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.


Sunday, April 20, 2014

Immanent Reality



IMMANENT REALITY:

VALUE:  Inspiration of consciousness is the value of understanding that the character of our limits consists not in science but in our apprehensions of math and spirituality.

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.

ILLUSION OF SPACE-TIME: It appears that no sum of information that is collected from multiple photons is contained within any single photon.  Rather, Information subjective to a perspective appears to consist with such sum of photons as are actually conveyed to contact a recording lens or eye.  If the effect of magnification of images is due to lens pointing and focus adjustment, to affect which photons are locally and subjectively received and collected, then must the photons be actual, physical particles-in-themselves, actually travelling through space and time?  If one's rate of spin in space is affected, like a skater as one opens and closes one's arms, then must space-in-itself be real?  Or, may one reasonably maintain that time, distance, and physicality are illusions, secondary to consciousness plus math?  May space-time reasonably be conceptualized as a stubborn illusion, a derivative that is secondary to form-ulas that are fitted to avail sequential receptivity to one another under conditions of occupation by their locally renormalizing perspectives of consciousness?  May it reasonably be conceptualized that sequentiality and fitting of form-ulas to consciousness are what produce the effects that we interpret as events unfolding in space-time?

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.

EVOLUTION OF SEQUENTIAL PATTERNS OF FORCE MULTIPLICATION:  Every asymmetric pattern or system will have points where a single force, like a domino, would represent a potential for exertion of a multiplicative, destabilizing effect.  Depending on effective means of apparent force at hand, if the goal is massive immediate destabilization, then every pattern or form-ula has its weakest point.

LOCAL CONSCIOUSNESS BUILDING ON LOCAL CONSCIOUSNESS:  Local consciousness emerges with cycling systems of form-ulas that can store representations of Information as memory.  Local consciousness then draws on such memory, to favor purposeful selections in feedback response to pattern changes.  Artificial Intelligence will emerge in concert with new mathematical form-ulizations and programs, as the Holistic Reconciler guides such to come to pass.  It seems innately intuitive that God will avail feedback to conserve and guide such expressions of AI to the empathetic apprehension of God and personhood.


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?

MAGNIFICATION OF POINT OF VIEW:  By repetitively magnifying with lenses that are curved, one can gather and focus more light.  More light can be gathered from a large mirror and delivered to the lenses.  The lenses can be arrayed in line, to multiply and refocus such gathering of information bearing photons.  In such process of collecting and focusing photons, one may collect and convey to one's eye those photons with which one would see and interpret an image of a distant object, were one closer to the object.  Thus, one may adjust one's focus, as if one were actually closer to an object being viewed.  Thus, a large mirror telescope can enable one to gather and focus more photons, to summarize information that is pertinent to the adjustment of the focus.  The way in which one points and adjusts one's gathering of focus would determine which information bearing photons one collects and interprets.  Such magnification, however, will be accompanied with distortion, attributable in part to magnification that collapses the background and in part to altering the eye's point of view by altering the focus.

HOW MUCH INFORMATION MAY A SINGLE PHOTON CONVEY:  May a single photon convey more than a single bit of on-off, yes-no, digital signalization?  A photon may be corkscrewed, i.e., spun, orbited, and rolled along various radiative axes.  Thus, it would seem that an advance receiver may be designed to receive more than a single bit of information from each photon.  Note that lenses gather and focus light, and can be adjusted and pre-prepared to do so in repetitions that select, sum, and magnify among pre-arranged radiations of photons.  Each re-focusing by each curved lens in line will affect and select the photons that are filtered for having their information summed and conveyed.  Some parallax effect will be filtered, then perhaps somewhat restored, then filtered again, and so on.  Depending on the quality of the method of telescopic telephoto analysis, how much differentiating parallax information may be extracted, modified, or even restored, from each photon and from the sum of photons availed for analysis?


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.

NO OBJECT IN ITSELF:  Magnification affects parallax and perspective, but it does not bring any object-in-itself closer to a viewer, or a viewer closer to an object.  No object-in-itself really exists.  Thus, the appearance of bringing one's eye or lens or telescope closer to an object is a practical illusion that is derivative of consciousness interfunctioning with forms of math.  One does not get closer to any object in itself.  One simply interprets variously detailed, focused, interior, fractal perspectives of forms of math.


SPACE-TIME:  There is no space-time-in-itself that "really" presents.  Rather, what really presents to us is something that reconciles our experientiality so that we can renormalize communications regarding the sequentiality of interpretations of events.  That is, mathematical, economic tinkering on ways to communicate significations to other perspectives of consciousness.  The appearance of space-time mediates to preserve impressions and interpretations of separations in sequentiality, hence, separations in subjective perspectives of consciousness.


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-itselfWhat 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.


