a process for making and enforcing social rules -- more so than a process for merely making suggestions. So the problem for those who wish to establish and preserve decent civilization for themselves and their progeny is accompanied with many sub-problems. Among such problems is this: How can checks and balances be established that will tend to prevent oligarchic accumulators of wealth and power from taking over the governance, to all practical effects? How can the society defend itself from the acquisition among sociopathic oligarchists of power to buy, sell, and determine the government? Stated differently, how can decent people at large limit wannabe despots from succeeding in oligarchically collectivizing the people of a republic?

That goal tends not to be well served by an income tax, nor by a flat tax. Enterprise tends not to be well served by taxing businesses that provide employment. What is needed is to tax individuals, not businesses, in a way that allows them to spend their earnings without being able to convert such expenditures into crony investments for buying political influence as if it were a wholesale commodity. That necessitates a tax on consumption that is not limited to a flat tax. That is, non-business consumption should be imputed to individuals and taxed progressively, perhaps even logarithmically.

As to mechanics, there is no great challenge. If a retailer or credit card company is able to preserve and report information concerning particular retail exchanges, there is little reason why each such consumptive use of credit could not simultaneously be tallied as part of an accumulating total for each consumer, for each taxable year. Yes, let domestic corporations engage in domestic political lobbying, even when not directly related to producing non-crony business income. Just require that all such crony expenditures be imputed to particular corporate individuals, as part of their yearly running tally of taxable consumption. What would be unfair in a tax system that would at least tax attempts to buy progressive advantages, progressively?

Life is too complex and absurd to admit of any system that could reasonably constitute a final solution. However, a society that wants to preserve a decent republic that seeks to serve the freedom and dignity of its citizens will not do so by restricting itself to flat taxes on sociopathic oligarchs who scheme to buy and sell progressive advantages.

Sunday, May 4, 2014

Math Is Nature -- Bit Is It



CONSTANTS BASED IN MATH RATHER THAN IN PHYSICAL CAUSATION: A cosmological constant governs the rate of acceleration of the universe we share. Such mathematical constant is suggestive that the form-ulas that balance across our various fields of equalizing feedback (fields of math) provide all the measurables that our physical substances are made of.

AETHER: The only aether, or cosmological constant, is math. The fabric of space-time is such that, because of gravitational effects and curvature secondary to massive centers of spin-orbit-rolls, with varying values for wobbles, frequencies, amplitudes, densities, no form of aether is needed other than math itself.

SIGNS: Measurable objects exist not as things in themselves, but as significations of Something else, something that is beyond measurable substantiality.

PRE-SETTINGS DO NOT PRE-SENTLY REQUIRE PARTICULAR OBSERVERS: Appearances of radioactive decay among particles do not require any particular (as opposed to holistic) observer in order for information about them to be recorded or to facilitate a sequence of communication among later particular observers.

COMMUNICATIONS ARE FORMULATED OUT OF POTENTIALITY AND FED BACK IN MATH: In the in-form-ational form of Math, Consciousness may summon "physical objects" to signify, to appear to exist, to be interpreted and communicated as apprehensions and appreciations of significations, rather than as "things in themselves." Significations are communications of signs among receptive perspectives. Objects and the particles comprising them do not, in themselves, exist, locate, sequence, radioactively decay, or electromagnetically radiate. Rather, substantive matter and energy and measurable space and time abide in an ambiguous state of potential unfolding, except as they are called into communicable manifestation by a meta process of feedback in appreciation and apprehension between and among a Meta Reconciler and its variously renormalizing perspectives and situational particulars.

CAUSATION: As objects come out of the fuzz of potential and collapse into the focus of the manifest, they avail expression to measurables. What causes this? Is the cause entirely reducible to the measureables in themselves, or is the cause inherently permeated with immeasurable qualities of consciousness that balance and communicate appreciations and apprehensions? Does the universe-in-itself cause signification of conscious appreciation of itself? Or does appreciation among fluxing layers and levels of consciousness cause the significations of the universe? Does the curvature of space-time tell objects how to move? Or do objects tell space-time how to curve? Or is "material causation" an illusion, derivative of correlative significations among renormalizing perspectives of a reconciling Meta Signifier?

