Saturday, July 25, 2015

Brave New Threshold: Robotics Interface

ELIMINATION OF CHARITABLE DEDUCTIONS: What would happen if businesses, corporations, and employers were prohibited from making tax exempt donations to charities and foundations? Would such businesses invest more money in making things that people want, attracting empolyees that can make such things, and paying employees enough to neutralize redistributive politics?

WELFARE V. WORKFARE: What would happen if charity-minded reformers had to inspire donors based on the goodness of their works, rather than based on the opportunity to hide power investments and empire foundings behind tax deduction schemes? Would a spirit-based morality be awakened, so that recipients of charity would become more thankful than insulting?

ELIMINATION OF CORPORATE TAXES: What would happen if businesses were not taxed on ordinary, non-cosumptive, non-retail, business transactions and investments? Would businesses invest more money in making things that people want, attracting empolyees that can make such things, and paying employees enough to neutralize most redistributive politics?

PROHIBITIVE CRONYISM: What would happen if American businesses could not lobby politicians, import cheap labor, or export industries without paying exactions and taxes as if such activities constituted taxable comsumptions? Would such businesses find ways to attract foreign purchasers to buy from Americans, become more competitively productive, improve American factories and industries, propagate intelligent robotics, encourage American students, promote initiatives for improving social infrastructure in ways that would neutralize redistributive politics, and make America a better example of free enterprise for the rest of the world?
FRANCHISE CENTRALIZATION AND DISTRIBUTION: What would happen if American businesses could seed profit and bonus-oriented franchisee-subcontractors, to delegate local production to local managers, without having to pay corporate franchise taxes? Would small business franchises flourish among more kinds of business activities, helping to spread local efficiency, wealth, and power?


ELIMINATING ELITIST CANNIBALIZATION OF RESOURCES AND INDUSTRIES: What would happen if out-of-country money transfers were treated as taxable consumptions? Would people and businesss build and buy American, and would foreign businesses invest in creating wealth for being transacted in America?
NATIONAL SELF SUFFICIENCY: What would happen if Western economies were induced to become more self sufficient? Would basket-case cultures and economies need to make their labor forces available for corporate-colonial like investments, to teach local despots and minions how to organize, work, and increase social capital, while reducing their exposure to despotism and their need for faux charities? Did Western Sponsored Colonialism end too soon?


CHECKING THE RISE OF NEW ARISTOCRATS: What would happen if family dynasties, aristocracies, and oligarchies were reduced by taxing retail and non-business transfers and bequests progressively, as if they were taxable consumptions? Would more and continued investment in productive business be encouraged, and also wider distribution of salaries and personal wealth? If lobbying were likewise taxed, would political influence be more evenly distributed?

REDUCTION OF CRONY SOCIALISM: What would happen if businesses were made less answerable to double-dealing bureaucrats and favor-seeking crony businesses and instead more answerable to limiting regulations under representatives of informed electorates? Would domestic wealth be more distributed via business interests, while domestic political power would be more decentralized among localities?

REDIRECTION OF GOVERNMENT TO INFRASTRUCTURE: What then would remain for a limited and limiting role for federated and local governments, states, and republics? Would representatives of each become more responsive to well-informed electorates, to be called on only to smooth rough edges between citizens and businesses by regulating and coordinating needs for: Anti-monopolization, anti-non-compete contracts, reduction of aristocracies, enhancement of competitive free enterprise, freedom of association, competitive media and education, improved environment, population reduction, health, emergencies, banking, currency, defense, foreign relations, common infrastructure, standards for weights and measures, and other functions under the heading of social capital?

ECONOMIC AND SPIRITUAL REVIVAL: What would happen if power to direct economic development came more to be federated among businesses instead of centralized to elitists, political planners, and bureaucrats? What would happen if social cost and complexity of governmental cronyism were markedly reduced? Would a middle class of decent, competent, and free thinkers be revived?