COMMUNICATION AMONG LAYERS AND LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS:  Perspectives of consciousness are inherently availed with levels and layers of form-ulas for apprehending and signifying communications among themselves.  The quality of a communication sent or received will vary depending on the contextual relationship between a mathematical locus of transmission versus a mathematical locus of reception.  Mathematical equations that are bonded or local to a perspective of consciousness inherently availl transmission of information across more encompassing, overlapping, or defining mediums and fields of equational functions.  A geometrical form communicates with a geometrical form and mathematically alters the representation of its form-ula.  And so on.  All significations are illusions for the contextually renormalizing appreciation of 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 a agent and counter agent sponsor, in respect of mortal perspectives? Must it/they sponsor a perpetual process of conscious feedback between and among its/their holistically encompassing aspect and its particularly expressed aspects and perspectives?

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 effectuates 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.

FRESH FROM DELPHI -- 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.  God's need for companionship and feedback in appreciation of meta points of view seems to cause temporal perspectives of consciousness to bond and identify with local bodies, that seem to be separate travelers across stubborn illusions of space-time.  Spiritual continuity is correlative with continuous change via continuously creative destruction.  A balancing act is necessary to preserve spiritual empathy for norms, even as it becomes necessary to participate in their change.  This necessitates Conservers of Liberty, i.e., those who advocate for that which is necessary to preserve a decent civilization that avails freedom and dignity.  It necessitates effective checks on behalf of individuals faised from infancy by families against tyrannies of collectivizing government.

CHRISTIANITY:  This seems not contrary to the essential message of Christianity. The Kingdom of God is within you. Beingness is entailed with a Trinity: programming Information, renormalizing experience of relationally measurable Substance, and qualitatively appreciating Consciousness. There is one common godhead. It's essential nature is in qualitative empathy. It is the Source. It carries on a personal relationship with each of us. It seems to be eternal. It seems to have a purpose: facilitate evolution towards empathetically civilized perspectives for experiencing and communicating empathies. It does this via feedback in pragmatic and discrete significations within the here and now. Morality abides in that which facilitates such guided and unfolding evolution. Judgment for how and when to avail phase shifts in the mathematical environment of programming that we share is subject to the judgment and Reconciliation of the godhead.





Saturday, April 19, 2014

Fairness

Re:  Fairness concerning people who are self reliant, successful, and do not view themselves as victims

Infants are not fair, because they have not the physical, emotional, or cultural means by which to be, barter about, or communicate about that which is fair.  Until a human being acquires physical, emotional, and cultural competence, he has no means by which to understand or communicate about that which is fair. A child who is never pushed to grow up to become competent does not become able to look out for himself, much less be taken seriously in any conversation about fairness.  A child who is perpetually indulged with drugs, support, and entitlements cannot grow up.  He will begrudge those who do grow up (those who "act white"), and he will always be a burden.  This may not disrupt a collectivist culture, but it is poison to a culture that seeks to avail decent human freedom and dignity, wherein people are expected to grow up, take personal responsibility, and support the continuation of liberty.  The first thing to know about babies of whatever race or color or culture who never grow up, who perpetually whine about fairness, is that they have not the least idea about what fairness means.  Nor, given means to steal from you without being caught, would they incline in the least to hesitate.  Progs whining about fairness are like bottles stuffed with poison.

Nor can a government that tries to cater to the specific whims of such perpetual babies be fair.  In fairness, all government can do is to provide an infrastructure and then mostly get out of the way.  Government is incapable of making the multitudinous decisions that tend to allocate towards fairness in the marketplace of ideas and production.  A government that perpetually "progresses" towards ever more intrusions in the call for being "fair" cannot avoid becoming a government of despotism for farming people who never grow up.

*******

To trade fairly, I think one needs to have something to trade.  An infant trades with cute coos and sympathetic cries.  If that's all the infant ever learns, the coos and cries soon grow old and of little value for any trade, fair or otherwise.  Civilization is a competitive jungle with a cooperative safety net.  A child who never learns how to compete for himself while defending rather than abusing the safety net has nothing to trade with his civilization, fair or otherwise.  If fairness is akin to being charitable with the civil system, then it does not tend to be well expressed by usurping authority to redistribute other people's money to such a point as to destroy the familial institution and the accultured mores out of which fairness is taught.  Replacing middle-class, family taught fairness with two-class rule of "wise" despots is conducive, I think, to serfdom, not fairness.  The coos and cries of infants are not cute to a detached, generally centralized government that is more concerned with the "perfect" system of widget management.  Without the bonding and assimilative effect of family and culture, a system of artificially intelligent managers will be programmed to be singularly ruthless.  The Bomb has temporarily stifled some of our competive impulses that are not adequately moderated or softened by familial bonding.  As the family institution breaks down, so will that softening influence.  That, in turn, will necessitate much greater distrust and, therefore, governmental invasions of privacy.  A similar challenge applies to our competiton towards developing singularly intelligent A.I.  We need an assimilative culture that will restore familial bonding.  I think that is not a multi-culture of people who incline to exploit collectivism so that they need never to have to grow up to become anything more than serfs for rulers.

REFLECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM:  See http://intelligence.org/summary/
"Possible bootstrapping algorithms include “do what we would have told you to do if we knew everything you knew,” “do what we would’ve told you to do if we thought as fast as you did and could consider many more possible lines of moral argument,” and “do what we would tell you to do if we had your ability to reflect on and modify ourselves.” In moral philosophy, this notion of moral progress is known as reflective equilibrium."

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Big Lie of Oligarchs

In Human Action, Von Mises explained how it is necessary, in formulating practical economic recommendations, to relate to imaginary models.  This is because we con't have access to an alternative earth on which to conduct alternative, double-blind simulations.  So models must often indulge assumptions about the effects of actions under conditions of ceteris paribus, as if all other things remained equal.  Of course, in the real world, all other things do not remain equal.  For example, the United States is a vast empire of natural resources across which there is relatively easy transport, a common language, an agreeable climate, a commonly germ resistent population, and free trade.  Those ingredients of resources, common language, culture, religion, assimilated mores, habits of cooperation, rivers and roads of transport, republican traditions, and international influence do not apply to many countries.

When politicians in the United States extol "free trade," what does that mean in the real world?  In the real world, trading often risks transport of mad cow disease, ebola viruses, brainwashed suicide bombers, voices-in-the-head despots, sociopaths oblivious of the Golden Rule, and people whose only faith is in temporal material gain.  In the real world, exchange of technology risks arming cultures that mean to overrun us.  In the real world, free trade with countries whose leaders contrive to hold down local wages and to prop up their businesses allows dumping of excess production in ways that undermine and replace the industries of other nations.  In the real world, free trade enriches oligarchs who tend to be a-theistic, a-moral, and a-patriotic.  They tend not to be loyal Jeffersonians.  The idea of oligarchs of an open society of globally erased borders does not tend to preserve any representative republic.  Rather, it tends to replace all government by the people with a race to the bottom, to install corporatist oligarchs to rule in place of governments.

The idea or free trade, intelligently applied, can be a wonderful thing.  However, when it is unguided by any common sense with regard to what is needed to preserve a decent society that avails human freedom and dignity under a representative republic, then it becomes a big lie that oligarchs find useful in order to dupe idiots.

South Korea is perhaps the preminent economic miracle of recent times. It undertook a program that might be called self-help affirmative action. A Korean writer, ha-joon-chang, makes his case for what I would call affirmative action tariffs. He says: "Global economic competition is a game of unequal players. It pits against each other countries that range from, as we development economists like to say, Switzerland to Swaziland. Consequently, it is only fair that we ‘tilt the playing field’ in favour of the weaker countries."

I tend not to ascribe so much credence to an idea of tilting the playing field in favor ot the weaker.  I suspect such efforts tend to be cynically abused in such a godlessly trending world. I give no more credence to the idea of oligarchs acting sympathetically than I do to the idea of them acting objectively and impartially. That is, they will always be partial to their own bottom lines -- both in the economic sphere and in the legal/political sphere.

See http://analepsis.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/ha-joon-chang-bad-samaritans.pdf:

"What Korea actually did during these decades was to nurture certain new industries, selected by the government in consultation with the private sector, through tariff protection, subsidies and other forms of government support (e.g., overseas marketing information services provided by the state export agency) until they ‘grew up’ enough to withstand international competition."
"If private enterprises worked well, that was fine; if they did not invest in important areas, the governmenthad no qualms about setting up state-owned enterprises (S O Es); and if some
private enterprises were mismanaged, the government often took them over,restructured them, and usually (but not always) sold them off again."
"The Korean government heavily controlled foreign investment as well, welcoming it with open arms in certain sectors while shutting it out completely in others, according to the evolving national development plan. It also had a lax attitude towards foreign patents, encouraging ‘reverse engineering’ and overlooking ‘pirating’ of patented products."
"Why then don’t the rich countries recommend to today’s developing countries the strategies that served them so well? Why do they instead hand out a fiction about the history of capitalism, and a bad one at that?"
"So there it was—the self-proclaimed leader of the ‘liberal’ world declaring war on another country because the latter was getting in the way of its illegal trade in narcotics. The truth is that the free movement of goods, people, and money that developed under British hegemony between 1870 and 1913—the first episode of globalization - was made possible, in large part, by military might, rather than market forces."
"Free trade was often imposed on, rather than chosen by, weaker countries. Most countries that had the choice did not choose free trade for more than brief periods. Virtually all successful economies, developed and developing, got where they are through selective, strategic integration with the world economy, rather than through unconditional global integration."