UNFOLDING APPEARANCE OF CAUSATION: Einstein noted that the appearance of time is a stubborn illusion. Rather, what we experience are chronological relationships. Sequences. So, assuming in-form-ation of some sort must exist, what sort of link is required, if chronologies across all connected frames of reference are to be preserved, so that information can really be conveyed? Perhaps, to the extent a sequential connection is appreciatively linked, it is informationally and sequentially preserved in every frame of reference with which such appreciation happens to be mathematically connected.

MAY ALL THAT IS POTENTIALLY MEASURABLE BE CONCEPTUALLY CLOSED IN TERMS OF NOTHING MORE THAN MATH: May the measurable world be subject to eventual explication via a model whose terms consist of nothing more than formulas for exchanges in mathematical values among spin-orbit-rolls, as represented to various perspectives of consciousness that are sequentially and proportionately renormalized to appearances of space-time?

NO-THING BUT-TERY: What hub-bub and practical results may flow, were the measurable appearance of physical substances shown to be entirely derivative of nothing more than math? What would result, were all measurable forms of radioactive, electric, magnetic, chemical, and heat radiation of mass shown to consist of nothing more than transactional values that correlate with mathematical exchange rates in terms of form-ulaic interpretations of digital pairings of densities, amplitudes, and frequencies among representations of spin-orbit-rolls?

HOW WOULD A MATH-BASED INTERPRETATION OF THE AETHER AND SUBSTANCE OF THE COSMOS AFFECT OUR SCIENCE AND MORALITY: Suppose the quantitatively measurable physics of existence were found to be consistent with modeling nothing more than feedback relationships among forms of mathematically based information, that flux among perspectives of a singular quality of consciousness? Under such a conceptualization, would not Nature be modeled as Math? Would not the reconciliation of the singular quality of Consciousness be modeled as God?

META EMPATHY: Such a conceptualization would neither detract from, nor add anything quantitative to, our capacity to measure that which appears to be measurable. However, it would mediate an intuition of a meta-empathetic quality of motivational inspiration and spiritual-based morality. And it would brake the hubris of those who expect all concerns of qualitative morality should be reduced to quantifying science.

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

SENSATIONS OF PHYSICAL SUBSTANCES: One does not "see" any photon-in-itself. Rather, one detects and interprets sequentialities in math-based information and its apparent path as they are relayed to us, as photons make contact with one's seeing apparatus. We do not see any smallest particle. Nor any edge of the cosmos. Nor may we write an actual largest possible number. Nor a smallest possible decimal. In the here and now, what do we "really see," when we receive and interpret information that is transmitted to us by a photon?

OBJECTS APART: We do not conceptualize a separation between bosons and fermions, apart, except in respect of something we call "spin" -- which we do not "see." Nor do we "see" photons or electrons. What we generally think we see are their traces and effects. However, we do not directly see even their traces. What we "see" consists only in the information that is directly conveyed by such photons as happen to make contact with our eyeball-seeing apparatus. We don't "see" any distant object. We only "see" (interpret information from) photons in respect of such object as such photons presently happen to have arrived to make contact with our eyeballs. If, in reality, a photon is only an organized form or bit of mathematical information, then we are not seeing any "thing." Rather, we are transacting in sequential interpretations of bits of math-based forms.
ENTANGLEMENT AMONG MEASURABLES WITH THE IMMEASURABLE: Is all that signifies, and that is signified, availed only because of, but not from, forms of math (i.e., active form-ulas, i.e., math made active by entanglement with a mathematically immeasurable formulizer)?

EMERGENT REALITY: What is physical reality? Is it an emergent that is derivative of something "more real," but less measurable? Are photon bits physically real and radiative across real distances in space-time?

CONCEPTUALIZING PHYSICAL PARTICLES AS MATHEMATICAL FORM-ULAS: It seems particles may reasonably be conceptualized as bits of mathematical form-ulas that take on physically measurable attributes only upon interfunctioning among conservational contexts of consciousness.

CONSERVATIONAL SYSTEM OF FORM-ULAS: A conservational system of form-ulas avails reconciliation in feedback among all levels and layers of signification by signifiers. Such system is innately and qualitatively coextensive with all layers and levels of perspectives of consciousness.

