Sunday, May 13, 2018

Consciousness -- Levels


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

We do know (have information) by direct experience that the present is perpetually filled with manifestations of various fluxes of space, time, matter, energy. We directly sense recordations of information in the substances that are expressed, such as in tree rings, the passage of seasons, the relative movement of the sun and stars. We also know that, to survive and replicate, we need to become skilled in physical mechanics and moral cooperation. For that, we have no choice but to make choices.

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

Time may be less like a reality in itself than it is like an artifact of mathematical sequencing for the cumulation of Information to each local point of view and frame of reference. Although different frames may proceed at different math paces, all events recorded in chronologies seem to be preserved under renormalizing examination. Mortals do not get to rewind the cosmos.

It may be that the Godhead avails the renormalization of a perpetual-present to every point of view for every frame of reference. I doubt the previous past abides, except as stored Information. I do not believe the future exists except as potentiality. The only aspect of our unfolding chronology that manifests with measurable Substance is the Information and Consciousness of the perpetual present.

The perpetual present seems to abide as a perpetual flux of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. For every event, Consciousness at some level seems to affect how Information unfolds to become stored and manifest in Substance. What reconciles that flux may be conceptualized as the Godhead, which presents and abides with the perpetual-present. Math and a Math Activator seem to account for the relational aspects we experience as time, space, matter, energy.

Whatever activates the Math may stand with the Math, but the world it manifests seems to be produced contemporaneously with how the Activator continues to reconcile the math to produce the choices among events that avail to our manifestation. IOW, God has not, and perhaps could not have, left the building.

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

You are concerning yourself with nonsense rabbit holes and then trying to argue why your choice of rabbit hole is better than any other. But why go down holes that are obviously rabbit holes? When you go on about what must have created the cosmos that created the cosmos that created the cosmos .... you may as well go on a fool's errand to seek the largest or smallest possible number. Whatever our cosmos and any source for it may have come from, it is manifest that it and we abide, here and now.

Given that situation, we are confronted with various challenges, such as: (1) To try to understand our physical mechanics in a practical way that avails our survival and propagation (if that is what we desire); (2) To try to determine what we SHOULD desire (to the extent our desires are trainable).

As we confront both of the challenges mentioned above, we tend soon to apprehend that the system with which we live entails a fluxing conservation and cooperation of feedback between that system and its various forms, frames, and fields of relational reference. As we enhance our sciences, we soon learn about unintended consequences and unexpected limits on our capacities to control or cause our desires. We tend to learn that what we suppose to be causes or originating causes are often more like correlates, and that whatever it may be by which every determination is brought into measurable manifestation, such Determiner/determiner seems unavoidably to implicate a metaphysics of some kind that is like a rabbit hole beyond our measure. Such as a Meta-Determiner or a Meta-Multiverse.

IOW, the abiding existence of rabbit holes is a given. However immeasurable they may be, they are an abiding aspect of our Reality. The concern remains: Given that situation, how may we relate to here and now practical concerns of mechanics and morality? Given no objectively knowable prescription for making each and every moral choice, how may each subjectively minded person work together with others to inspire and assimilate mutually cooperative and common mores, values, and purposes?

If not in intuitive and innate respect for good faith and good will, how can we hope to inspire and preserve a representative republic that can sustain and defend each of our opportunities for freedom and dignity? Why, based either on objectivity or subjectivity, would people deem it principled, good, or worthwhile to argue against good will or all forums for assimilating it?

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

I agree that we use physical science to build. I would not agree that we, as individual mortals, can entirely invent physical science.

I would agree that we may some day shape how science unfolds. For example, if we ever acquire skill to engender a matrix like simulation, perhaps we may prescribe the "scientific" parameters under which its inhabitants would have to abide or live.

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

Well, there it is: Evidence of unthinking ninnie boys congratulating themselves on their fake intellects.

***************
No mortal institution is without need of continuous improvement.
Empathy and compassion are commonly displayed among lower orders of animals.

I think consciousness is consciousness. It abides at various levels, depending on relational situation and sequence. But for relational situation and sequence, it seems obvious to me, perhaps not to you, that we are all of the same consciousness. That is the basis for innate empathy. IOW, good faith and good will. Like Jesus taught.

I do not think the people clamoring for the undermining of all religion would make for a good transition. I think they are historically naive and self-centered malcontents who would produce disaster. I don't think they are capable of establishing or defending any practical principles whatsoever.

Because they respect no principles, they claim not to be hypocrites. Except they are gigantic hypocrites, because they complain every time a Conservative does not live up to his principles. As if they had any moral standing whatsoever to complain! To have standing to complain about someone else's failure to live up to his principles, I think you need to have some principles for yourself. If Lefties can articulate or defend any sustainable principles, I would like to know what they are. S/

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

My point did not concern consenting adults. Can you read? My point concerned consenting adults ganging up to use force of government to groom children. I suppose you don't care about that, either?

Because I think everyone who is not intellectually blinded knows that Orwellian totalitarianism is where modern Leftism is headed. Why do you think Lefty stoolies go along with corporatists that want open borders for cheap, easily bribed, easily deluded, and easily ruled immigrants? Why do you think Lefties align themselves so easily to take the corporate funding from Soros? They take the corporate money, then imagine they are not setting themselves up for fascism under a corporate establishment! Lol.

Do you think Soros has your best interests at heart? Do you think Soros and his ilk want to let you keep a say in determining those interests? If so, why does he want to flood the nation and California with so many third-world liberty illiterates? Why does he want California, based on popular vote, to be able to elect the President?

Do you remember or ever think about the book within the book, in Orwell's 1984, about the theory and practice of oligarchic collectivism? Why are Dino-Rino oligarchs of the establishment almost entirely united against Trump? Do you want to surrender the representative republic to their efforts?

*******

I am not sure what you mean by supernatural. If you mean supernatural in the sense of unreal, then I do not agree that immeasurable things that are real are supernatural. For example, math does not entirely measure math, yet I do not consider math to be supernatural. You seem to be confused and/or going back and forth on that. Try to be clear.

Regardless, things are not that simple! There are things we know as tautologies and trivialities. There are things we think we know because they have not been falsified. There are things that are merely appearances that are derivatives of other things. There are things that are more like aspects or properties, that depend for their expression and function on fluxing relationships. There are mathematical relationships that seem presently and reliably to work well to various orders of significance.

There are things we do not know. There are things we can only know and make true, as a matter of will or self fulfilling prophecy. But I think there are also things we CANNOT measurably know, but CAN reasonably believe, as matters of intuitive implication, self evidence, or innate empathy. For example, I agree with various philosophers that something is implicated to be or have been sequentially existent before the Big Bang, but not anything we can objectively know. And, SOMETHING is implicated that determines which among possibilities are actually allowed to come into measurable manifestation.

For another example, I suspect something of empathy (good faith and good will) is in some quality innate to every perspective of consciousness. Indeed, this is why some avowed atheists suppose they do not need religion to be good (empathetic), because they take such empathy to be inherent in biology and/or nature. What they forget is that such conscious mental empathy is, by definition, subjective and ephemeral, rather than entirely objective or constant. In supposing such a subjective and immeasurable quality is innate or inherent, they are in some quality supposing a shared but non-objective Source of morality. IOW, they are supposing an Innate Source of Empathy, even though they balk at giving that Source a name of reference (like God). Moreover, in supposing church forums are not needed to promote respect and assimilation for that empathy, they are neglecting a systemic tendency that advantages corrupting sociopaths to attain positions of power in most institutions.

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

What I get from the conception of a Living Algorithm is the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. IOW, good faith and good will (which necessarily entail subjectivity, not purely measurable objectivity). IOW, capacity to assimilate ought from is.  Which you seem to admit you lack, or at least, are unable to assimilate sustainable moral values and purposes in respect of. Apart from forced celebration of a doped up people farm, that is.

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

Did Christianity harm civilizing respect for human freedom and dignity? In some ways, because of magical-belief over-emphasis on salvation hereafter, Christianity impeded science for awhile. However, what laid Western Civ open to Islamic hordes may have been more attributable to its weakening by pestilence and disease.

That said, during and after the Enlightenment, Christianity was perhaps essential to the promotion of Western Civ. After all, America, as a representative republic, was founded under the work of Pilgrims, Christians, and Deists.

Lately, much of the clamor against Christianity seems to be fomented by militant gays and their militant atheistic friends, who do not like to be called abominators. But I think they have way over done it.

The essential ingredient to promote human freedom and dignity is good faith and good will. In Jesus' formulation, that would be similar to the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. Secular atheists want to say religious-like inspiration is not needed to sustain viable good faith and good will. I disagree.

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

Yes, I do think the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule are more or less imprinted on every perspective of Consciousness. However, they are not imprinted on every social organization. Nor can humanity, in competitions among social organizations, necessarily be said to exhibit basic goodness. Absent institutions, such as churches for attracting congregants in order to inspire them to assimilate and to seek to perform voluntary charity, it becomes harder to establish or sustain decent civilization.

While malcontents tend to complain as assimilations do not always please them, and they tend to seek things to complain about, I doubt they would have been happier or more contented had Christianity never flourished. In my judgment of history, the evil that humanity did amongst itself before Christianity, and since in places without Christianity, has been, and would continue to be, all the more brutish and unpleasant.

There tend to be all manner of malcontents, most of whom probably do not consider themselves to be bad, but who, in aggregate, tend to be dysgenic and cultural drags against human freedom and dignity. There are quiet homosexual couples, loud and demanding and parasitical homosexual couples, deviants that want to abuse and groom children, deviants that want tax money and public education to help them groom children for abuse, anarchists that hate ordinary society, orgy maniacs that think heaping helpings of group drugs and sex should not just be legal but also be publicly funded, immodest deconstructionists that want to parade and argue for rights to defecate and fornicate publicly with and/or marry their dogs and horses, and so on.

