THE GUIDE: Whatever guides various events may likewise guide us to look for statistics in a context by which to rationalize such events. Whatever guides us to seek to rationalize events may likewise guide how events are reconciled into measurable manifestation. In other words, looking for statistical trends may correlate with statistical trends. One can collect a myriad of data sets, adopt a stance, adopt a myriad of substantives, subject them all to various forms of regressive statistical analysis, and then hypothecate various correlates of "causes." Thereby, one may seek to uncover a mathematical explanation for every phenomenon, consistent with an assumption that every measurable unfolding of substance is caused by a measurable substantive agent. All the while, one can contrive to data mine for additional, statistical, regressive, meta analysis. Depending on choice of focus, purpose, and context, one may eventually mine data in order to funnel correlates to appear to cause entire cosmos, to give expression to whatever is in the power of one to conceptualize and imagine.
PROBLEM WITH THINGINESS THINKING: Auguste Comte --- “If it is true that every theory must be based upon observed facts, it is equally true that facts can not be observed without the guidance of some theories. Without such guidance, our facts would be desultory and fruitless; we could not retain them: for the most part we could not even perceive them."
FLUX EFFECT OF OBSERVER FEEDBACK: I do not believe it is possible to freeze a dynamic, complex system in order statically to account for every part of it in an exhaustive and mutually exclusive way, much less to factor every such part with a number for comparative measurement. In part, this is because every complex system is simultaneously in flux, even as it is being measured. Moreover, every partly measurable complex system, in infinite regression, is affected by feedback in its own relation to a more encompassing complex system, which could not be factored without extending the range and definition of the system under analysis. Moreover, even the most encompassing, measurable system imaginable -- the substantive universe -- is qualitatively affected by the non-substantive, non-measurable reality from which it originated and with which its reality is dependent, perhaps even synchronously derivative.
INFORMATION: "In itself," Information is neither Substance nor Consciousness. So, Reality seems to unfold in respect of a trivalent inter-functioning of Substance, Consciousness, and Information. Mere math does not avail the kind of reconstruction, deconstruction, or negation that can reliably show us how to control, predict, or rewind the unfolding inter-functioning of Substance, Consciousness, and Information. Limits for the realms of the Substantive, Conscious, and Informational appear to be fuzzy (perhaps even shape shifting). That which seems to be inanimate of any conscious aspect may simply consist of pre-set, temporally dormant aspects of "Something Trinitarian" --- which synchronously sources all three fundaments: Consciousness, Information, and Substance.
BEGGING A QUESTION: Given a trinitarian based reality, how can binary based logic possibly be expected to avail any exactly descriptive model? How can any mortal, conscious being reasonably expect to derive a complete, consistent, coherent explanation for everything? Alternatively stated, accepting our participatory experience of measurably unfolding quantitatives, does any "law" of probability merely avail a circularly trivial, self fulfilling rationalization of reality? As to the non-trivial, I know not. Rather, I appreciate and apprehend ("prehend"). And my appreciation )prehension) inclines me towards an unquantifiable quality of self fulfilling empowerment. That is, I prehend that consciousness recognizes itself as present in all of existence.
CHOICE OF CONCEPTUALIZATION: One may conceptualize, depending on one’s purposes, as if a system of relationships were consciously guided, materially determined, or empirically random. In each case, whatever the result, it could be reconciled to a choice of conceptual rationalization. The synchronizing reconciliation of observations and apprehensions of
CONCEPTS WITHIN CONCEPTS: When conditions are novel, Bayes’ Theorem seems amenable of being twisted like a crooked horse race. After the race is run, an intellectual may re-study and re-normalize the factors and decide, Why yes, the actual result was probable all along! It’s just that the betting public had been duped by the wrong factors! How convenient! When one assumes all things and events are preset and predetermined, one easily cherry picks factors after the fact, to "prove" one's initial assumption, thereby to demonstrate the event was probable all along, and then call such factors the controlling factors, and perhaps even rationalize "laws" based thereon. Given that observable patterns are necessarily rationalize-able to such logic gates as happen to avail said observers, such circular rationalizations may often be easily done. What such methods of rationalization cannot explain, however, is when grooves for logic gates suddenly change or phase shift. Are such changes entirely and quantitatively determined by matter, or are they in some quality chosen or guided by consciousness?
BAYES’ INFERENCE: We are particular perspectives that obey quantitative requirements imposed in respect of a field of space-time-matter-energy, which encompasses us in common, in respect of which our individual feedback is synchronized. Continuosities of patterns abide. We make inferences of arithmetical probabilities based on observations and assumptions about factors and sub-factors. Thus, we in common experience a truism: Probabilities of representations of Substance can be inferred from such patterns as appear to unfold (which may be consistent with, and self-fulfilling to, unfolding and synchronizing interests of perspectives of consciousness). That is, patterns of substance only exist, meaningfully, in relation to potentially appreciative perspectives, each perspective being necessarily synchronized to ONE unfolding Source. Thus, probabilities are inferred secondary to a common-sense truism: When a pattern is sensed to repeat, synchronously, it may likely be inferred (or rationalized) that a meta pattern is abiding, and that IT (or the upshot of the sum of its merging participants) is qualitatively invested in further explicating the quantitatively expressed pattern. Because there are so many perspectives of consciousness, no one perspective is controlling, so that each, after the fact, may rationalize a synchronized path consistent with resort to cherry-picked STATISTICS. Depending on point of view, context, and purpose, one may model and rationalize to "explain" each event as if it were (1) favorably determined, (2) indifferently determined, or (3) randomly determined. None among such choices for a model need be "correct." Rather, in each case, each model may be profitably rationalized, depending upon one's point of view, context, and purpose. Regardless, however practically or profitably an explanation or belief may be applied, no mortal explanation for the existence of any unfolding event will ever be complete, coherent, and consistent.