EXISTENCE: Space-time-in-itself does not exist, except as a derivative, or practical illusion. What exists with the perpetual present is mathematical sequentiality that is correlative with an appreciative capacity of consciousness to inhabit and effect forms of feedback. The appreciative aspect of the universe of form-ulas that our perspectives of consciousness happen to occupy is the universe that we feed our thinking back to, that we tinker to apprehend. Apart from the measurable expression of form-ulas, what is the appreciative aspect that actuates, transmits, and en-souls form-ulas and perspectives thereof, if not Holistic Reconciling Consciousness, i.e., God?

PERPETUAL POTENTIAL OF THE PRE-SENT: In the perpetual present, God is immanent at all times. What is potential in consciousness pertains to how consciousness happens to be guided to bond to particular fields of perspective and points of apprehensive view. The process of changing and moving potentials among relational perspectives is unceasing. It entails a Holistic Reconciler, guiding and making ready the environment of sequential form-ulizations out of which perspectives of consciousness emerge. Thus, the potential for emergence of consciousness among locally relational perspectives is not evidence that the Holistic Reconciler (God) has not always abided with the perpetual present.

QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIGHT AND SPACE AND TIME: How do light photons alter their wavelengths to store information about that with which they come in radiative contact, and then signal such information to such receptors of conscious interpretation as happen to receive them? How much information can be extracted from each photon, by processes of contextual and magnifying analysis? How may parallax information be extracted? What is a photon? Is it a thing-in-itself? Is a photon a kind of mathematically-based form or form-ula, that avails active, radiative transmission and communication of information across mathematically conservatory equality determinants? In other words, is all that signifies, and that is signified, availed only because of, but not only from, forms of math (i.e., active form-ulas, i.e., math made active by entanglement with a mathematically immeasurable formulizer)? We do not see any photon in itself. We detect and interpret the mathematical sequentiality of its apparent path and the mathematical information it avails upon contactg with us. We do not see any smallest particle. Nor any edge of the cosmos. Nor may we write an actual largest possible number. Nor a smallest possible decimal. In the here and now, what do we "really see" when a photon transmits information to our interpretation?

RADIATION OF MATH BITS: How are form form-ulas transmitted, received, interpreted? Each photon may be conceptualized as a representation of math-formulas that radiate for communicating math formulas. But math, in itself, does not radiate. It seems some immeasurable, like a Holistic Reconciler of the Expression of Math Forms, must account for how math-bit-forms are interpreted as seeming to radiate, such as in a form that is interpreted to express such capacities as we measure and conceptualize with photons. The illusion that math bits, as photons, radiate is a derivative of the immeasurable way in which the Holistic Reconciler qualitatively interfunctions to appreciate and apprehend unfolding expressions of mathematical, formulaic sequences in the feedback of the perpetual present. Apart from the measurable expression of form-ulas, what is the appreciative aspect that actuates, transmits, and en-souls form-ulas and perspectives thereof, if not Holistic Reconciling Consciousness, i.e., God?

OF THE INFORMATION THAT IS CONVEYED BY PHOTONIC MATH BITS, WHAT IS IT THAT WE ACTUALLY APPREHEND AND "SEE": We don't see objects in themselves. We interpret information from photonic math bits that are presented to us, as if they had reflected from objects, which photons have their wavelengths altered by their reflections, and then our nerve reception systems renormalize and interpret the wavelength data received. Except, we do not "see" the wavelengths. Rather, our systems interpret the "impact" of the wavelength forms-formulas. In effect, the transmissive communication is of form-formulas. And the ultimate forms are not, "in themselves," of any measurable size. No homunculous "sees" photons. Rather, photonic math bits and interpretations of their paths of interfunctioning transmission are detected upon "contact" with senses or devices that happen to have become adapted for such purpose. For a local perspective of consciousness to bond with a body necessitates that such local body sense and interpret interfunctions with photonic math bits as if they were radiating physical particles that had been transmitted to make contact with such body. Our entire unfolding experience is like a simulation that is derivative of Consciousness as it appreciates, apprehends, and interfunctions with nothing more than formulations of systems of math.