Each kind of malcontent seems often to think his own kind of deviance should be legalized, tolerated, celebrated, funded, and eventually forced. Many seem to believe society has no legal or moral right to defend itself and its institutions against such proclivities. As such malcontents acquire the funding, time, and means to gang up against ordinary society, what sustaining mores can survive? Especially as we see how sociopaths leverage advantages for gaining positions of power in every institution.

The USA is already unraveling. How has the madness of agglomerating and malcontented deviants, as they seek to undermine every church for inspiring good faith and good will, helped in any way to secure the republic or common decency? How has de-defining marriage and the family and replacing such institutions with bureaucratic supervisors helped to sustain the kind of common values needed to preserve the representative republic from the plunderings of mad deviant elitists and their over-sexed, immodest, and unprincipled shills, flash agitators, stoolies, and wannabe sheeple-farmers?

In my judgment, such people tend to seek access to children less to devote themselves to their best interests, but more to use and abuse children, as trophies. Rarely in debates about how to legalize various forms of sex and drugs does one ever hear concern from such people about their effects on children and persons of less than responsible judgment. Indeed, there seems to be a full on assault to force schools to groom children. I do find this to be detestable. And unsustainable for a republic, unless it wants to surrender its Constitution and simply be ruled by established and corrupt corporate elites.

I am not at all confident that such people have a clue, or that they have the fortitude needed to sustain or defend any kind of decent society or nation. Impressed with their infantilized mores, mal-educated intellects, and drunken acceptance of oligopolistic border-destroying propaganda, I am not.

Problem is, they may already have corrupted the republic beyond its tipping point and made it ripe for the deluge. I suppose they merit a kind of Congrats. Sarc.

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

I grasp that the Reality that affects us includes the measurable aspects of reality and the immeasurable aspects of reality. Evidently, you think every thing and every aspect that cannot be entirely reduced to math-based measurement is non-existent.  (You may want to do some reading concerning The Measurement Problem.)

Stephen Hawking said that even if we had a TOE (which Godel seems to implicate is impossible), it would necessarily be a set of equations. Hawking wrote, "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" Evidently, Hawking felt some thing (ït") beyond the equations themselves is implicated. If numbers with equations relate to measurable reality, what is it that is implicated that accounts for the numbers and equations? What activates the math, or what avails the universal algorithm to "live"? Well, that would seem to abide as an implicated but immeasurable aspect of "reality."

Some thinkers want to suppose that reality is entirely independent of conscious mind. I do not conceptualize reality as being either entirely independent of mind or entirely derivative of mind. Rather, I conceptualize conscious mind as being part of a flux that expresses three fundamental aspects: Self-evident Consciousness, measurable Substance, and cumulating Information. I do not believe any of those fundaments can be expressed without entailment of the other two. I conceptualize that those three fundamental aspects are the fluxing product of a Living Algorithm, which abides with potentiality to activate fields of relational presentations to various perspectives of local sensation and experience. I do not conceptualize the future to exist except as potentiality, nor the past to exist except as a cumulated record of Information. I conceptualize that the perpetual present is presented as a relational flux of CSI that is the derivative of a "Living Algorithm" (changeless-changer, or Godhead).

I recognize this is not a measurably provable conceptualization, but I do not see how it could be construed as less reasonable or less testable or self-evident than various alternatives, and I think it carries advantages for inspiring decent civilization that can subjectively and practicably assimilate apprehensions of "ought from is." IAE, I do not see how alternative conceptualizations can reasonably stake any claim to greater objectivity.

I do not see how dumb math, absent an activating "fire breather," could continue to effect specific determinations from among all possibilities, absent the continuous involvement of an Activator.

There may be thinkers that believe everything is entirely derivative of dumb math. I do not believe in such a conceptualization. For example, Tegmark conceptualizes that physical reality (universe) is mathematics in a well-defined sense, and that "in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world". His conceptualization would implicate that worlds corresponding to different sets of initial conditions, physical constants, or altogether different equations may be considered equally real.
Perhaps he attempts to resolve the incompleteness problem as described by Godel by positing that all computable mathematical structures exist (in some computable universe)? In other words, that no thing "really exists" except mathematical structures. In that case, the problem as described by Hawking recedes: How can mere dumb math objectively measure math?

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

You can do your own research about meta ideas regarding meta multi-verses, etc., and decide for yourself how objectively scientific they are. The internet is easily accessible for that purpose.

Mainly, I am simply saying reality entails both measurables and immeasurables. To my subjective intuition, self-evidence, and innate empathy, the fact that numerous choices are available to me, and somehow determined without any objective way knowable to me to have pre-determined them, is a real aspect of life. Now, if you are committed to a subjective belief that nothing can exist that is not objectively measurable, then I doubt I can be of service to you.

I do not seek objectively to prove any immeasurable aspect to Reality exists. I take such proof/evidence to be subjectively self-evident, directly intuitive, and empathetically reasonable.

How do you "weigh" or completely objectify subjective-consciousness? How do you measure what it is that determines which choices are actuated into measurable manifestation among all the choices that were possible? You can track how and where consciousness and conscious choice is associated. You may procreate or manufacture to produce replicative kinds of exemplars of such. You can test for intellect or problem solving capacity. But I do not see how you can weigh consciousness itself. Yet, at least for yourself, you can by self-evidence know it abides.

I have very few myths to which I would seek to bind the eternal and infinite Godhead. My only task is to participate in trying to help inspire and assimilate sustainable good faith and good will for a civilization that would seek here and now to avail dignity for its citizens above that availed for subhumans or incompetent sheeple.

We don't know any objective answer to how we should design our world or universe. Yet, we have no choice but to make choices. To fail to make a choice is no answer, because such failure is itself a choice. So the problem remains: How to participate to help a society assimilate and sustain a decent civilization that respects the freedom and dignity of its citizens. Unless, of course, one prefers indecency, mind servitude, indignity, and sheeple-treatment.

Although there is no objective answer to how to derive ought from is, there is subjective participation in pursuing common subjective answers. And that participation is unavoidable. For that purpose, we have, I believe, spiritually metaphysically innate conscious empathy. Because, fundamentally, we are all simply different perspectives of the same consciousness. Consciousness, while it abides with different and variable levels, is consciousness. The Great Commandment (love God/good faith) and the Golden Rule (love your neighbor/good will) are based in innate empathy. Under all the figures of speech employed by Jesus, that is what He taught.

If a secular-atheist wants only to have mores that can be objectively proven, then what he is really saying is he does not want to be responsible to any society, republic, or civilization. Rather, he wants to pretend to be superior while he does his dope and gratification act.

Pretending that there is nothing to reality that is beyond mortal measure is pretty arrogant and ignorant.

It's pretty obvious to most reasonably smart eighth graders that they have choices among possibilities each step of their lives. There is little in what I said that is beyond the ken of a reasonably smart and informed eighth grader. But maybe I don't know what passes for smart nowadays. Maybe what passes for smart nowadays is oblivious faith in moral scientism while having no clue how to derive ought from is. Or guffawing about pastafarians.

The eternal Godhead is the Godhead. We can intuit IT's entailment, but only someone like a ninnie-stupido would argue or analogize IT to a particular form (like a bearded old man, a giant pastafarian, or a many-faced elephant).

But the story of eternity cannot be confined to a book. No history of stories about the eternal, infinite, inter-penetrating, omnipresent, omniscient omnipotent, godhead (that has access to all the power and knowledge that can be accessed) can be without metaphors when taught for the purpose of inspiring people to come to reason and emote together.

As metaphors, the meanings attached to such stories can change with usage as well as with the unfolding physical expressions and significations sponsored with the godhead. Much as the meanings attached to words change with usage over space and time. It is not so much a problem that such stories are metaphorical as it is a problem that so many dunces (militant atheists and religious fundies alike) are either so literal-minded or so entirely lacking in appreciation for the role of sacred or inspiring metaphors in binding and assimilating people to share values.

For a citizenry that values a decent representative republic, the unfolding test question is not, "How would I want society to be required by its laws to support me if I were a (black, hispanic, gay, jew, fundie, handicapped person, deviant, trans, fluid, child, fetus)?"

Rather, the question should be, "How would I want citizens in general to volunteer to treat and opportunize one another?"

To continue to respond to and answer that question, it is needed to have forums, such as churches, to inspire people to come together to reason in good faith and good will. Much more so than to rely on central-governmental-despots and knowitall-moral-scientisimists to farm and rule the people as sheeple.

How would a literal-minded militant atheist propose to inspire people to come together to reason in good faith and good will in order to assimilate sustainable and shared values, without resort to metaphors? They never want to attempt to answer such questions. Rather, they seem usually just to want to spout profanity, guffaw about giant spaghetti monsters, or scurry to their mutual admiration and gratification societies.

Decent Americans need to stand up and firmly push back against the dividers, race-baiters, blood-suckers, literal-minded secular-atheists, and establishment-funded sociopaths, shills, and stoolies.

***********
The eternal Godhead is the Godhead. We can intuit IT's entailment, but only someone like a ninnie-stupido would argue or analogize IT to a particular form (like a bearded old man, a giant pastafarian, or a many-faced elephant).  

But the story of eternity cannot be confined to a book.  No history of stories about the eternal, infinite, inter-penetrating, omnipresent, omniscient omnipotent, godhead (that has access to all the power and knowledge that can be accessed) can be without metaphors when taught for the purpose of inspiring people to come to reason and emote together. 

As metaphors, the meanings attached to such stories can change with usage as well as with the unfolding physical expressions and significations sponsored with the godhead.  Much as the meanings attached to words change with usage over space and time.  It is not so much a problem that such stories are metaphorical as it is a problem that so many dunces (militant atheists and religious fundies alike) are either so literal-minded or so entirely lacking in appreciation for the role of sacred or inspiring metaphors in binding and assimilating people to share values.

For a citizenry that values a decent representative republic, the unfolding test question is not, "How would I want society to be required by its laws to support me if I were a (black, hispanic, gay, jew, fundie, handicapped person, deviant, trans, fluid, child, fetus)?"

Rather, the question should be, "How would I want citizens in general to volunteer to treat and opportunize one another?"

