Sunday, February 22, 2009
Suppose “appearance of physics” may rationally be considered a co-dependent result of a continuous synchronizing and re-normalizing of relations among perspectives of Consciousness (“observers”).
If so, to factor each perspective of Consciousness into each systemic sequencing of re-normalization, must not some Factor’er (God) be exercising capacity to evaluate and account for all layers and levels of perspectives of Consciousness?
Intuitively, must not God — by some supernatural means or holistic device of mathematical leveraging — know, perceive, or record at least all the information that each of us knows, perceives, and records?
THE HARD PROBLEMS ---
Is Nature “real,” or is Nature only appearance, derivative of Mind of God and Math?
Does God leverage power from Math, or does Math get leverage from God (or both)?
Does Consciousness account for Physics, or does Physics account for Consciousness (or both)?
Is Holistic Awareness secondary to competitions among Particular Perspectives, or are Particular Perspectives of Consciousness synchronized by the Whole (or both)?
Is “Free Will” responsive to a dualistically ambiguous Feedback Loop, such that the consciousness of holistic God and the consciousness of any particular Perspective of God are dualistically co-dependent, each on feedback of the other?
May a “Meta-Pause” for co-dependent feedback be implicated in the sensation of continuity, rather than discreteness, in one’s experience of present Time?
Is local free will exercised non-locally, in advance of thought, and only appreciated and rationalized in thought, after the fact?
Should Reasoning be adduced and applied top down, bottom up, or “simultaneous down-up”?
MAN HEARING VOICE OF GOD:
God: I‘m here.
Man: Show me a special sign.
God: I cannot show you a sign, except in synchronicity.
Man: Then you’re irrelevant.
God: Not to intuitive empathy; look to the math.
Man: We’re scientists now; we look to empiricism.
God: Well, as scientists, how do you get something from nothing?
Man: We postulate, given enough space and time, that anything can happen.
God: But, where do you get this “space and time”?
Man: Same place you did.
God: Look, we’re all in this together.
Man: What you mean “we,” Kimo Sabe?
Man: I know I am, but what are you?
Illusions of variable twists on Units of Space (or, better, Units of pure Potential) are continuously presented to us. Such presentations are representative of sequential build ups of meta-girding algorithms. The mixing, building, and organizing of vertical and horizontal compartments of “daemon algorithms” sequentially builds new Information into our universal system.
Each Perspective that translates aspects of such build-ups into sensory perception will interpret a “continuity of chronology or Time,” regardless of whether “time itself” is discrete, stands still, or even exists.
Thus, in referring to each fundamental Unit that may be interpreted to perception in respect of a Fundamental Algorithm, it may be more parsimonious or elegant “To Metaphor” such Unit as a Unit of Space (or of Potential), rather than as a unit of space-time.
This is because time and space-time may be better conceptualized as “sub-derivative of the derivative” of the “unit of potential-space,” which itself is derivative of the Fundamental Algorithm. That is, the concept of “Sequence” in Organizations of Fundamental Algorithms would seem to be more fundamental than a concept of “time itself.”
What we perceive as “Space” may be conceptualized as a perspective or interpretation of representation of a given and limited number of Fundamental Algorithms, “as if” each iteration of such Algorithm represented its own "adjoining" Unit of Potential Space. In a more fundamental respect, however, the set sum of such Units of Space Potential may be considered as derivative of a single “Point of Meta-Mind,” imaging and interacting with one Fundamental, Seeding, Teleological Algorithm.
In a way, Natural Selection explains evolution like Gravity explains Physics: Things change; and things fall. And so, what do we know now that we did not know before?
Darwin explained natural selection in respect that, in every population of organisms (or population of populations?), there is always variation, some of which is heritable and advantageous to its possessors, and there is always pressure of population on the supply of food, which results in a constant struggle for life among conspecifics. In this struggle, those organisms which possess some heritable advantage over their rivals will be naturally selected.
Likewise, in every population of inanimate Organizations of patterns (or ideas, customs, or memes?), there is always some variation, some of which is preservable and “advantageous to its possessors,” and there is always “entropic pressure of Demi-Urge,” which results in a constant “competition for preservation” among conspecifics. In this struggle, those organizations of patterns which possess some preservable advantage over their rivals will be naturally selected.
Thus, those holonic organizations that have better local advantages will be favored. And, those organizations of (daemonic) algorithms by which such holonic organizations are presented will be coordinately favored. Thus, there emerges a kind of “natural selection” among imaged patterns of (inanimate) algorithms.
Thus, those (inanimate) patterns organized with the sympathetic resonances for better “anticipating” and surviving the synchronous actions of the Holistic Mind Substance will be the patterns made most advantageous to survive and replicate.