BRAVE NEW ROBOTICS INTERFACE: We stand on a Brave New Threshold for expanding consciousness to the stars. It is also an interface between free enterprise for the Republic and social regulation for the Borg. Artificially Intelligent Robotics are bound to impact: Population reduction; environmental improvement; redefinition of merit-based redistribution; and moral distribution of material goods and services. If the world does not first blow itself up, the NWM (New World Morality) may be based, not on two-class sadomasochism or primitive monster-god death cults, but on reinspired reawakening and reinterpretation of spiritually empathetic concerns. This is bound to entail rephasing of traditionally assigned social roles and opportunities and expansion of new pursuits for meaningfulness. Who can say?

Friday, July 24, 2015

Of Cruz, Vattel, and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

The essential simplicity the NBC people people keep repeating is:  Why did the Founders use the "natural born citizen" language in the Constitution, if not to impose a special prerequisite for electing a President?  They then refer to Vattel. 

The problem is, any meaning in their reference to Vattel (or whatever the version of Vattel) is, at best, ambiguous.  Look beyond Vattel to what the Founders intended.  What John Jay and Washington and likely others wanted to do was to leave the meaning of natural born citizen to be fleshed out by Congress, keeping in mind the desire not to allow the kind of perpetuation of foreign princes as had been so common in Europe.  They wanted a distinction, but they left it to Congress.

Well, Congress soon did make distinctions to define a natural born citizen.   Now, that kind of authority, in itself, is unusual:  To leave the defining and limiting of a term to a mere majority of Congress, as opposed to requiring a supermajority as for an amendment.  IAE, Congress did define the term, by statute of 1790.

Where I think people often go off the rail in their logic is where they suppose that Congress, by later replacing the statute of 1790 in which it defined the term with subsequent statutes that did not define the term, thereby revoked the first definition in favor of reverting to some supposed definition under Vattel.  But neither the Founders nor Congress ever clearly or affirmatively said they intended either to adopt or to revoke any version of Vattel. 

For all we know, whatever Congress intended with whatever the discretion delegated to it under the Constitution, Congress may as well have decided that a person who would be a citizen without having to be naturalized would be sufficient, in its judgment, to reconcile the concerns of the Founders.  IAE, insofar as the Founders left the additional determination of citizenship at birth to Congress, if Congress had authority to replace its first definition under its first statute or provision on the matter, then it had authority to do so again. And again.  If so, Congress (well, the Senate) has. 

The sense of the Senate was made clear on 4-30-08, when it by resolution confirmed that McCain was eligible.  In that resolution, the Senate did not state that a person who was otherwise a citizen without needing to be naturalized could become President only if born on a Federal base.   Moreover, McCain was not born on a Federal base. 

Since all this, we have had the Obama controversy. It is clear that Obama at least CLAIMS to have had a foreign father.  Moreover, his American mother "divorced" that father (if she was ever married to him), and she then married another foreigner, whereupon Obama may have either been renounced of his American citizenship or acquired joint citizenship. 

Whatever the concern --- whether Obama ever renounced his American citizenship, had authority to renounce it, or had authority without legal process to reclaim it --- regardless:  Under the Constitution, there is neither logic nor practical reason to suppose that the dead letters of Vattel, which were never unambiguously adopted to limit the discretion of Congress, should be somehow revivified for the purpose of requiring that either Congress or Scotus must disqualify a person (like Cruz) who is a natural citizen without need of being naturalized.

Unless one simply wants to recirculate stuff that no one with power in DC is inclined to adopt, he/she will have a burden to convince some rather influential legal thinkers.  I know you and I do not like Scotus, but this is an issue that will not be won with Scotus.  Nor, in light of the history, do I believe it is an issue that would be pronounced differently by any subsequently reasoning Scotus. Among others, Dershowitz has discussed this, as has Professor Jacobson.  See below.