To continue to respond to and answer that question, it is needed to have forums, such as churches, to inspire people to come together to reason in good faith and good will.  Much more so than to rely on central-governmental-despots and knowitall-moral-scientisimists to farm and rule the people as sheeple.

How would a literal-minded militant atheist propose to inspire people to come together to reason in good faith and good will in order to assimilate sustainable and shared values, without resort to metaphors?  They never want to attempt to answer such questions.  Rather, they seem usually just to want to spout profanity, guffaw about giant spaghetti monsters, or scurry to their mutual admiration and gratification societies.

Americans need to stand up and firmly push back against the dividers, race-baiters, blood-suckers, literal-minded secular-atheists, and establishment-funded sociopaths, shills, and stoolies.

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

Beyond fluxing presentations of CSI (consciousness, substance, and information), I suspect that whatever the Algorithm that defines us, IT is nothing more than potentiality to activate fields of relational presentations to various perspectives of local sensation and experience. I do not see how C, S, and I could exist as independent states of being, apart from being tied to fluxing relationships with one another.  I do not see how any bit of Information could be added or recorded with any Substance without adding a necessity at some level to effect Meta (Conscious?) Determination(s) among sequentially following possibilities.

Generally, I take "metaphysical" and "spiritual" to pertain to that which abides, but perpetually beyond the realm of physical measure or descriptive completion by any mortal.  For example, that from which the laws that regulate our physical universe are derived, caused, or reconciled.  Or the meta-source-or-rules by which the flux among consciousness, substance, and information is regulated.  Or that which avails what is next determined from each new array of possibilities that is added to our system as each new bit of information is added. Or that which seems to implicate that the fundamental consciousness and qualitative experience of each of us would be the same, but for how our perspectives have been divided by historical and situational sequences.  Or that seemingly implicated essence from which all relationships that we can measure are derived, and in respect of which all purposes are inspired --- whether or not consciously appreciated as such. Or that which seems to have availed the expression of measurables (however incomplete) for our universe within an otherwise inexplicable infinitude of mathematical possibilities.

IAE, to expect to use measurements to disprove the existence of meta-things that may or may not be beyond measure seems to violate basic logic. IOW, merely to assume all of existentiality ("Reality"?) entails only physical measurables, with no metas that are beyond mortal measurement, seems to violate basic logic.  Unless, that is, one deploys a specialty definition of "metaphysical" that amounts only to a circular attempt to prove by assumptive definition.

There are various problems with assuming that everything that "really exists" must be measurable to mortals (as opposed to being intuitively or empathetically implicated or appreciated).   One is that no mortal can take himself outside the universe in order to measure the universe. There is the observable, measurable universe, and there is the universe that may abide, have expanded, or have vibrated or phase shifted beyond or perpetually outside the reach of our local measure.

There are other problems with measurements that are inherent. No mortal can take a measurement that is objectively and entirely independent of his own conscious perspective in taking the measurement. Every event being measured will have already passed as soon as the measurement is completed. And the act of taking the measurement will have affected what is being or was measured.

Another problem is that qualitatives abide that are not measurable quantitatives. Examples: Your Identity, you-ness, or I-ness. A perspective of consciousness that has committed to identify with the preservation of a local pattern or organism and its context cannot simultaneously measure what it is like, qualitatively, for another perspective to have committed to identify with the preservation of a different pattern or organism and its context. Try taking a complete measure of what "you" are or will become.

Another problem is that orders of significance and context for measurements vary depending on one's practical purposes. One cannot cannot take a measurement that will be precise enough to suit all purposes and models. Per Godel, is is unlikely that humanity can ever synthesize a complete Theory of Everything. Can one completely pre-measure love, respect, or commitment?

Another problem is that one can only measure basic components or particles by using aggregative and relational methods. No essential particle-in-itself is knowable to mortals. If there were such a particle, we could not know it to relate to any other particle without its losing its identity as a particle-in-itself. And, if a particle were knowable of itself only, then it would not be subject to the rules that control and relate to the unfolding of our universe.

At quantum levels, what are particles? Are they bits of substance (matter or energy), or are they bits of math-based information? Do they flux as they exchange bits of information, so that any attempt to use information to measure them will upset the information that was meant to be measured? Do they avail an array of possibilities, the complete determination of which is beyond mortal control?

Another problem is that our measurements are based on assumptions about models. A measurement that suits one model may not suit another. It does not appear that any TOE model is available to mortals to ever explicate everything -- consistently, coherently, and completely. See Godel.

Moreover, the unit values for our models seem to flux and phase.  For example, some think the speed of light may not always have been the same value we commonly think of today.

Another problem pertains to moral purposefulness. We cannot avoid making choices about our purposes. Yet, neither can we rely entirely on measurables to derive how we ought to purpose ourselves.

Another problem is that local feedback alters local purposes and local niches, so that measurements in respect of such niches become less reliable to their original purposes. We participate in determining how our bodies and worlds unfold, so that measurements taken today may become less relevant tomorrow. This is problematic when we rely on past measurements to recommend future actions. Do environmental pressures select which organic mutations are most availed to replicate, or do organic mutations cause environments to evolve? Or is the process more one of correlative (meta?) feedback than one of "causation"?

MORAL SCIENTISIMISTS:

To the extent militant atheists claim truly to want only to relate to that which is objectively measurable, then they belie that claim each time they claim superiority for prescribing moral choices and values that are beyond objective determination.

There is no science by which to say the cosmos, universe, or Gaia is or should be better or worse off for more or less Humans, Atheists, Christians, Perverts, Communists, Socialists, Sociopaths, Animal Lovers, Polygamists, or Annihilists. Or, if some avowed atheist says there is, let him prove how to derive "ought from is." And show his work.

IOW, to the extent we value civilizing assimilations of moral values and purposes, we need to avail means with which to assimilate them. And there is no purely scientific or objective means for that. Notwithstanding all the whiny howls of ninny boys.

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

HOW THINGS ARE DETERMINED TO FLUX AND CORRELATE:

The universe-defining Algorithm abides (seemingly of infinite expansiveness and eternal sequentiality) --- simultaneously as a holistic particle-like entity and as a variable wave
-like field (of vibrations, undulations, amplitudes, frequencies, intensities, polarities, spins, anti-spins, charges, entanglements, balances, divisions, relationships, storages, momentums, attractions, repulsions, potentialities, energies, hungers, senses, sensations, patterns, organisms, perspectives)  --- as perpetual potentiality in three simultaneously present and fluxing states:  Being a trinity composed of tautological Consciousness, measurable Substance, and cumulating Information.

From any adopted perspective (locus of determinable sequence and spatially relational manifestation), the Algorithm (of "living math") may flux to present in various states of relationships among Consciousness, Substance, and Information (CSI).

Beyond its fluxing presentations of CSI, the Algorithm is nothing more than potentiality to activate fields of relational presentations to various perspectives of local sensation and experience.  C, S, and I cannot exist as independent states of being, apart from being tied to fluxing relationships with one another.  No bit of Information can be added or recorded with any Substance without adding a necessity at some level to effect Conscious determination(s) among sequentially following possibilities.

No perspective can be experienced without relational reference to a field that fluxes to define and limit it.  To every sequence and measure of focus (point of view) and field (frame of reference or recordation) for the emergence of sensate perspective, its field of potentiality will seem to abide and recede as an infinity beyond measurable confinement.  No particular perspective can take any measurement without reference to (or "outside of") the field of potentiality that defines and limits it. 

Potentialities for focal points may seem to recede towards the infinitely small.  Potentialities for fields of measurement may seem to recede towards the infinitely expansive.  Potentialities for sequentialities may seem to recede towards eternity.  But this is only because they cannot abide but for their relationship being tied to the Algorithm.  What seems to abide as infinite space, perpetual energy, and eternal time are, in respect of the Algorithm, merely derivatives of relationally-perpetually present math-icality.

How may the Algorithm rule, as energies seem to expand beyond resolution, as space expands towards oblivion, as information cumulates to a limit, and as consciousness seems to die to time?  Well, how did the Algorithm ("living math") rule before the postulated Big Bang?  And what was the character or nature of that which then and/or there ruled it?  Well, no merely mortal derivative would seem to have capacity further to understand.

What a mortal can do is to appreciate the tautological aspect of conscious Identity, to appreciate the metaphorical re-presentations of models and conceptualizations regarding "Reality," and to appreciate roles in a never-ending story and unfolding of innate empathies.

**********

Consciousness can be conceptualized as building on different levels. Self awareness, awareness of surroundings, awareness of nutrients or sunlight, subconsciousness, organic stimulus response, determination among potential alternatives or choices, informing of potentialities of Consciousness, maybe even systemic regulation and reconciliation of events within and of parameters. I do not see how mere substance could cumulate a storage of information (stored consciousness?) absent an expression of consciousness at some level. I do not say substance is consciousness, but I do not see how it could be expressed in ways that cumulate information in the complete absence of Consciousness.

I would agree that Consciousness can be conceptualized as not being required, but only if one wants to assume a specialty definition of Consciousness and a meta notion of a multiverse.

I doubt substance, information, and consciousness can exist without one another. I suspect an algorithm fluxes them as they avail expression of one another.

I think the process of cumulating information entails a process of cumulating untold potential choices and reconciliations. Each new bit of information does not just pre-cumulate or cause one specific possible next manifestation, but an array of choices. That entails reconciliations. That entails something more than dumb-matter.

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

The unfolding "design" is in respect of a process of systemic feedback and appreciation. Systemic feedback and appreciation seem to entail conscious determination. Unless one prefers to imagine that everything that can occur does occur somewhere or sometime in some universe.

Ideas, values and visions also evolve as part of the system of feedback and appreciation. Entropy of substance seems to be offset by cumulation of information. As information increases, conscious design seems to acquire more complex capacity.

Even if we are of a simulation, that simulation would entail "design" unfolding under a systemic process of feedback and appreciation. Soon, we may evolve to design our own systems of simulations.