ASSUMPTION OF NATURAL SELECTION:
However, the problem with “Natural Selection” is that it assumes Evolutionary Change is fully accounted for by “Nature,” with no involvement or guidance from God (holistic source of Consciousness), or, at least, that science and Math can have nothing rational to say about whether or how God may play a role. In that respect, advocates of Natural Selection “assume what they only think to prove.”
EVIDENCE VIA MATH:
But, may math have something rational and worthwhile to say about whether or how God may play a role? For that, ought one to give more consideration to math and to the character of consciousness?
EVOLUTION OF CHOICE MAKING WITHIN DEGREES OF FREEDOM:
MIND OF GOD AND MATH:
Perhaps, innate capacity for sensation, perception, choice, will, and Consciousness (“God”) has been with us always, implicated in a fundamental defining relationship whereby Meta-Mind of God avails images of Units of space-time for being organized in patterns amenable of mathematical representation via a basic Algorithm, as such Algorithm interacts with Substance of Meta-Mind. (How does one “touch” or shape an algorithm in one’s mind, without physics? I don’t know, but some “substance” of God seems to do that.)
ABODE OF GOD:
For all we know, God may not occupy space or time in any way amenable to our conceptualization. Regardless, whatever the abode God occupies, God may have needed only the capacity to merge a “Fundamental Algorithm” with a “teleological seed” in order to define, limit and number the “degrees of freedom” that we perceive as Space, Time, Matter, Energy.
Conceptualize one fundamental form of Teleological Algorithm, imaged and defined by Mind of God to seed, “replicate,” and limit its own “mutually exclusive and exhaustive number of indiscernible copies.”
Suppose, once God imaged such an Algorithm for being applied to meta-substance of Mind of God, such image sprang from “point of God’s Mind” to self-replicate to the limits of such Algorithm’s internal design, to explode in all directions
IDENTITY OF OTHERWISE INDISCERNIBLES:
Thus, each replicate of such fundamental Algorithm would be indiscernible in its relation to any other, as such. However, each would respect a same design, requiring that a fixed number of replicates shall occupy the “place of image in God’s Mind.”
PRINCIPLE OF MUTUAL EXCLUSION:
Conceptualize that no two replicates would be permitted to occupy the same unit of space-time as conceptualized within Mind of God. Thus, God’s “Demi-Urge” would unite to endow each replicate with capacity to “sense” and be aware of its neighbors, to react so as to exclude them from occupying its same unit of space-time.
DEGREES OF FREEDOM:
Conceptualize that each Unit of space-time so defined or presented by its (daemon) Algorithm or Unit would be subject to parameters of expression respecting how it would be sensed by its neighbors and, potentially, by all others. That is, each Unit may capacitate varying “degrees of freedom,” features, or aspects of density, inertia, mass, spin, charge, polarity, radioactivity, transference, or radiation, and yet remain “equal in algorithmic potential” with all others. For example, an increase in density would be mathematically offset by a decrease in space. And so on. Thus, each otherwise identical Algorithm would express a “discernibly different Unit.”
SET, NUMBER, AND SIZE:
So, there would be a pre-set maximum for the Whole of All of space-time to be occupied by the Sum each and every Particular Unit of such set. During expansion up to such limit, each Algorithmic expression of a Unit of space-time would “Compete” with its neighbors regarding how it would go about occupying and giving expression to its assigned Unit. For such competition, the Demi-Urge would necessarily press each daemon Unit to sense and react to its neighbors in their competing for position and expression within the total of space-time allowed for all.
In respect of “principle of mutual exclusion” among Units, each Unit would necessarily recognize and react to and with its competitors. In such competition, each Variable Unit, having been precisely replicated out of one original, may be brought to press upon, compress, twist, spin, pull, oscillate, resonate, charge, accelerate, and synchronize with its neighbors or polarized replicates. That is, they would “sense” aspects of how they were variably expressed within their degrees of freedom.
ORGANIZATIONS OF SENSATENESS:
Each daemon Algorithmic Unit will recognize others with which it is or has been “in contact.” However, local Patterns of Organization of such Units may or may not recognize one another as such. What may capacitate a particular system of organized Units with potential to key or lock on any other, to ignore, neutralize, repel, attract, polarize, unite, merge, catalyze, react, change, replicate, feed, or procreate it? Why should any such pattern react as an organization, rather than merely as a random collection of individual Units?