As to practical concerns:  Apart from law, I see no empirical justification to suppose that a person born of a longstanding American parent, who is a citizen who does not need to be naturalized, would be the kind of "foreign prince" against whom the Founders were likely concerned.  Especially since there are few, if any, European princes nowadays who have executive authority.  Rather, it seems to me that we have plenty enough of homegrown traitors without need of fearing chimeras.  The candidates I fear most nowadays tend to be natural born Americans who have sold themselves to disloyal, un-American oligarchs.

So far, the NBC argument against Cruz peters out short on logic or common sense.  NBC people need to show:

- That the Founders, by the NBC clause, intended something that was both clear and exclusionary, that would be beyond the power of Congress to expand (as opposed merely to cautioning Congress while delegating power to it to further address the concern);
- That the Founders (and the ratifying States!), by the NBC provision, intended a clear restriction on the discretion of Congress to flesh out the definition of natural born citizen and its naturalization power;
- That the Congress that closely followed the Founders failed to define "natural born citizen" in a way that would encompass the situations of Goldwater, Romney, Weicker, McCain, Obama, Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal;
- That Congress, in whatever discretion it was delegated, has affirmatively and clearly specified, and continues affirmatively and clearly to specify, that a natural citizen not born in a State or territory of the Union is ineligible to become President. 

The Sources I have read fail to do any of that. Unless and until that is done, NBC people are simply hurting some of our better candidates. Do you have other sources that add anything new to the analysis, that have not already been hashed and rehashed?

I would like to see:  Where did the Founders or Ratifiers expressly adopt Vattel, or any version of Vattel?  Where did the Founders adopt Vattel in a way that would provide the exclusive method for defining a natural born citizen?  (Yes, some of the Founders read Vattel.  They were well read people. They read a lot of stuff.  They also knew how to clearly say they intended to require that the President be born in America of parents who were both natural citizens, if they had so intended.  But they did not.) 

I see where some of the Founders recognized a concern, which they recommended for consideration, wherewith they gave to Congress power to determine who else would be a citizen at brith, who would need to be naturalized, and how.  Congress did so consider.  Never did the Founders or Congress say that any particular version of Vattel must be adopted at any time, much less for all time.  Never has anyone said that a person a citizen at birth could never be eligible to be President unless both his parents had been citizens at birth.  Never has Congress said that the President must be born in America of parents who were both natural citizens.

Unless one can address those issues, one is simply repeating routines that have been hashed and rehashed, without additional illumination.

********

*See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/may/12/born-usa/
Scotus never ruled on the eligibility of Goldwater (born in Arizona territory), George Romney (born in Mexico), Or McCain (born in off base hospital in Panama).  Yet, the Senate, by Resolution of 4-30-08, passed a resolution that McCain is a natural born citizen under Art. II, Sec. 1, of the Constitution.  Per briefing by Theodore B. Olson and Laurence H. Tribe, Obama was eligible even though one of his parents was not a U.S. citizen and would have been eligible even if he had been born while Hawaii was a territory and before it became a State.

**The Act of 1790 provided that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

***The 1790 language (natural born citizen) continues in essence to be honored by Congress under section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (citizen of the United States at birth):
SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

****Article II provides that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President ...." Nothing in the provision requires that a natural born citizen be other than a person who would be a natural citizen, without needing to go through naturalization.  The provision does not deprive Congress of authority to provide for the requisites of being a person who would be a natural citizen without needing to go through naturalization.

*****Dershowitz also has discussed this.  See http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/is-canadian-born-ted-cruz-eligible-to-run-for-president-20130501 .  Cruz is a natural born citizen, not a naturalized citizen.  https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=dershowitz+and+cruz+natural+born&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001 .

******See the Jacobson article, at natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz .

"Most of the counter-arguments are historical conjecture, at best, and rely on speculation not connected to the text of the Constitution or any demonstrable actual intent or understanding of the Framers."

"[T]he English translation of the 1758 edition [of Vattel] did not use the term “natural born Citizen.”  That term did not appear until the 1797 edition, a decade after the Constitution was ratified."