Insofar as any idea of unfolding design seems to entail conscious feedback and appreciation of measurable substance and cumulating information, it seems that the fundamental fluxors that define and allow our expression are a trinity of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. Whatever the systemic holism or algorithm they obey, they seem to abide as the Godhead of its expression.

When our moral vision becomes poor or demented, the civil system we produce will tend there to follow. If we want a more enlightened society, we have to take a share of responsibility for how our feedback affects the system. Without vision, a people are lost. Evolution as a model, without conscious respect or regard for decency, is a model that cannot support a vision of civil decency. Absent moral vision, governance tends to devolve to conscienceless people-farmers.

If atheistic evolutionists can show an objective basis for decent mores that is free from metaphysics, let them lay it out. I can always use a good laugh.

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

I agree that what is processed into measurable manifestation by consciousness is not itself conscious, but only a signifier or expression of consciousness. I do not think consciousness is "in" the measurable aspect of a brain, atom, or quark. But I do not believe any such a measurable could be manifested in the complete absence of an expression of consciousness.

I do not think consciousness need be bound to a pre-determined plan or design. I think it can appreciate, respond to, be "surprised" by, and reconcile among innumerable perspectives of itself. But for variation in situational loci and sequence, I think we are all of the same consciousness. Which I think is the meta basis for empathy. There but for fortune go "I".



Thursday, May 3, 2018

Suffering



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

Millennials tend to be too young and too recently indoctrinated to apprehend that what they think would be benign socialism would in fact be prelude to worldwide fascism. That would eliminate much of the middle class and its political influence, and it would convert most workers to desperate competitors for low wages, worldwide. The problem is that many Millennials are already enduring low wages and they make ends meet only with the help of parents' basements and governmental handouts. But increasing those handouts will mainly increase the power of the central gov, which will then become even more beholden to corporate fascists. This mess is so rotten that there is no principled easy way out. But enforcing the borders and addressing the trade deficit and the exodus of industry are good places to start. Maybe add some infrastructure jobs. Unfortunately, Millennials tend to be so clueless and indoctrinated that they oppose enforcing the border.


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


It is hardly charitable to undermine a representative republic of competent, free-thinking citizens and their intended progeny, in order to replace them with a new world order of elite sheeple farmers and wannabe sheeple. How is it "charitable" to raise a new world crop of indolent, entitlement-minded, incompetents --- who will simply incline to return the country to third world misery?


Taking more and more functions away from charities and putting them on the central gov is compounding the problems, not fixing them. When a victim gets help from a charity, he may tend to feel thankful. When he gets help from the gov, especially if over an extended time, he may become resentful that he is not being entitled to more. This kind of pyramid scheme cannot be sustained much longer.


Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Jesus did not tell us to build a gov bureaucracy to tax the people, to dispense the revenues as elites decide, and then to call such dispensation of opm "charity."


Word gets around. When everyone seems to be abusing disability claims, everyone tends to try to get his while the getting is good. The ratchet never seems to make a correction the other way, until a tipping point is reached. What starts out as understanding and tolerance soon morphs towards legalization, public funding, celebration, and eventually forced grooming.


We often tend to get more of what we consume and support. To the extent we support whining and victim-playing into adulthood, we will of course get more of it. It used to be, a volunteer charity would feel a need not just to provide for an unlucky person's immediate needs, but to help and push him to acquire and use skills to leave the nest. Nowadays, government has been conflated with charity. Problem is, it is not charity to volunteer other people's money. And gov bureaucrats that dispense welfare may feel incentives to expand their fiefdoms. Guess at whose expense. I am not a proponent of eugenics, but I do not like dysgenic and cultural drags on decent society. Another problem is, these fiefdoms, when united, now seem to feed a majority of voters. If so, the representative republic may already have been lost to people-farmers and their shills and stoolies.


The truth that most concerns me relates to promise keeping. What President has been more truthful about keeping promises than Trump? Trump is a deal maker who may get carried away with metaphors and unintentional inexactitudes. As President, I am more concerned with Trump's results than with his precise verbal fencing. Leave the parsing with the Establishmentarians. Who lie more about things that matter. Such as that they are looking out for the republic. Sorry pukes.




No mortal institution is without need of continuous improvement.

Empathy and compassion are commonly displayed among lower orders of animals.

I think consciousness is consciousness. It abides at various levels, depending on relational situation and sequence. But for relational situation and sequence, it seems obvious to me, perhaps not to you, that we are all of the same consciousness. That is the basis for innate empathy. IOW, good faith and good will. Like Jesus taught.

I do not think the people clamoring for the undermining of all religion would make for a good transition. I think they are historically naive and self-centered malcontents who would produce disaster. I don't think they are capable of establishing or defending any practical principles whatsoever.

Because they respect no principles, they claim not to be hypocrites. Except they are gigantic hypocrites, because they complain every time a Conservative does not live up to his principles. As if they had any moral standing whatsoever to complain! To have standing to complain about someone else's failure to live up to his principles, I think you need to have some principles for yourself. If Lefties can articulate or defend any sustainable principles, I would like to know what they are. S/




Eeveryone who is not intellectually blinded knows that Orwellian totalitarianism is where modern Leftism is headed. Why do you think Lefty stoolies go along with corporatists that want open borders for cheap, easily bribed, easily deluded, and easily ruled immigrants? Why do you think Lefties align themselves so easily to take the corporate funding from Soros? They take the corporate money, then imagine they are not setting themselves up for fascism under a corporate establishment! Lol.

Do you think Soros has your best interests at heart? Do you think Soros and his ilk want to let you keep a say in determining those interests? If so, why does he want to flood the nation and California with so many third-world liberty illiterates? Why does he want California, based on popular vote, to be able to elect the President?

Do you remember or ever think about the book within the book, in Orwell's 1984, about the theory and practice of oligarchic collectivism? Why are Dino-Rino oligarchs of the establishment almost entirely united against Trump? Do you want to surrender the representative republic to their efforts?

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

I agree that we are a secular nation that has a lot of Christians in it, and many of our Founders were Christians who were influenced by Christian values, such as values for respecting individual freedom and dignity (or Golden Rule).

But I would not agree that Christian people and volunteers should be conflated with nations. A nation will be comprised of all manner of people, some of whom may or may not be Christians. To suggest a nation is or is not Christian because a majority of voters or even Christians decline to avail government to replace volunteer charities would be too silly to compute.

Our government has now accorded many entitlements, and I do not disagree with all of them. Such entitlements may have to do with public empathies, but I do not think those qualify as charity or charitable. It is simply not charity to tax opm to give it to other people.

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

I agree that corporations, by political influence buying, have often put Americans, whose blood and sweat defend this nation, in an untenable position of having to compete with some of the most desperate laborers of the world. The open borders agenda seems to be about imposing this condition on workers worldwide.

Corporate mooching and welfare put American industry and independence at risk. Having gone down that path, there does not seem to be any principled easy way out.

Problem is, except for Trump, I suspect the agenda of established corporatists and the kind of managers that are selected to rise within them is to use gov to make that situation ever worse, worldwide.

There is no easy way out. Unfortunately, I suspect ever more gov programs influenced by corporatists will continue towards making.matters worse. The more Soros types cry for workers, the more it seems they plan to use gov influence to make matters worse for them.

The selection process for our profs, managers, bankers, priests, and representatives seems steadily to become ever more corrupt against laborers, small businesses, and the representative republic. Giving that system ever more money seems more likely to expedite the elimination of the middle class, leading to a fascist society that only pretends to value social fairness and justice.

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

I did not say Jesus was AGAINST gov programs. If a gov program was legitimately enacted that did not encourage able bodied people to become permanent wards of the State, I do not think He would be against it. I just think He would prefer volunteer and faith based agencies. Like Christian hospitals, etc.

I happen to think gov should sometimes take measures to invest in and improve infrastructure. In some cases, that could even include taxation for the purpose of defending the republic against depredations by influence buying oligarchs. In some cases, it could even include health care. But that would come under the heading of defending the republic, more so than under the heading of charity. Charity attempted in gross by the gov too often turns into a political or crime scheme.

***********

Socialism is cultural and genetic drag on steroids. Socialism is negative eugenics, practiced by people farmers seeking ignorant and docile sheeple to farm. Socialism drives down birth rates among productive people, as it opens borders to relieve pressure from third world nations --- so they can continue to flood the world with high fertility rates from counter productive nations. Socialists go around the bend from disapproving of eugenics to actually promoting dysgenics. Nowadays, if a person opposes dysgenics, people-farmers and their stoolies work to ensure he is labeled a phobe. Apparently, this will continue until it cannot. The unstated purpose, even if unintended, is to wipe competent representative republics off the earth.


***********

There are many ideas about God, though I am not sure it makes sense to call them definitions.

To me, a Godhead that contemporaneously reconciles to determine among all possible manifestations, in order to avoid the metaphysics of a multiverse, has all the power there is. That is what I mean by omnipotence.

I am concerned with appreciating the procession of the "eternal present" and what may be our empathetic connection with that. I am not concerned with vain questions like, could an all powerful God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it, etc. It seems madness for a mortal to try to pass on issues of original creation, etc. When I think of what is possible for the Godhead, I do not concern myself with whether the Godhead can possibly do the impossible. I see that as good sense, not as giving the Godhead "A PASS."

IOW, I do not presume impossibilities in order to try to resolve impossibilities. Rather, I try to appreciate what seems obvious: We must eat to live; we are nurtured by a system of conservation so that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction; and, as consciously aware beings, we are innately endowed with capacities for empathy.

I think consciousness is a fundament of the universe. I think consciousness from every perspective carries this common characteristic: That we differ in our perspectives only because of temporary differences in genes, forms, and situations. The more the genes, forms, and situations come to be similar, the more similarity we experience among our perspectives, and the more we tend to discover that we are of one and the same consciousness. I think this is what makes empathy innate. Even though, to ward off loneliness, consciousness formulates various perspectives. And that entails competition within a system of conservation. IOW, we have to eat to survive, but we don't have to be brutes about it.