Each Unit, as it expands its potential in any one dimension (such as in density, inertia, mass, spin, charge, polarity, radioactivity, transference, or radiation) may thereby restrict the synchronized range of opportunities or parameters for its nearby cospecifics to do likewise. Degrees of freedom for how each Unit relates to each nearby or polarized cospecific may be limited. Similarly, an Organization of such Units may be limited in how it may relate, as a pattern, to nearby Patterns. Thus, organizations of patterns of units of space may come to key or lock on one another, similarly as would individual Units of space-time. Thus, Organized Patterns may also come to “sense” one another, as co-specific patterns, to ignore, neutralize, repel, attract, polarize, unite, merge, catalyze, react, change, replicate, feed, or procreate with or upon one another.
Thus, the Holistic System of Units, as a Synchronized Set, must respect the limits and parameters as set by the fundamental Algorithm that defines each of its component Unit-Parts. Yet, even the Holism, as such, may have its own degrees of freedom, perhaps unbounded.
Plato, in talking about essential forms, was not far from a deeper concept of essential formulas, or math, relating not to “ethereal forms” in space, but to Algorithms within Mind-Wave of God, of which space-time geometry is derivative.
How, then, would such Holism “choose” how to express ITSELF from among its (finite yet unbounded?) degrees of freedom? And, among degrees of freedom availed to each individual Unit-Part, how are the “choices” it manifests made? For every locus, level, and layer of organized Units for which degrees of freedom are availed, how are “choices” made, if not by a Chooser? For convenience, may one not just as well label such chooser as “Consciousness”?
REAL, EMERGENT, APPARENT, AND GUIDED “RANDOMNESS”:
If and when there is a Meta-Conscious Chooser, such may account for “guided randomness.”
If and when a perception, event, or thing is completely determined, then an uninformed observer may be misled to believe it entailed “apparent randomness.”
If and when preexisting conditions or forces bias the direction of an otherwise random mix, such may entail “emergent randomness.”
If and when a mathematical problem of probability is trivially posed, its solution for any particular outcome may entail “real randomness.”
If interactions among some fundamental Units entail “real degrees of freedom,” then it may be rational to intuit a Meta-Chooser,” as if God, absent higher intervention of consciousness, were to delegate finely tuned choices to be “decided” by “meta-random-number-generator-components-within-fundamental-algorithms.”
Otherwise, if “physics” has to punt to “randomness,” then what is IT that synchronizes the random choices? Who or what chooses how and when a choice-making function should “touch”? But for Mind of God, how could functions in respect of randomness have meaningful relation to any intelligent form of consciousness?
Meta-Mind, in conceiving the Fundamental Algorithm, has unleashed its Demi-Urge, revealed to us as an entropic explosion from approaching a kind of perfect order towards perfect disorder, i.e., approaching towards a complete dissipation of heat energy.
In trade, Meta-Mind may be acquiring ever more Information, in the form of ever more organization of Meta-Algorithms.
ORGANIZATIONS OF holonic hierarchies:
Each Organization of Units may be defined in respect of its own organizing principle. In (daemonic) mathematical representation, this would entail solving for an algorithm for representing the fundamental Algorithms which are organized under it.
Thus, compartments for containing sets of algorithmic units may be represented and formed, horizontally and vertically.
But no such a compartment of algorithms would ever be complete in itself. Even the Fundamental Algorithm does not subsist without being imaged with Mind of God. Higher algorithms that may encompass algorithms encompassed within algorithms also would not be complete in themselves. Rather, to be relevant, they would relate to neighboring algorithms with which to cooperatively function.
To “function,” such organizations of algorithms would need to be oriented towards “solving” some chosen problem, purpose, or choice.
Otherwise, however, each compartment of algorithms would not be imaged by God as a fundamental Unit, but as an encompassing Holon or whole set of particular sub-units. Depending on perspective, such holons may subsist horizontally and vertically. That is, each may be of separate particularity, within an even more encompassing set. And so on.
Thus arise hierarchies and kingdoms of holons, depending on an observer’s point of view, frame of reference, and intention of function. That is, depending on choice of perspective, there may be holons and perspectives of holons, regressively, “all the way down.”
Within our Common Universe, until burst by God, all holonic experiences may be enclosed and synchronized in respect of one most fundamental and encompassing Algorithmic Seed, which constrains and defines each Unit of space-time, as we perceive it, as well as all such Units and Perspectives of same.
All other algorithms for representing various perspectives of combinations and organizations of such Fundamental Algorithm would, ambiguously, be both above and below the Fundamental Algorithm. But the algorithmic organizations may be defined to relate to one another vertically or horizontally, depending on orientation, purpose, and perspective, i.e., that of which they are desired “to solve.”