PARAMETER LIMITS: What is the limit of analysis of a "massless" particle? Is there a "smallest limit? Or may the make up of each photonic-math-bit devolve into a fuzz, to a phase shift analysis of sub sub sub "particles"? May it be that each "photon" within a plate of photons (depending on magnification/perspective/analysis) may in potentiality convey incredible varieties of information, depending in large part on the contextual situation of the observer/interpreter/perspective of consciousness?

FOCUSING, RENORMALIZATION, AND RECONCILIATION OF INTERPRETATIONS OF CAUSE, EFFECT, AND CORRELATIONS: Given great magnification, what interpretive differences may abide between an eyeball brought close to a distant object versus a magnification of presently experienced photons collected from afar? What differences may abide, in sequential interpretation and parallax regarding relational maps of space and time and "cause and effect"? If all presentation of causation is derivative of the interfunctioning of an immeasurable Holistic Reconciler with fields and forms of Math, then all local interpretations of causation are little more than apprehensions of correlative, Bayesian analysis. That is, we cannot pinpoint or measure any locally specific cause-in-itself. What we can do is apprehend practical correlations. Moreover, there is no specific or objective event-in-itself. What we share are renormalized and reconciled interpretations (such as interpretations of the Moon). We experience interpretations of sequentiality among perspectives of consciousness, bonded to an informationally shared and relative locus in space-time. The appearance of spatial "distance" is derivative of the function of a mathematical relationship between each "distant" signal and each perspective of consciousness that is bonded to a relationally mediating locus in apparent space-time. All appearance of space-time-matter-energy is secondary to mathematical forms of relationships that are actuated between communicating perspectives of consciousness.

RENORMALIZATION: Each perspective of consciousness renormalizes, in respect of the Holistic Reconciler of such consciousness as we happen to share. Each deals with meta math in respect of contemporaneous apprehension of here and now significations. No one deals directly with meta math, except the Holistic Reconciler (God). Yet, how each local perspective deals with here and now significations affects how God reconciles the meta. What we apprehend are forms that are renormalized to our parameters. Those forms may be conceptualized as actuated math, that is de-stabilized across equal and expanding conversion signs. The "expansion" of our experience and universe is derivative of our unfolding of consciousness, as it is experienced in space-time. Such expansion may entail perpetual phase shifts across parameters for innumerable possible expressions of shared cosmos.

GOD IN THE PERPETUAL PRESENT AND OUTSIDE OF TIME: How does God interfunction with forms and fields of math? Were there a state where nothing were expressed, it would take an initial, borrowing, destabilization across the equality of nothingness in order to avail the expression of anything. Once Something were expressed, could, would, or should it ever settle back into a precise and perfect zero balancing of digital pluses and minuses? Or must it in perpetuity delay and resist any such perfectly symmetrical balancing out? Must all particular perspectives eventually reset to a single subsuming nothingness? Or must every purposeful or random attempt that tends towards a re-balancing into nothingness function like a perpetual-motion-destabilizing-machine? Could there ever have been a first de-stabilizing event, without its de-stabilizing function having forever been inherent to the cosmos? If inherent, can the function towards relativistically absolute change and de-stabilization ever cease? Must an inherent-meta-fictional-immeasurable-force-agent of change be accompanied by a mirror agent for resisting change, and vice versa? Must an inherent agency preclude a settlement back into a balanced nothingness? What may such an agent and counter agent sponsor, in respect of mortal perspectives and moral imperatives? Must it/they sponsor a perpetual process of conscious feedback between and among its/their holistically encompassing aspect and its/their particularly expressed aspects and perspectives?

SYMMETRY PAIRING AND BREAKING: May it be that there never was a symmetry-breaking destabilization, because there has always been Something, i.e., a meta sponsor of perpetual apprehensions and appreciations and effectuator of changes and re-normalizations and reconciliations? De-stabilization is inherently represented as digitized changes crossing the balancing scale of zero, with Zero Equality never itself being realized. In effect, Consciousness actuates formulas for transitioning across equalities. The math is actively actuated and delayed, like dominoes on spring strings. The reconciling Holism that feeds back to guide us to adjust the math programs of our receptivity simultaneously adjusts the math programs for the signals it sends to us, for our reception. As to the synchronization in itself, we cannot detect why or how such holistic synchronization is or should be the case.