To me, the Godhead is expressed among three fluxing fundaments: Subjective Consciousness, Objectively measurable Substance, and cumulating Information. The flux obeys a conserving algorithm. I do not concern myself with whether the Godhead wrote that algorithm as an original creation. I am simply satisfied that it abides.

I see sacred stories more as commonly appreciated metaphors and music for inspiring people to come together in empathetic appreciation, to assimilate and share unfolding values, purposes, and sciences. I do not see them as literal truths for eternally binding existentiality. For that matter, neither do I see scientific models as literal truths in themselves. Rather, they also are models of reality, not reality itself. As such, they can never make a completely true exposition of "reality." To me, to think otherwise is to reason in circles. And I try to avoid that game.

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

Less suffering as subjectively experienced by conscious organisms is consistent with evolution.

An all powerful Godhead may have all the power there is, and still lack power to do the impossible. For all I know, it may be impossible to eliminate suffering or to objectively measure how it should best be reduced.

In that case, the role of the Godhead may be more that of a Reconciler. Not to predetermine or overpower every perspective of consciousness. But to appreciate each surprise from each perspective, and to contemporaneously facilitate and reconcile the interfunctioning of all.

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

I am not dodging. I just don't see any there, there. But I do not preclude you from espousing your solution. Feel free to lay it out.

EDIT: Maybe Evil of loneliness is innate to the beingness of the Godhead. Maybe derivatives of that Evil are inherent to every attempt by the Godhead to salve loneliness. The existential gnawing of loneliness may simply be incurable, regardless of the number of iterations of conscious beingness. Maybe we are both connected and separated in consciousness and its manifold perspectives.

Maybe not even the Godhead can entirely avoid an innate angst to existentiality, that perpetually drives us all. In that case, the task is to try to make the best of it. Some people break. For them, there are the paintings of Edvard Munch.

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

Without competition, death, and destruction, there would be no purposeful evolution in a system that obeys a law of conservation of energy. Having all the power there is does not change that aspect of power.

Re: Could there be slightly less suffering and still be purposeful evolution?

Suffering is a subjective experience. And it is experienced by many organisms. If there is a way to objectively measure the cumulative sum of suffering, I don't know what it would be. So I cannot see a way to answer such a question. Could there be more technological advancement without the suffering of war? How much war is the Goldilocks amount, to put humanity on a path to technological happiness? I do not believe such questions can be answered -- either by you or by myself.

EDIT: Were I a politician, I could espouse various positions I might in my subjective judgment consider for the betterment of humanity. But I do not see a way to judge God should God thwart me.

Regardless, a conscious being's response to whatever the situational-evolutionary unfoldment, it can be purposeful. I think a society that assimilates values can evolve and move in purposeful ways. To me, that is self evident. But I do not claim to speak for you.

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

I suppose we could all imagine how we rate God on a scale of 1 to 10. Maybe that would scare some sense into God?

Steven Weinberg described how in his youth he had been a utilitarian but had been dissuaded of the notion that "the fundamental principle that guides our actions should be the greatest happiness for the greatest number" by reading Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Weinberg went on to say: "Now, Sam Harris is aware of this kind of counter argument [to utilitarianism], and says it's not happiness, it's human welfare. Well, as you make things vaguer and vaguer, of course, it becomes harder and harder to say it doesn't fit your own moral feelings, but it also becomes less and less useful as a means of making moral judgements. You could take that to the extreme and make up some nonsense word and say that's the important thing and no-one could refute it but it wouldn't be very helpful. I regard human welfare and the way Sam Harris refers to it as sort of halfway in that direction to absolute nonsense."

Personally, I fail to see how advocating for the most well-being for the most people (or the least suffering for the most people) could be any kind of "scientific" improvement over the utilitarian argument advocating for the most happiness (or pleasure) for the most people.

In both cases, the argument that such a "principle" can be measured in practice on some kind of objective, science-based scale seems juvey at a fundamental level. It's the sort of argument a militant atheist or gay hedonist might make, to try to force everyone else to accept the "objective science" of his system of values.

A madman (although, who can say what is mad nowadays) might say that a loving God should simply wipe us all out immediately, so we would therefore feel the least suffering. But a Progressive might say, wait a second, let's get Gov to try to impose the optimal level of suffering. S/

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

I am not able to get a handle for such a thought experiment. I can agree that suffering can take different paths. But to objectively quantify the net suffering or joy availed to each and/or every being is simply not something I believe I can do or remain interested in trying to do.

Similarly, I can state my subjective preferences for human population controls, but I cannot say whether such preferences would objectively lead to less net suffering. Some Buddhists may believe the better path to fulfillment is in desiring less of the material world, as opposed to desiring objectively fair redistributions to be performed by objective dispensers of morality.

Maybe you have studied Sam Harris' book, The Moral Landscape, seeking an objective measurement of "well being." I think it is juvey. But others may like it.

EDIT: Were I a politician, I could espouse various positions I might in my subjective judgment consider for the betterment of humanity. But I do not see a way to judge God should God thwart me.

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

Sorry. I'm not getting your point. Are you sure it's based in sound reasoning?

Maybe you prefer to think of evolution as nothing but random surprise. But the other side of random surprise is active response. In that, some beings endowed with consciousness can practice personal involvement and responsibility. That entails more of a slow dance than a sudden happy place bestowed by a super being that wants only to cater to you.

You seem to be complaining about how the Godhead uses evolution, as if IT should cater to your preferences without so much hard work by yourself. I can pray for you, but I cannot improve the Godhead for you. Good luck with your responsibility in that relationship.

Empathetic involvement with others does reduce suffering. So may opiods.

In time, so may other medical procedures, perhaps depending on how good faith and good will unfold. Maybe you should find purpose in helping to that end?

Because it is a question you need to answer for yourself. Why do you want not to feel pain, like a plant? Do you not want ground for empathy with others?

That might be true in your case, if you feel you are without purpose. But I doubt you are qualified to speak for others. Some people may find enough art and music in the world to feel purposely inspired and astonished by it

If you feel you have no purpose, maybe not you.

Are you upset you are not a plant? Do you really want to be as emotionally pain free as a sociopath?

The question pertains to why suffering is necessary. Not to why slightly less suffering might be possible. Death comes to all.

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Entropy, Information, and Vacuum



GALAXIES DO NOT TEND TO BE EXPANDING: Within most galaxies, as centripetal force of gravity attempts to pull stars in, that increases their rotational speed around spiral galaxy centers from the conservation of angular momentum. In turn that increases the counter acting centrifugal force, which offsets the gravity pull and contraction. As a consequence, most galaxies tend to stay pretty much the same size. Their black holes tend not to be sufficient to pull them in.

SPACE-TIME BETWEEN GALAXIES IS EXPANDING: To support a galactic, locally-increased organization or cumulation of Information, it seems necessary to expand the web around such a local galaxy, for sequence-recordation-renormalization --- which seems often to correlate with a local expansion of what we call-space-time. IOW, as each local galaxy's Information accumulates, local space-time between galaxies expands.

To support a galactic black-hole smudge-out of some of its local information, it is necessary to hold such a galaxy together. As local information is smudged out, local black holes increase. Must a galaxy's central black hole eventually swallow it? The consensus seems to be, no.

TREND: The combined trend or vector seems to point to an expansion of space-time and a black-hole consolidation of matter-energy. However, as matter-energy becomes more densely compacted among more and more black holes, does the cumulation of information reverse, to reverse the dissipation of space-time? Does gravity or consolidation of black holes eventually become forceful or dense enough to re-contract the space-time around galaxies, to consolidate as a singularity? May this lead to a near void, caused by a combination of dissipation of space-time and a smudge-out of much of local information? May this lead to a near vacuum compaction of matter-energy? May this lead to a recurring instability of a vacuum, that then leads to a recurring big-bang like explosion?

DOES ANY USEFUL INFORMATION SURVIVE A BLACK HOLE: Does a Living Algorithm retain potential information from black-hole smudge-outs? Is smudge-out information too fuzzy for mere mortals to interpret?

DARK ENERGY: Is Dark Energy that expands and stretches space-time an artifact of the vectoring cumulation of local information?

DARK MATTER: Is Dark Matter that holds galaxies together an artifact of the densification of galactic matter and energy into black holes?

ENTROPY AND VECTORS: Is the entropy associated with disorganizations of matter and energy a correlate of increases in both localized information and smudged-out information? Is entropy reversed if smudged-out information correlates with a reversal of the expansion of space-time and a reversal of the expanding cumulation of localized information?

ROLE OF CONSCIOUSNESS: Observer Effect: To look at, and to conceptualize, Information is to expand it.

ALGORITHMIC LIMITS: May there abide an algorithmic limit to the universal cumulation of localized Information, that correlates with a limit to the expansion of space-time? Were such limits met, would vectors reverse, to consolidate both space-time and matter-energy?

INSTABILITY AND IRRATIONALITY:

To a mortal in respect of the Holism, can it make sense to seek an equation to explain the equation?  An algorithm to govern the algorithm?  A Creator to create the creation?

Could any algorithm be or become self-aware or conscious of itself, to cause or change itself?

Can a perspective of consciousness ever entirely account for its own perspective?

Pi, as a pattern of decimals, plays out as endlessly non-repetitive.  Insofar as our universe is math-like, does it play out as an endless cycle of numerical balancing, in which no cycle ever quite entirely repeats itself?

An instability based entirely in math need not ever erode, tire, or age.  It could simply and perpetually sequence, even if in kaleidoscopic cycles.


Super-Being, Living Algorithm. and Math-icality


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

Some people need to believe in metaphors as if they were direct presentations of Reality. Ironically, that group would include both religious fundies and atheists that, misguidedly, think they can substitute *"objective moral truths"* for subjectively conscious appreciations of metaphors.

***Under what "objective reasoning" should the pleasure and/or non-suffering of populations of humans be morally favored over transhumans, subhumans, or nonhumans? Absent something like church forums for assimilating values and purposes in good faith and good will, I do not see how any answer (whether or not valid) to such a question can be derived under any principles of "pure reason."