Such organizations, orientations, and perspectives may build upon and interact with one another, in various fractal or fractioning ways, to account for all of our compartmentalized perspectives.
Such may be guided under Conscious, Synchronizing, Will of God, by leveraging and interacting Meta Substance to image and interact with permutations, associations, and orientations of the Fundamental Algorithm.
As algorithms become stronger in Organization for storing Information in Advantageous ways, they may become more separately independent and less energetically reactive. Information may increase, while Energy (reactiveness and physical change) dissipates.
Algorithms thus organized into Holonic Hierarchies may compete among themselves, perhaps until only two remain. Once down to two, perhaps one could not eliminate the other without “killing” all that defined itself. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8EibLa0FTE. Yet, any “truce” may be uneasy. If one did “kill” the other, what theretofore held the organization of Information together may be exploded in yet another “Big Bang,” to be based on a new fundamental algorithm or paradigm, “learned” out of the experience of the previous.
Although Numbers are infinite, the number of iterations of the basic Algorithm “touched” by God, for being layered, leveled, numbered, and imaged by God, may not be infinite. Rather, our “physical” universe may be measurably limited only in respect of its defining Algorithm, whose own derivation is derivative of interaction with God. Perhaps there is a measurably maximum potential size to the space of our universe only so long as God remains committed to imaging, and not replacing or re-mixing, God’s otherwise Fundamental Algorithm established for limiting, defining, and “Designing” our universe.
Unless an observer orients a mathematical formula within a holography to “solve for” something that is otherwise only fuzzily intuited to his perspective, then the formula, not subsisting in itself, would serve no function. But, each conscious observer is on a life path for interpreting representations and “solutions” about Reality. So, Consciousness generally will take a perspective of a formula and orient the formula to solve (or approximate) for some variable potential that is then and there of interest to that perspective.
Just because all Units (of space-time) may be “Equal In Potential” does not mean they are equal in orientation or in presently expressed Qualia (such as for respecting how or for what they are to be directed or put to use, to be applied to “Solve For,” or to present interpretations and representations).
An algorithmic function or formula for relating several variables, like a “law of nature,” is to be used and directed. Depending on context and orientation for how such function is employed, different variables may emerge in different values or relations.
Until an orientation or purpose (or Demi-Urge) is directed or chosen, the potential that may emerge from applying such existing function will remain “fuzzy,” unknown, unsolved for, unobserved, and “uncollapsed” --- perhaps not unlike the potential within a standing wave or a fuzzy “zero point” or a virtual void of a “unit of empty space.” Thus, a Unit (of space), as governed by its Fundamental Algorithm, carries much more potential than may otherwise be conceived for so-called “empty space.”
Perhaps, the reason I cannot travel to distantly represented stars is because I have not learned how to access their Meta-Formulas or “wormholes,” so that I would have to pierce a lot of in-between daemonic formulas to get to them.
Regardless, what is IT, which chooses how meta-formulas should at any locus be oriented to “solve for” the concerns of each perspective-observer?
Answer (?): Meta Mind, synchronizing and leveraging hierarchical power and compartmentalizing and delegating perspectives, choices, and functions by imaging organizations of a fundamentally conceived Algorithm.
Existence of Meta-Algorithms is derivative of Meta-Mind imaging their fundamental aspects as if “touching” Meta-Substance. By mathematical imaging, God leverages and telescopes powers and consciousness of empathy.
God gets power from math, and math gets power from God.
Thus, “Nature” has an ambiguously metaphysical and physical aspect, i.e., substance of meta-mind (subjective supernatural) in feedback-concert with mathematical algorithms (objective nature).
FEEDBACK LOOP BEYOND LOGIC:
There could not be “Empty Space” derivative of Numbers were Numbers not derivative of a leveraging Consciousness (God), and were God’s power not derivative of God’s leveraging of Algorithms of Numbers.
“Free Will” may be responsive to a dualistically ambiguous Feedback Loop, such that the consciousness of holistic God and the consciousness of any particular Perspective of God (human being) are dualistically empathetic and co-dependent, each on synchronizing feedback of the other?
May God (Mind-Substance) only be Conscious of the lowest image level of God’s Fundamental Algorithm, or is God aware of higher Organizations of such Algorithm?
Well, if God has capacity to image the lowest common Algorithm, there seems no reason to believe God would not have capacity to image effects of their competitive organizations.
Consider the eerie associations and epiphenomena that have been produced out of “nothing but” Mind of God imaging Algorithms.
BASIS OF SPIRITUAL MORALITY:
Intuited Interconnecting Empathy.