"Two of the leading attorneys challenging Obama’s eligibility admitted that the term was not in the edition available in 1787, and they make the illogical bootstrap argument that the later change in the Vattel verbiage somehow applies retroactively"

"It is, at best, highly speculative to assert that the Framers looked to Vattel for the definition of “natural born Citizen.”"

"It seems likely that the virtually contemporaneous coloration provided by the 1790 act lends support to the view that the constitutional reference to natural-born citizens was intended to include those who acquired United States citizenship by descent, at birth abroad."

"Even if there were a holding that “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens” were “natural born Citizen[s],” that would not exclude other situations giving rise to being a “natural born Citizen.”"

"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen."

"The burden should be on those challenging otherwise eligible candidates to demonstrate through clear and convincing historical evidence and legal argument why such persons should be disqualified.  That has not happened so far, and if two hundred years of scholarship is any indication, it never will happen."

*********See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause
"In 1904, Frederick van Dyne (1861–1915), the Assistant Solicitor of the US Department of State (1900–1907) (and subsequently a diplomat), published a textbook, Citizenship of the United States, in which he said:

There is no uniform rule of international law covering the subject of citizenship. Every nation determines for itself who shall, and who shall not, be its citizens.... By the law of the United States, citizenship depends, generally, on the place of birth; nevertheless the children of citizens, born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, are also citizens.... The Constitution of the United States, while it recognized citizenship of the United States in prescribing the qualifications of the President, Senators, and Representatives, contained no definition of citizenship until the adoption of the 14th Amendment, in 1868; nor did Congress attempt to define it until the passage of the civil rights act, in 1866.... Prior to this time the subject of citizenship by birth was generally held to be regulated by the common law, by which all persons born within the limits and allegiance of the United States were deemed natural-born citizens."

"Black's Law Disctionary (9th Edition) defines "Natural Born Citizen" as "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government"."

"In 2000, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), in one of its reports, wrote most constitutional scholars interpret the natural born citizen clause as to include citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, are legally defined as "natural born" citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President."

(What about line of succession of Secretary of State, if Secretary of State is a citizen only by naturalization?)

*********Bottom line:  I think those who argue the NBC clause against Cruz are trying to pour water up a string, to no good or practical purpose that is empirically demonstrable.

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

Anyone who expects Scotus to declare a person elected by the people to have been ineligible is going to need to show such by clear argument and authority.
Set out the links in the NBC argument, and I will show which among them are specious, i.e., unclear, hence injeffective.
Some of the Founders were in the First Congress, which legislated in 1790 to define a natural born citizen.  Although that legislation was later replaced, the understanding of natura born citizen was not refuted.  That understanding did not preclude a person born outside the limits of the U.S. to be necessarily not a natural born citizen.  During the First Congress, George Washington, the Founder who was an impetus for the natural born citizen clause, was President.  Nothing suggests he disagreed with the understanding of the First Congress.  Certainly, one should look there before one were to look at Vattel.
If the 1790 statute was indicative of the interpretation by the First Congress of the natural born citizen clause, then its subsequent replacement with statutes that defined a person who would be a citizen at birth could hardly rescind such understanding.  Nor would such replacement say anything about what the Founders intended at the time the Constitution was ratified.
IAE, given modern proclivities, to be wholly educated in America and born of two American parents seems as likely to produce anti-American attitudes as favorable attitudes.  It is hardly a safeguard for loyalty to the Constitution or the American Ideal.

Monday, June 29, 2015

Renormalization -- How Is It Tricked Out

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

Friday, June 19, 2015

GREATEST HAPPINESS FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER

MORAL GUIDANCE -- THE GREATEST HAPPINESS FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is needed to preserve a decent representative republic?

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

FIFTH DIMENSION -- HOLODEK ON A BUBBLE

Model --- FRACTAL HOLODEK ON A BUBBLE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Wednesday, June 3, 2015

SCIENCE AND SPIRITUALITY OF FUNDAMENTALS

SCIENCE AND SPIRITUALITY OF FUNDAMENTALS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, June 1, 2015

Conscious Modeling of Spin Conservation


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*********

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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