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

If you want to appreciate principals of logic and reason, you might want to delve deeper to appreciate how fields of math may be activated. You might be assuming or interpreting fields of math as if they were illusions of physicality.

Nietzsche: “What therefore is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthropomorphisms: in short a sum of human relations which became poetically and rhetorically intensified, metamorphosed, adorned, and after long usage seem to a notion fixed, canonic, and binding; truths are illusions of which one has forgotten that they are illusions; worn-out metaphors which have become powerless to affect the senses; coins which have their obverse effaced and now are no longer of account as coins but merely as metal.”

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

We do not sense Reality as it presents for itself. We sense relationships and re-presentations of reality, as they are filtered and interpreted through our particular senses. Whatever the substance, body, or brain that relates, receives, senses, or stores such Information, it happens to be formed to have capacity to so sense and store such re-presented Information.

The metaphysical questions implicated are: Who or what produces the forms that have such capacity, and why?

For all we can know, the Producer may be some Being (meta-verse or meta-reconciler?) whose essence is beyond our capacity to control or predict, but not beyond our capacity to intuit and appreciate.

We can manipulate practical and measurable relationships (not physical things in themselves) to astonishing degrees and levels of significance. However, we cannot see, sense, or measure Reality directly. For all we know, all that we sense may be derivative of nothing more than a metaphysical essence as it activates and operates with an algorithmic field of math. As we ever further divide the so-called part-icles with which we relate, we may come to surmise that, ultimately, such particles are "made out of" little more than "activated math." Perhaps math under the influence of an interpenetrating and reconciling Producer that is too far beyond our kin to be able to explain itself in any literal, non-metaphoric terms to our limiting and particular perspectives.

In that case, if a person cannot appreciate metaphors, he is nerd-ily missing what is most significant about his mental life. That is something you may need to work on for yourself.

I do not care whether you prefer to believe in a meta-verse instead of a meta-reconciler. I merely think belief in a meta-reconciler is reasonable, given the alternative, and it has added capacity for helping to inspire and assimilate codes of civilizing mores --- regardless of how such mores may flux over time. I think your idea of objective mores to be derived out of nothing more than pure reason in respect of an assumption of something like a dumb multiverse is hollow, misguided, uninspiring, and historically harmful to humanity. How many millions suffered under godless Communism?

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

Maybe you mean forms of in-form-ational order can tend to arise out of chaos, notwithstanding entropy. While forms of information-poor substance tend to dissipate, forms of information-enriched substance tend to evolve by natural selection? (But what, apart from labels after the fact, favors which information-enriched bodies?)

Of course one can so conceptualize! One can conceptualize many things. To me, the trick is to conceptualize an orientation that is as consistent, coherent, and complete as possible, that does not impede science, does not run counter to intuition, and that helps to inspire decent civilization.

***********

Does the Father not feel the discipline of loneliness and the pain of disrespect?

How much euthanasia would be needed, if pain signals were eliminated? Would we need population control agents? How much technological advancement is dependent on war, as the mother of invention?

We all work under the whip of hunger and necessity. Were it otherwise, how unambitious and disrespectful would we be? Should everyone be made unambitious, so no one would feel the pain of envy?

Try yoga.

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

There are arguments and rationalizations for both orientations (multiverse and meta Reconciler), even though neither orientation seems to affect our practical physical measurements. I don't know how a multiverse could be evidenced in measurable terms. And I don't know how God could prove himself outside the math parameters for our world.

Regardless of how improbable our world may be, a metaverse person could always argue that there must be enough worlds to make ours inevitable. But any measurements he took as "evidence" would be measurements in our world. IAE, how could he provably square "natural causation" with quantum indeterminacy?

Otoh, a meta-Reconciler person can always argue that every action taken by God in our world must necessarily comport with the math parameters that limit and define our world.

Do we live in a world of natural determination or a world of reconciliation of conscious choices? I don't think an experiment can rationally tilt the argument either way. That is, if one distinguishes between rationality and rationalization. Or between determining and choosing. Or influencing and reconciling.

Maybe all that is "required" is orientation of consciousness.
*************

I think more work is needed on your ideas. Your assumption that a good life is possible without suffering seems to me to be too immature to merit a response. As to making the world objectively or secularly better or less suffering, I think that tends to self-contradiction. Suffering is inherently personal and subjective. If you imagine there is some objective standard for morality, such as "the reasonable sufferer," I think that is a nonsense path to madness or indecent respect for the free-thinking sensibilities of others.

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

Indeed. Were our language and metaphors freed of connotative relationship with our past, I think we would tend to lose wisdom that comes with historical perspective. To make oneself ignorant of one's history and development of language and metaphors would be to lose much of one's connection with one's past.

Of course, as people-farmers come to prefer to educate and indoctrinate us to become sheeple, they will prefer that all ideas that might shape or spur individual thinking be flushed down the memory hole.

Instead of banning or "hating on" the Bible, I would prefer that people put it in historical perspective. I do not mind if a person finds some ideas in the Bible to express wisdom and other ideas to express folly. I do mind that anyone would claim moral authority to ban the Bible as "hate speech."

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

I think literal truths tend to be tautological or trivial. I think the most important communications tend to be metaphorical. I think our math-based scientific models, although often practical to astonishing orders of significance, will always and necessarily be incomplete.

I agree that the idea of a meta Reconciling Consciousness is a conceptual metaphor. I do not purport to know the substance of what may be behind it, if anything. But I believe that Consciousness is part of a fluxing, Trinitarian fundament for the unfolding expression of our universe, along with measurable Substance and cumulating Information.

I think respect for an idea of a Reconciling Consciousness (God) can (not must) help inspire societies to build decent civilizations. I do not think mere empiricism can fulfill that role.


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

That's why I referred to fittest for replication.

Even so, fyi, the fact remains that such an explanation is more a label for a result than an explanation. It merely says that which is favorably replicated was most fit to be replicated. It does not answer why the niche/guide found such replication to be most fit.

When a garden flourishes with fruit, it tends to have a care-taking, weed-picking gardener. When one weed drives out all other weeds, is that mere happenstance of soil/water/weather/season/varmints, or is it something more?

Is "happenstance" an "explanation"?

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

I agree that "scientific system of mores" is like an oxymoron. I would disagree that mores can be objectively proven. I would agree that objective testing can help us find practical ways to effect desired results.

I disagree that objective testing can answer larger and more important questions, such as: To what larger purposes should I devote my work? To what kind of civilization should a decent society aspire? How much autonomy can reasonably or safely be allowed to each citizen? Can suffering, sacrifice, or discipline be put to good use?

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

You are saying things fall because that is how the math parameters for our system are set up. You are not explaining how those parameters came to be set up, nor to what extent they may come to flux.

Math models help us take measurements. Such models can never completely account for the effect of who or what is taking the measurement. To say events cannot find expression outside math-based parameters (such as those under the heading of gravity) is not to explain why such parameters exist, nor is it to explain why events at a particular level were determined.

Nor is there any math-based model that can be used to control or predict all events. We can use math of probabilities to try to predict or control gross events in respect of orders of significance, often to astonishing levels of accuracy. However, even with regard to gross events, we seem unable completely to solve the butterfly effect.

I understand that mutations occur. I understand that some may be selectively advantaged. What I take issue with is why some are selectively advantaged and others are not. If you are a breed designer, you can, to some extent, guide and control for what you want to selectively advantage. Example: Dog breeds. If you are a gene designer, you may do likewise for any species. In that case, the evolution you produced would be guided evolution (subject to a "law of unintended consequences").

The meta question begged, which cannot be "answered" except upon resort to meta concepts is: What is doing the guiding? To say the guide is nothing more than random feedback based on what is most advantageous to a particular niche is an after-the-fact "explanation." It is to take what occurs and say it must have been "most fit."

IAE, such a notion cannot explain or answer the moral question: What should we value or seek to make most advantageous?

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

Well, is a meta multiverse required to "explain" how a particular historical set of events were determined/allowed/caused/chosen out of all events that were possible within the parameters of whatever the algorithm that avails our physical and mental expression? If you prefer to believe in such a meta multiverse wherewith all possibilities find expression, then perhaps you might feel less need to believe/intuit a meta consciousness?

Even so, such belief in a meta multiverse is more a label for expressing preference not to believe in a meta consciousness than it is an empirically testable "explanation." (You cannot escape that whatever the test results you measure subject to our universe, such results would be within our universe.)

The underlying question is not whether events, things, and beings change and evolve. The question is whether that change and evolution is guided/appreciated/reconciled. To say things change because of evolution seems a bit like saying things fall because of gravity. In that sense, the words evolution and gravity are labels, not explanations. To say that which is most fit to its niche is what tends to survive and replicate is like saying those things that happen to survive and replicate are what were most fit. That is a label for a result, not an explanation. It does not answer whether what happens to survive and replicate is what was guided, reconciled, or mere happenstance or order arising out of chaos. It does not answer whether conscious appreciation is a fundament of the cosmos.

Because Jesus was smart enough to speak in parables, figures of speech, metaphors. If He thought the Old Testament was a complete and literal explanation, why would He have considered words for a New Testament to be needed? Why do you try to head butt metaphors into literalisms? How do you expect to build on good faith and good will if you always want to cut off and discard the sacred metaphors of the past? Do you think you have a provably better system of metaphors for inspiring people to come together in good faith and good will to try to assimilate and express common values and purposes? Do you have some scientific system of mores that you expect to inspire everyone to adopt?

From mortal perspective, we cannot say whether, or understand how, the cosmos or its vacuum of infinite potentiality could have had a beginning. Since we reason in terms of equations that balance (action/reaction, cause/effect, matter/antimatter, plus/minus/zero), it seems to comport better with our mode of reasoning to take the cosmic potentiality as always having been, being, and will be.

That said, the specific laws of nature that define the fluxing and unfolding parameters for our present experience of universe do seem to have had a common origin (beginning/creation).

In respect of the above, to quibble with the important lessons of Jesus (Great Commandment/good faith and Golden Rule/good will) because one quibbles with His figures of speech seems silly/juvey. To try to reason with someone who wants to confine the cosmos to some exact, literal, non-metaphoric explanation is the road to head-banging madness.