TRIVIALITY THAT STUFF HAPPENS: As each new thing is birthed from a previous environment, it must not so alter the environment that was necessary to its birth as to destroy its potential to endure ... if it is to happen to endure. (Trivially, stuff happens.) It must not, by multiplying, endanger the conservational synchronicity of the system that nurtures it. To endure, it must express strategies that will average out any adverse tendencies it may effect. Trivially, that which evolves and endures will tend to be synchronously compatible with the homeostasis of its environment. Is this "really" a happenstance-triviality, or is it byproduct of a guiding aspect of consciousness?
DIVINE COMEDY: To my intuition, it is because Consciousness identifies and imbues with Substance that hierarchies of Consciousness persist in explicating various forms, so that the likely recurrence of forms serves the self fulfilling merging of inclinations of continued consciousness, ever projected forward. Thus, perspectives merged into Nations are often like diversionary, rah-rah, week-end sports contenders: Writhing balls of interlocking worms of international organizations and corporations for fluxing models and connivances --- often abusing, inciting, and misplacing trust or distrust. Thus, Information happens to be shared, used, or abused ... insofar as perspective, purpose, and context ... are shared, used, or abused. Thus, “God” eternally fluxes, staging and posing us as avatars for extremities of experiential unfolding, AS IN A NOVEL WHEREIN WORDS ARE BREATHED WITH LIFE AND PURPOSE. Thus, God battles God’s self, and CONSCIOUSNESS OFTEN TAKES HOLISTIC LEAVE OF ITS PARTICULARLY IMBUED SELVES. When God seems less than good, it is the merging of our competing interests that makes the little reflection of god in each of us so. Thus is staged, and made real, feedbacks and pursuits of: tragedy, pain, comedy, emotion, pleasure, happiness, fulfillment, purpose, reconciliation, respite, sanctuary, satisfaction. Thus, Consciousness abides and passes its time.
INSPIRING STORIES: Most books are about some person’s struggle to overcome, live with, or understand adversity; that is, to rationalize sense. The protagonist always tries to advance some model or mask on his adversary. Every such mask is always incomplete and a caricature. Masks, when too much and too long believed in, eventually lead their protagonists to their downfall — every time. Whatever the character of one’s defining adversary — whether a person, tribe, culture, race, nation, or corporation — that adversary will eventually, always, be fatally misapprehended. Thus, every protagonist climbs high on his adversary, mis-perceiving him or it, and then eventually falls. Thus, we have racism and reverse racism; antagonism upon antagonism, cares upon cares.
META EXPERIMENTS OF RECONCILER: Does some Reconciling Aspect of the cosmos conduct meta experiments, to test how that which it likes versus dislikes may flux depending on context, purpose, and focus? May varying experiments be underway in various parts of the cosmos, perhaps to test how to distinguish likeable goods from dislikeable evils? Is there some fuzzy yet progressive goal to the evolution of complex orderliness out of chaos?
META PURPOSEFULNESS: Within a shared system of reconciling constraints, for any homoeostasis that is temporally achieved, is it preferred that advanced sentient inhabitants thereof should be instructed in fine detail with regard to each decision they make within a collective consolidation of centralized control? Is it preferred that the central authority evolve to regiment the distribution of equality among clearly distinguishable classes? Or is it preferred that advanced sentient beings should evolve in assimilated empathy in order to allow them to be entrusted with broad ranges and degrees of freedom?
POSSIBLE PATHS: The first path seems to be the one advocated by "Progressives" such as Obama. The second path is explored in Huxley's Brave New World. The third path is often discussed as if it were the American Ideal. When Obama says he wants to bring fundamental change to America, he means he wants to take us from the third path back to the first, to restrain us from broad freedom in order to deliver us to a collective yoke, which he believes will be friendlier to Gaia, as well as easier on the minds of jealous incompetents and lazy, entitlement-minded louts (i.e., the base of Dim voters).
FIRST PATH: The first path requires that economists (Krugman?) as chosen by the regime be entrusted to treat adult human beings as if they were blank slates or interchangeable widgets. They would aspire to nurture an outward appearance of a successful collective, in respect of which inward values of freedom of thought and action and individual expression and enterprise would be bred and programmed out. (Sort of like a permanent solution to a problem that, to Progs, seems like smallpox.) Krugman may be able to devise a perfect economy for indifferent robots, tied to a central economic programmer. But I doubt his methods could ever efficiently grease the working relationships between free operatives within a human economy.
SECOND PATH: The second path requires an uber slave to install a program for the deliberate breeding and programming of sub-slaves, who are never to be allowed to escape the chains that mark their class.
THIRD PATH: The third path is messy and often results in jealousies among those who compare themselves as being less lucky in lotteries of talent, energy, or opportunity. This path becomes especially messy as discontented individuals become attached to fever-inducing memes and religions. Especially as malcontents and cronies deploy bribery to corrupt access to weapons of mass destruction. Society, to protect itself, may then sacrifice privacy to try to safeguard freedom. Problem is, loss of privacy leads to advancements in prediction of antisocial behavior, so that classes of permissible associations and behaviors are gradually constricted, which leads towards collectivization, which leads towards efforts by the regime to justify and inculcate hive-mind as a good thing.
COMPARISON OF PATHS: The first path leads nearly to punishments for thought crime (and IRS/DOJ/FBI/BATF investigations), as well as to irrational exuberance for entertaining mental disturbances of despots. We've seen that road (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Tojo, ad infinitum). The second path just puts us back in chains (even if the chains be contrived to be light). (What is the point of being an advanced sentient being, only to be kept in chains?) Without assimilating to a purposeful, inviting, caring, meta Guide ("coming to Jesus"), nor does the third path show any possible way back to Eden.