THE SYSTEM PROGRAM: The program seems to be both a priori and subject to phase shifts, transitions, new beginnings, and incremental influence-- perhaps even by us. That is, we also may experience capacity to program virtual worlds within subprograms of virtual worlds within virtual worlds. Like a fractal of never-ending conscious creativity. All within a Perpetual Present. We cannot all at once prove the cause of the system or program as a whole. But we can continuously tinker at the edges and in the fuzz. See Deutch, The Beginning of Infinity. Thus, there seems to be no particularly pre-set God. But if Consciousness is taken as God, and it is recognized that we are all of the same intuitive, empathetic Consciousness, then we are all subject to an entanglement with God.

IDENTITY AND SPIRITUAL CONTINUITY: The nature of the form-ulas with which one identifies imposes limitations on one's capacity to move among apparent distances between apparent objects.

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

****

REPEAT:

I had thought that any conceptualization for explicating nature must be modeled based on some kind of actual "thing" that we can model. Under that head, it is sometimes said that "math itself cannot be the territory" for explaining Nature. More and more, I question that. For example, if math itself were conceptualized as consisting of an infinity of potentially paired bits of information, then it seems to me that a model may be possible. I suspect such a model would need to renormalize to every perspective that is possible within the rules of our universe, and its terms would consist of paired bits of information nested within transactional algorithms.  (NOTE: I don't think either math itself, or nature itself, can complete an explanation of nature.  I think there is necessarily an inherent mystery to the explanation, that permeates nature with a quantitatively inexplicable, meta aspect.  While that aspect is beyond quantitative analysis, I don't believe it is beyond qualitative appreciation.  Maybe call IT Godel's God.  Still, I suspect that all that can be quantitatively explained can be explained in terms of nothing more than math.)

QUESTION: Can MEASURABLE Nature reasonably be modeled, with no loss to science, as consisting of nothing more than transactions among bits of math? If so, I anticipate these effects: (1) Reduction towards ever simpler, mathematically-nested explanations. (2) Humble acceptance that physical science cannot, in itself, "close" existence or spirituality (or technology or morality).

******

CONSTANTS BASED IN MATH RATHER THAN IN PHYSICAL CAUSATION: Insofar as a cosmological constant seems to govern the rate of acceleration of the universe we share, such mathematical constant seems suggestive that the form-ulas that balance across our various fields of equalizing feedback ("fields of math") may provide all the measurables that our physical substances are made of.

AETHER: The only aether, or cosmological constant, is math. The fabric of space-time is such that (because of gravitational effects and curvature secondary to massive centers of spin-orbit-rolls, with varying values for wobbles, frequencies, amplitudes, densities) no form of aether is needed -- other than math itself.

SIGNS: Measurable objects abide not as things in themselves, but as significations of Something else -- something that is beyond measurable substantiality.

PRE-SETTINGS DO NOT PRE-SENTLY REQUIRE PARTICULAR OBSERVERS: Appearances of radioactive decay among particles do not require any particular (as opposed to meta) observer in order for information about them to be recorded or to facilitate a sequence of communication among later particular observers.

COMMUNICATIONS ARE FORMULATED OUT OF POTENTIALITY AND FED BACK IN MATH: In the in-form-ational form of Math, an inexplicable root Consciousness may summon "physical objects" to signify, to appear to exist, to be interpreted and communicated as apprehensions and appreciations of significations, rather than as "things in themselves." Significations are communications of signs among receptive perspectives. Objects and the particles comprising them do not, in themselves, exist, locate, sequence, radioactively decay, or electromagnetically radiate. Rather, substantive matter and energy and measurable space and time abide in an ambiguous state of potential unfolding, except as they are called into communicable recordation. Such meta process of manifestation, being meta, is inexplicable.  (It may avail a quality of inspiration, but not quantitative analysis, to call it "a meta process of feedback" that entails participatory appreciation and apprehension between and among a Meta Reconciler and its variously renormalizing perspectives and situational particulars.)