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

The unfolding manifestations of Substances that cumulate Information that are measurable to Consciousness, which itself defies complete measurement ad infinitum, is a kind of self-evidence of a connecting, empathetic, Godhead.

Because IT is mathematically infinite in potential representation in geometry and chronology, IT cannot be completely confined or controlled for any perfectly calibrated explication to any mortal.

The only evidence consists with self evidence, intuition, and innate empathy. To assume the Godhead should be provable in terms of scientific evidence is to assume the Godhead away. It is to stupidly lose the debate by unwittingly adopting the opponent's assumption that there cannot abide anything that is beyond the methods of science of science of science ....

It seems easier to believe in miracles generally than in any particular miracle. Maybe because particular miracles tend to have our hands all over them.

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

I do not think that everything that can be measured is conscious. I do think that everything that can be measured is an expression that is derivative with consciousness at some level. Sometimes closely associated with an organism, sometimes remotely associated.

As consciousness abides, receives, and relates to surrounding substance and information, it may be driven by needs, stimuli, instinct, hunger, capacity to receive or represent or abstract or identify with or appreciate information. All may be considered as varieties or forms of purposefulness. I did not suggest that purposefulness must be pre-planned, precisely vectored, or single minded. Why would you intimate such a thing?

Can a particular expression of consciousness know and have complete power over what it wants to do? I doubt it.

I don't get your notion about a non-sequitur. I did not say that consciousness itself is directly, completely, objectively measurable in respect of conservation. I indicated that the measurable forms that are substantively expressed with consciousness are subject to conservation. Otherwise, they would not be measurable. How we relate to them is how we communicate. Measurable substance is what avails the logos with which we communicate. The physical universe is a conservational sea of measurables by which communication is availed. Do you imagine you could convey ideas while outside physics?

Whatever Consciousness is, it is not a thing in itself. It cannot be expressed except in flux with Substance and Information. I am not trying to make a distinction between consciousness and awareness that would make any difference to my conceptualization.

If one prefers not to conceptualize a metaphysical multiverse, by what name does one refer to that which determines which among myriad of potential possibilities actually come into measurable manifestation? I refer to that determiner as Consciousness, which abides with perhaps innumerable local fields of perspective. I do not pretend to be able to subjugate it to any meta-meta determiner-determiner, nor to any TOE. Perhaps you are anxious because you want to measure, close, or confine that which is beyond measurement, closure, or confinement? To me, that would be a fool's errand --- especially were it to be undertaken by anyone who seeks to give or receive guidance about moral purposefulness.

No local perspective of consciousness has power to control, determine, or reconcile how the universe as a whole unfolds. But each can part-iciate. Perhaps in physically measurable terms, that participation may entail feedback between the sum of the parts and the conservation of the holism. Reconciliation. We do not have free will to overrule the parameters that define and avail us. We do avail expression of participatory will.


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

To be conscious is to be driven by purposefulness. I think consciousness is a fundament, as much as substance and information.

I think substance is measurable only in respect of equational balancing, I.e., conservation.

I think communication among perspectives of consciousness would not avail but for the law of conservation.

I think forms and patterns of all kinds can tend to spread, replicate, and perpetuate as they find a niche that supports them, and vice versa.

I think events tend to be contemporaneously determined, not pre-caused. I think events unfold as permissible correlates. They are not pre-determined except as to parameters, but they are conserved and reconciled.

I think participation in determining events is fundamental to communication.

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

There are many ideas about God, though I am not sure it makes sense to call them definitions.

To me, a Godhead that contemporaneously reconciles to determine among all possible manifestations, in order to avoid the metaphysics of a multiverse, has all the power there is. That is what I mean by omnipotence.

I am concerned with appreciating the procession of the "eternal present" and what may be our empathetic connection with that. I am not concerned with vain questions like, could an all powerful God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it, etc. It seems madness for a mortal to try to pass on issues of original creation, etc. When I think of what is possible for the Godhead, I do not concern myself with whether the Godhead can possibly do the impossible. I see that as good sense, not as giving the Godhead "A PASS."

IOW, I do not presume impossibilities in order to try to resolve impossibilities. Rather, I try to appreciate what seems obvious: We must eat to live; we are nurtured by a system of conservation so that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction; and, as consciously aware beings, we are innately endowed with capacities for empathy.

I think consciousness is a fundament of the universe. I think consciousness from every perspective carries this common characteristic: That we differ in our perspectives only because of temporary differences in genes, forms, and situations. The more the genes, forms, and situations come to be similar, the more similarity we experience among our perspectives, and the more we tend to discover that we are of one and the same consciousness. I think this is what makes empathy innate. Even though, to ward off loneliness, consciousness formulates various perspectives. And that entails competition within a system of conservation. IOW, we have to eat to survive, but we don't have to be brutes about it.

To me, the Godhead is expressed among three fluxing fundaments: Subjective Consciousness, Objectively measurable Substance, and cumulating Information. The flux obeys a conserving algorithm. I do not concern myself with whether the Godhead wrote that algorithm as an original creation. I am simply satisfied that it abides.

I see sacred stories more as commonly appreciated metaphors and music for inspiring people to come together in empathetic appreciation, to assimilate and share unfolding values, purposes, and sciences. I do not see them as literal truths for eternally binding existentiality. For that matter, neither do I see scientific models as literal truths in themselves. Rather, they also are models of reality, not reality itself. As such, they can never make a completely true exposition of "reality." To me, to think otherwise is to reason in circles. And I try to avoid that game.

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

I don't disagree that we don't know. There are conundrums with knowing much that is not trivial. For all we know, we are living in some math-based simulation. But how we act is often based on which way we incline.

My concern is: What is needed to incline a citizenry to establish and sustain a decent society for free-thinking responsible minded adults? Other people may prefer a citizenry of sheep or mind slaves that can be pulled around by corrupt elites that believe almost solely in their power and pleasure.

From what I gather from History, Christian inclinations have tended towards the first, while Islamic inclinations have tended towards the latter. Half the population is below average intelligence or competence, and perhaps they especially need group assurances to inspire and assimilate them. Other people may more likely sense the changing metaphoric values of sacred stories and tradition. To try to do away with such stories wholesale tends, I think, to loose counterproductive anarchy and mayhem upon the land.

Some people of good faith and good will believe dumb nature can provide inspiration enough. Presumably, many of them believe in some basis for moral empathies that is higher than happenstance. Their actions suggest faith in a source of higher mindedness, even if in their words they disclaim any idea of god. To me, however, God and a source of higher mindedness are one and the same.

Other people have been so turned off by religion or so filled with their own self esteem that they feel entitled to deploy every pretense and every outrage to take pleasure in acquiring and abusing power over others. Cannily, they often claim to be some kind of oracles of truth, here to save the multitudes from deception. Some become so zealous they deceive themselves to believe they are the one shining virtue.

You suggest a stance of not-knowing. I don't disagree. To believe is not to know. Neither is to doubt. What I care about is a stance of acting. How we behave. And I believe how we behave and what we believe and how we tip tends to be indicative of whether we prefer the first (representative republicanism) over the latter (mind enslavement).

You seem to have faith that we someday may actually know whether there abides a multiverse. Of course, we can play tricks with definitions and, whatever we find, declare it to be a multiverse or evidence of it. Problem is, to open a gateway, wormhole, or even insight into the workings of a multiverse tends, I think, necessarily to make it part of our system. Part of our universe. Which puts us back to square one.

I am not a fan of Pascal's Wager. Fruits of possible Heaven do not factor much into my belief system. I am far more concerned with fruits of possible decent civilization.

You seem to believe the masses would be better served by leading, cajoling, or perhaps even forcing them to give up their sacred metaphors. Perhaps because you believe you could fill that void with a better appreciation of "the truth" about moral empathies and purposes. As if to give up poetry, art, and literature in favor of spinning ever more fanciful math-based theories about a "dumb" nature. But I think that is the road to Hollow Men.

I don't follow your notion that Occam's Razor is better served by an idea of a multiverse than by an idea of a meta-Reconciler. IAE, I believe both notions will perpetually proceed with their own conundrums.

I end with this: I suspect much of what we become, both in moral character and in scientific prowess, has a self-fulfilling aspect. What we become tends to follow what we consume --- physically and mentally. I suspect we may someday acquire capacity to develop and/or preside over our own math-based simulations. But I doubt we will ever have an entirely consistent, coherent, and complete explanation for our position inside of beingness.


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

A human being expresses consciousness.

I think humanity would benefit by thinking deeper about the nature of conscious awareness and various limiting perspectives of it. That entails a process of feedback and meditation. I think consciousness is consciousness, and it is connecting --- even though it may bond to limiting perspectives such that it is only dimly aware of it. What is identity? If "you" had your genes and memories switched out with mine, would you no longer be you? Under our genes and memories, I suspect we are all of the same fundament. (There but for fortune go I.)

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

A trip you may prefer not to take:

The other day I was thinking about the nature of reality. That is, whether it is "really" more math-like than physical-like. I do not think any physical model can really scale our universe in any 3-D or 4-D model. I do think slices of it can be represented, as by arbitrarily selecting some particular planet or galaxy as being a center. In that way, visible conical slices of our visible universe may be re-presentable in a 4-D virtual presentation projected by a computer.

Some people think of our world or universe as being much like a computer. That got me thinking about the possible limits of computer aided projectionism. Which seems to relate to what some people are thinking about a matrix or simulation or a Type 3 or Type 4 "alien" being.

A possible Type 4 Godhead:

Imagine a super-being with computer-enhanced senses, memory, and projective iterative capacity. What I would call a kind of Living Algorithm.