CAUSATION: As objects come out of the fuzz of potential and collapse into the focus of the manifest, they avail expression to measurables. What causes this? Is the cause entirely reducible to the measureables in themselves, or is the cause inherently permeated with immeasurable qualities of consciousness (a universe that is conservationally conscious of itself?), that balance and communicate appreciations and apprehensions? Does the universe-in-itself cause signification of conscious appreciation of itself? Or does appreciation among fluxing layers and levels of consciousness cause the significations of the universe? Does the curvature of space-time tell objects how to move? Or do objects tell space-time how to curve? Or is "material causation" an illusion, derivative of Bayesian-correlative significations among renormalizing perspectives of a reconciling Meta Signifier?

UNFOLDING APPEARANCE OF CAUSATION: Einstein noted that the appearance of time is a stubborn illusion. Rather, what we experience are chronological relationships. Sequences. So, assuming in-form-ation of some sort must exist, what sort of link is required, if chronologies across all connected frames of reference are to be preserved, so that information can really be conveyed? Perhaps, to the extent a sequential connection is appreciatively linked, it is informationally and sequentially preserved in every frame of reference with which such appreciation happens to be mathematically connected.

MAY ALL THAT IS POTENTIALLY MEASURABLE BE CONCEPTUALLY "CLOSED" IN TERMS OF "NOTHING MORE THAN" MATH: May the measurable world be subject to eventual explication via a model whose terms consist of nothing more than formulas for exchanges in mathematical values among spin-orbit-rolls, the relational "sizes" of which are dependent on nothing more than math-based renormalizations to adopted choices of perspective, as represented to various perspectives of consciousness that are sequentially and proportionately renormalized to appearances of space-time?

NO-THING BUT-TERY: What hub-bub, as well as practical results, may flow were the measurable appearance of the physical substances of nature reasonably shown to be explicable as being entirely derivative of nothing more than math? What would result, were all measurable forms of radioactive, electric, magnetic, chemical, and heat radiation of mass shown to consist of nothing more than transactional values that correlate with mathematical exchange rates in terms of form-ulaic interpretations of digital pairings of densities, amplitudes, and frequencies among representations of spin-orbit-rolls?

HOW WOULD A MATH-BASED INTERPRETATION OF THE AETHER AND SUBSTANCE OF THE COSMOS AFFECT OUR SCIENCE AND MORALITY: Suppose the quantitatively measurable physics of existence were found to be consistent with modeling nothing more than feedback relationships among forms of mathematically based information, that flux among perspectives of a Singular Quality of Consciousness? Under such a conceptualization, would not Nature be modeled as Math? Would not the reconciliation of the singular quality of Consciousness be modeled as "God"?

META EMPATHY: Such a conceptualization need neither detract from, nor add anything quantitative to, our capacity to measure that which appears to be measurable. However, it may inspire us towards simpler, more elegant, more unifying explanations.  And it may mediate an intuition of a meta-empathetic quality of motivational inspiration and spiritual-based morality. If so, it would brake the hubris or moral indifference of most of those who expect all concerns of qualitative morality "should" be reduced to quantifying science.

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

REGARDING MATH:

NO SEEING HOMUNCULOUS: No homunculous "sees" photons. Our entire unfolding experience seems more like a simulation, that is derivative of Consciousness as it appreciates, apprehends, and interfunctions with nothing more than formulations of systems of math.

SENSATIONS OF PHYSICAL SUBSTANCES: One does not "see" any part-icular photon-in-itself. Rather, one detects and interprets sequentialities in math-based information and its apparent path, as such in-form-ation is relayed as photons make contact with one's seeing-apparatus. We do not "see" any smallest particle. Nor any edge of the cosmos. Nor may we write an actual largest possible number. Nor a smallest possible decimal. In the here and now, what do we "really see," when we receive and interpret information that is transmitted to us by a photon?

OBJECTS APART: We do not conceptualize a separation between bosons and fermions, apart, except in respect of something we call "spin" -- which we do not "see." Nor do we "see" photons or electrons. What we generally think we see are their traces and effects. However, we do not directly see even their traces. What we "see" consists only in the information that is directly conveyed by such photons as happen to make contact with our eyeball-seeing apparatus. We don't "see" any distant object. We only "see" (interpret information from) photons in respect of such object, as such photons presently happen to have arrived to make contact with our eyeballs. If, in "reality," a photon is reasonably to be conceptualized as only an organized form or bit of mathematical information, then we are not seeing any "thing." Rather, we are transacting in sequential interpretations of bits of math-based forms.

ENTANGLEMENT AMONG MEASURABLES WITH THE IMMEASURABLE: Is all that signifies, and that is signified, availed only because of, but not from, forms of math (i.e., active form-ulas, i.e., math made active by entanglement with a mathematically immeasurable formulizer)?

EMERGENT REALITY: What is physical reality? Is physical reality only an emergent, that is derivative of something "more real," but less measurable? Are photon bits physically real and radiative across "real distances" in space-time? Of is space-time-in-itself a stubborn illusion?

CONCEPTUALIZING PHYSICAL PARTICLES AS MATHEMATICAL FORM-ULAS: It seems particles may be conceptualized as bits of mathematical form-ulas that take on physically measurable attributes as they interfunction among conservationally renormalizing pre-texts or con-texts for recording or conveying quantitative information among qualitatively fluxing levels and layers of consciousness.

EXISTENCE: Space-time-in-itself does not exist, except as a derivative, or practical illusion. What exists with the perpetual present is mathematical sequentiality that is correlative with an appreciative capacity of consciousness to inhabit and effect forms of feedback. The appreciative aspect of the universe of form-ulas that our perspectives of consciousness happen to occupy is the universe that we, from our various levels and layers of consciousness, feed our thinking back to, that we tinker to apprehend.

RADIATION OF MATH BITS: How are form form-ulas transacted, transmitted, received, interpreted? Each photon may be conceptualized as a representation of math-formulas that radiate for communicating math formulas. But math, in itself, does not radiate. (Spatial distance is an illusion, that is renormalized to every perspective, even though the math of it absolutely governs every perspective.) It seems some immeasurable, like a Holistic Reconciler of the Expression of Math Forms, must account for how math-bit-forms are interpreted as seeming to radiate, such as in a form that is interpreted to express such capacities as we measure and conceptualize with photons.

COMMUNICATION: What we share and communicate about are renormalized and reconciled interpretations (such as interpretations of receding rainbows and moons). (Einstein liked to believe that the Moon is "really there."  Well, the information about it is "really renormalized to govern every perspective.") We experience interpretations of sequentiality among perspectives of consciousness, bonded to an informationally connected apparent locus in what we call space-time. The appearance of spatial "distance" is derivative of the function of a mathematical relationship between each "distant" signal and each perspective of consciousness that is bonded to a relationally mediating locus in apparent space-time. All appearance of space-time-matter-energy is secondary to mathematical forms of relationships that are actuating and transacting among communicating, recording, and potentially appreciating perspectives of consciousness.

RENORMALIZATION SUCH THAT NO ONE GETS TO SEE THE EDGE: Each perspective of consciousness renormalizes, in respect of the Holistic Reconciler of such consciousness as we happen to share. No mortal of this universe will ever "see" its edge, nor catch the end of any rainbow. The density of our universe seems to be seen as much the same, regardless of spatial locus of perspective. The speed of light, as a measure of distance, is renormalized to be constant to every perspective that takes its measure. Each perspective deals with meta-math in respect of contemporaneous apprehension of here and now significations. No one deals directly with meta math -- except possibly a Holistic Reconciler (God). The "expansion" of our experience and universe is derivative of our unfolding in consciousness, as it is experienced in what we interpret as space-time. Such expansion may entail perpetual phase shifts across parameters for innumerable possible expressions of shared cosmos.

GOD -- BOTH "IN" THE PERPETUAL PRESENT AND "OUTSIDE" OF TIME: How may God sequentially interfunction with forms and fields of math? Were there a state where nothing were expressed, it would take an initial, borrowing, symmetry-breaking, destabilization across the equality of nothingness in order to avail the expression of anything. Once Something were expressed, could, would, or should it ever settle back into a precise and perfect zero-balancing (perfectly flat universal point) of digital pluses and minuses? Or must it in perpetuity delay and resist any such perfectly symmetrical balancing out? Must all particular perspectives eventually re-set to a single subsuming nothingness? Or must every purposeful or random attempt that tends towards a re-balancing into nothingness function like a perpetual-motion-destabilizing-machine? Could there ever have been a first de-stabilizing event, without its de-stabilizing function having forever been inherent to the cosmos? If inherent, can the function towards relativistically absolute change and de-stabilization ever cease?