No mortal can construct a physical model that would demonstrate in real 4-D that our space-time (sequence-recordation-renormalizing web) seems to express: A universe in which most galaxies appear to be near equidistant in all vector directions from each next galaxy, and so on. IOW, a universe in which space appears to be stretching more or less uniformly between galaxies, so that each galaxy, from its perspective, appears to be in a center of the visible universe, with no galaxy approaching much more so-called empty space than any other. IOW, with space expanding between galaxies, but otherwise having no discernible boundary or edge. Such a situation of stretchable space can be physically analogized, but not physically demonstrated in its entirety at any one time in any scaled 3-D model. At least, not to any mortal incapable of occupying multiple perspectives at the same time across multiple frames of reference.

HOWEVER, a computer fed with enough data could project a conical slice of the visible universe from the perspective of an Earthling. Such slice could be projected on a flat screen, a curved balloon surface, or in a 3 or 4 D virtual reality projection.

And it could project such a slice from any possible star perspective along any possible cone. It could project each such slice with clocks renormalized for comparison purposes to any local perspective(s).

Now, imagine a super-being with computer enhanced senses to allow it to imagine and/or project such information. With capacity to zoom in to take a special interest in any local situation. Perhaps even with iterative capacity, to experience multiple or innumerable perspectives all at once, renormalized with its super-perspective of time (reconciliation of chronology-protection for all loci). IOW, with capacity to experience and feel the unfolding quality of every local perspective of consciousness and every local recordation of information.

Such a super-being would be like a Living Algorithm. With capacity to connect, experience, and reconcile every perspective.

Q: Would each of its iterative expressions be like a separate god, or would all connect, entangle, superimpose, coordinate, and reconcile as one Godhead?

Insofar as our experience of beingness seems to entail three fundaments (being consciousness and measurable substance and cumulating information), could such a Godhead account for the unfolding flux, expression, and reconciliation of all manifestations of such fundaments? Could this constitute a Type 4 intelligence, to be considered alongside Michiko Kaku's types (0,1,2 and 3)?

From our mortal perspectives, how could we imagine the "physical components" of any such a computation-aided super-being? I doubt we can. The "stuff" that may comprise it and/or its field of algorithmic math would seem to remain metaphysical to us --- at least so long as our perspectives remain tied to mortality.

In a way, as we mediate, may we be feeding back to IT?

If so, what may be IT's algorithmic response, as what we call our universe dissipates towards ever more entropic disorganization of Substance, even as it cumulates ever more recordation and organization of Information?

I am just an egg. :)

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

So you are quite sure of yourself as an oracle of truth, to save the multitudes from deception, metaphors, and poetry? Cool. S/

Feelings and appearances are not real? What about relationships? Or theories of physics that are incomplete?

Apart from trivialities and tautologies, I'm not confident there is much objective truth that is not tinged with subjectivity. I think consciousness is a fundament with the flux, much as measurable substance and cumulating information. A practical key seems to be in how what we take as "truth" is useful to our purposes. And our purposes tend to be subjective.

Now I think you are cheating, by diverting and limiting to fundamentalist creationists. Or maybe Giant Flying Spaghetti Monsters? Or maybe Pastafarians?

I do not concern myself with them. Or with an original creation or creator. I am concerned with a meta-Reconciler. Which I think is reasonable to refer to as God.

If you did not mean by your argumentation to denigrate belief in a general idea of a meta-Reconciler, I think it was incumbent on you to say so.

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

Whatever the Reconciler does will accord with math parameters. So math cannot be used to prove any special god intervention. The miracle is the universe itself, and our availment to participate in how it unfolds. It may be that the Reconciler has different levels and qualities of special interest, but I do not see any way to prove that, apart from feelings and intuitions innate to each individual.

Some make an anthropic argument that the fine tuning for our universe entails a miraculous involvement. Others "explain" the fine tuning by imagining there must be a perhaps infinite number of parallel universes, and ours just happens to be one that allows life to unfold.

There are reasons to believe or not believe. But I do not think upon miracles as constituting proof either way. Even when something seemingly inexplicable occurs, can you know whether it occurred by chance, by science of alien intervention, or by God? By what miracle does there seem to abide any uncaused agent of causation? Are events caused by an entirely dumb nature, or are they contemporaneously determined with reconciliations of conscious involvement? Are we all connected in consciousness?

Still, when you consider the various human expressions of seemingly godlike talents --- in music, art, math, and science --- one may get an eerie sense of something faint but insistent that guides us. Have you ever worked on a difficult problem that seemed insolvable, then awakened with the solution in your brain, almost as if put there by a higher power?

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

Now I think you are cheating, by diverting and limiting to fundamentalist creationists. Or maybe Giant Flying Spaghetti Monsters? Or maybe Pastafarians?

I do not concern myself with them. Or with an original creation or creator. I am concerned with a meta-Reconciler. Which I think is reasonable to refer to as God.

If you did not mean by your argumentation to denigrate belief in a general idea of a meta-Reconciler, I think it was incumbent on you to say so.


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

It was explained. Simply and clearly. But you cannot understand. I wonder what that means?

I'll try again:

- Science works with hypotheticals that are selected and meant to be testable with data that is MEASURABLE.
- Everything that is manifested to physical measurability necessarily conforms with limits allowed under laws of physics.
- Whatever may become measurably manifest within the rules of physics cannot be measured to be outside the rules of physics.
- So long as an event conforms to math-based rules of physics (or statistics), it cannot be evidenced to have been decided or CAUSED outside of physics.

- However, quantum mechanics does not specify every precise unfoldment within any system of math-based laws.
- This is why many physicists resort to an idea of a multiverse. In that way, they try to preserve their idea that every event that occurs is entirely consistent with natural (non-god reconciled) "causation."
- Under their causation-faith, a metaphysical idea of a multiverse somehow saves their idea that every event in our universe is entirely ruled (pre-determined?) by natural "causation." IOW, by imagining a metaphysical multiverse, some shout as a kind of fundie dogmatic belief that they have disproven or dis-evidenced any idea of a causal role for a metaphysical Reconciler.

- However, a god-believer can just as validly say that his belief in a metaphysical Reconciler is no more metaphysically unreasonable than a belief in a metaphysical multiverse "where every event that is possible is made to occur in some universe."
- In both cases, the meta-god believer and the meta-multiverse believer will observe the same QM evidence, but will INTERPRET THE EVIDENCE as supporting his faith as being the more reasonable (and parsimonious) "explanation of how causation is reconciled."
- In neither case could such evidence falsify the main assumption (untestable postulation), because both are based on assumptions that are beyond physics, i.e., metaphysical.

- At that point, what "should" (in any principled sense of science and/or morality) tip the belief scale?
Whatever it is, I would call it intuition, introspection. Maybe even good faith empathy, conscious self-evidence, or common sense. If both belief systems are equally non-hindering to science, but one better avails a more consistent, coherent, and complete assimilation of civilizing mores, then which belief system would make the most common sense?

Bottom line: It is stupid to complain that a system of physics based on measurables cannot be dis-evidenced based on evidence that is measurable. Rather, the only "evidence" consists in evidence and experience that no math-based system explains all of causation in our universe.

You are committing the fallacy of mis-interpreting the role of evidence, to complain as if there were no evidence. But there is evidence that the "explanation" of that which is naturally non-predictable but multi-possible is beyond physics, that is, metaphysical.

So what you seem really to be complaining about is that such evidence cannot sustain proof or falsifiability concerning the character of that metaphysics. IOW, you are simply complaining that your unprovable postulation of a meta-multiverse is somehow (unprovably) "more evidenced" than the postulation of a believer in a meta-Reconciler. IOW, you are merely complaining about the interpretation of the EVIDENCE, which is equally available to both meta-assumptions. To argue as if faith in a meta-Reconciler is less evidenced than faith in a rationalization of a meta-multiverse is simply silly.

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

THE GODHEAD:

Might syncretism, as it becomes computer aided, lead to common or renormalizing synthesis?

THE GODHEAD:

Imagine a super-being with computer-enhanced senses, memory, and projective iterative capacity. What I call a Living Algorithm.

No mortal can construct a physical model that would demonstrate in real 4-D that our space-time (sequence-recordation-renormalizing web) seems to express: A universe in which most galaxies appear to be near equidistant in all vector directions from each next galaxy, and so on. IOW, a universe in which space appears to be stretching more or less uniformly between galaxies, so that each galaxy, from its perspective, appears to be in a center of the visible universe, with no galaxy approaching much more so-called empty space than any other. IOW, with space expanding between galaxies, but otherwise having no discernible boundary or edge. Such a situation of stretchable space can be physically analogized, but not demonstrated in any 3-D or 4-D model.

HOWEVER, a computer fed with enough data could project a conical slice of the visible universe from the perspective of an Earthling. Such slice could be projected on a flat screen or in a 3 or 4 D virtual reality projection. And it could project such a slice from any possible star perspective along any possible cone. And it could project each such slice with clocks renormalized for comparison purposes to any local perspectives. Now, imagine a super-being with computer enhanced senses to allow it to imagine and/or project such information. With capacity to zoom in to take a special interest in any local situation. Perhaps even with iterative capacity, to experience multiple or innumerable perspectives all at once, renormalized with its super-perspective of time (reconciliation of chronology-protection for all loci). IOW, with capacity to experience and feel the unfolding quality of every local perspective of consciousness and every local recordation of information.

Such a super-being would be like a Living Algorithm. With capacity to experience and reconcile every perspective.

Q: Would each of its iterative expressions be like a separate god, or would all connect, entangle, superimpose, coordinate, and reconcile as one Godhead? Insofar as our experience of beingness seems to entail three fundaments (being consciousness and measurable substance and cumulating information), could such a Godhead account for the unfolding flux, expression, and reconciliation of all manifestations of such fundaments? Could this constitute a Type 4 intelligence, to be considered alongside Michiko Kaku's types (0,1,2 and 3)?

From our mortal perspectives, how could we imagine the "physical components" of any such a computation-aided super-being? I doubt we can. The "stuff" that comprises it and its field of algorithmic math, would seem to remain metaphysical to us, at least while we are mortal. In a way, as we mediate, are we feeding back to IT? And what may be IT's algorithmic response as what we call our universe dissipates towards ever more entropic disorganization of Substance even as it cumulates ever more organization of Information?

I am just an egg. :)