MANICHAEIAN SATANIC NEMESIS: Must an inherent-meta-fictional-immeasurable-force-agent of change be accompanied by a paired, mirror agent for resisting change, and vice versa? Must an inherent agency preclude a settlement back into a balanced nothingness? What may such an agent and counter-agent sponsor, in respect of mortal perspectives and moral imperatives? Must it/they sponsor a perpetual process of conscious feedback between and among its/their holistically encompassing aspect and its/their particularly expressed aspects and perspectives?

SYMMETRY PAIRING AND BREAKING: May it be that there never was a symmetry-breaking destabilization, because there has always been Something, i.e., a meta sponsor of perpetual apprehensions and appreciations and effectuator of changes and re-normalizations and reconciliations? De-stabilization is inherently represented as digitized changes crossing the balancing scale of zero, with Zero Equality never itself being realized. In effect, Consciousness actuates formulas for transitioning across mathematical equalities. The math is actively actuated and delayed, like dominoes on spring strings. The reconciling Holism that feeds back to guide us to adjust the math programs of our receptivity simultaneously adjusts the math programs for the signals it sends to us, for our reception. As to the synchronization in itself, we cannot detect why or how such holistic synchronization is or should be the case.

THE SYSTEM PROGRAM: The program seems to be both a priori and subject to phase shifts, transitions, new beginnings, and incremental influence -- perhaps even by us. That is, we also may experience capacity to program virtual worlds within subprograms of virtual worlds within virtual worlds. Like a fractal of never-ending conscious creativity. All within a Perpetual Present. We cannot all at once prove the cause of the system or program as a whole. But we can continuously tinker towards the edges and in the fuzz. See Deutch, The Beginning of Infinity. Thus, there seems to be no particularly pre-set God. But if the quality of Consciousness itself is taken as God, and it is recognized that we are all of the same intuitive, empathetic Consciousness, then we are all subject to an entanglement with "God."

IDENTITY AND SPIRITUAL CONTINUITY: The nature of the form-ulas with which one identifies, and has come to bond with, imposes separations and limitations on one's capacity to move and warp among apparent distances between apparent objects.

*********

REGARDING RANDOMNESS:

I was not at this time thinking about quantum probabilities. But I have thought a bit about it before, to the effect that algorithms can be used to facilitate random expressions. If there is a God, whatever God said would be consistent with mathematical parameters and statistical analysis. IOW, if whatever is ruled for expression is a product of an Immeasurable interfunctioning with Measurables, we could never in math show that any particular event had been contemporaneously willed or decided by the Immeasurable versus having been previously decided by the Immeasurable, to unfold either as a pre-determined pre-set or as a random result of a pre-determined random number generator. So, neither precise measurement nor statistical analysis can ever be used to prove or falsify God. So, you exasperate, what's the point?

I think the point is that God's qualitative participation is entailed, either in pre-sets or in contemporaneous feedback and appreciation, in the reconciliation of every measurable event. But the significance has less to do with what has preceded than with what is potentially being determined. I think our apprehensions, in combined feedback, factor contemporaneously in that. Our participation via qualitative apprehensions renormalize to be reconciled in such quantitative significations as unfold. Some quality of reconciliation and renormalization of apprehensions effects decisions before our material brains even register or signify self awareness of them.

We think we make decisions contemporaneously with the self awareness that is fed back by our brains. But something beyond our bodies and brains has already made each next unfolding manifestation of a decision. After it is effected, we can analyze it. We can consider it as if (1) it were precisely predetermined from the Big Bang, (2) randomly emergent as buffered by complexities of chaos, or (3) partly influenced by our somewhat contemporaneous apprehension and participation. We can model an explanation under each explanation. And each model may be superior to the others for different purposes -- engineering, social-political, or moral-spiritual. But I don't think any of the 3, nor even any sum or combination thereof, can be suitable for every purpose, much less complete.