The “game” is about art, science, purpose, empathy. Empathy entails enlightened altruism. Pursuing enlightened altruism entails synchronizing competition and cooperation, artistic skill, anticipating augurs and strategies, competing to learn via game theory. Pursuing and progressing towards entertainment, happiness, fulfillment.
Monday, February 16, 2009
I intuit perception of space-time occupational exclusivity may have to do with a defining consciousness, holographically resonating in respect of an associated imaging of an algorithmic system. Resonance of pure consciousness may not, itself, occupy space-time. Compressing all representational particles may amount to imaging them as occupying the same point in such a way as no longer to resonate in any separate relation. Ceasing separate resonance, they become perceived to condense to a single point. Ceasing all imaged resonance, they would wink out. Yet, General Consciousness would not wink out.
It is not that consciousness is “in” particles, metals, dirt, rocks, genes, bacteria, ants, plants, or animals. It is that neither is consciousness “in” humans.
Rather, consciousness is in That which synchronizes, among all paths possible, the path chosen for our shared universe, as well as for all perspectives of it.
Consciousness regarding each perspective need not be based on self-awareness, intelligence, or even awake-ness.
Even when based on a human perspective, visual experience is not based on “direct sight” of any actual exterior “thing,” but on collecting information-relaying light-photons, radiating into one's eyes, there to be focused onto a small area, where such information is reassembled and translated, to be interpreted as a picture “in” a small, closed, dark, rectangular area of one's brain.
That is, we do not directly perceive our three (or four) dimensional interpretations of our universe. Rather, each of our dimensional interpretations is intuited, conjoining out of visual experience combined with general tactile experience as each of us experiences moving our bodies in relation to surroundings we perceive to be coordinately changing.
So, the quality of each perspective of consciousness depends on an entire holography that relates to it, encompassing both a recorded history of its interior body (and neural system and brain) and a recorded history of its environmentally exterior relations. Mind consciousness is not confined “in” one’s “physical brain.”
In respect of its holography, each perspective of consciousness need only be receptive to “patterns that seem” to be “in and surrounding” it. That is, each perspective needs to be pattern compatible, pattern reactive, pattern sensate, pattern interpreting, pattern measuring, and pattern recording. (Even if all such particular “patterns” are made to seem “physical” only in secondary derivation of a Holistic Meta-Source that is “intelligently” and artistically applying and directing its Meta-Substance in respect of a system of replicating algorithms, perhaps all built on one relatively simple algorithm.)
Any such pattern that is reactive or sensate may be inanimate, unconscious, subconscious, asleep, awake, self aware, or cunningly intelligent. Regardless, as it seems to manifest and make express its “choices” among all possible parameters, it will suffice to be considered as a “perspective” of a higher, presently-synchronizing Consciousness, just the same.
Much confusion in notions of panpsychism or panentheism may be resolved upon appreciating that each particular perspective of consciousness is not “in” anything that is “physical” or purely natural. Rather, Consciousness is fused, holistically and holographically, throughout whatever may be the character of our universe for synchronizing choices from among alternative potential paths or parameters for what we experience as our “physical universe.”
Each human perspective of Consciousness merely interprets its self-awareness as if such arose “within” his or her “physical body.” In respect of a deeper reality, each self-aware (“as-if”) experience of perspective is for the entertainment of Something going on about ourselves that is ever so much more powerful.
In that respect, each perspective, on some level of Consciousness, may comprehend, appreciate, intuit, or instinctively feel, a spiritual basis for inspiring artistically-shared, morally-resonating empathies with all others.
Interpenetration of Consciousness:
The math functions by which are defined such particular and measurable aspects of quanta as we experience in our here and now would not translate presentations to our fuzzy, changing, limited, holographic perspectives were such functions not Consciously being imaged at a meta-level, by Holistic Mind of God.
Source of Fuzziness:
But for such Meta-Consciousness, I intuit no other agency that could effect real choices among our myriad of possible parameters, either at the level of the particular or at the level of the whole. Our fuzzy logic and perceptions, especially near indefinite edges of our holographic translations, may be artifacts of the meta-math of the Holism, representing infinity and eternity in perpetual now-ness. Fuzziness may be byproduct of illusion, whereby we seem to be effecting choices and decisons from our own perspectives, whereas really we are just experiencing decisions of the synchronizing Meta-Source, functioning as our separately compartmentalized perspectives. But for the fuzziness imposed as byproduct of compartmentalized perspective, we would, as William Blake intuited, perceive infinity and eternity as God does.
FUZZILY-VIBRATING REFLECTIVE-REPRESENTATIONS: Perhaps some Qualia or essential Substance of Meta-Mind, by interacting to image math functions, compartmentalizes Holonic Perspectives or Reflective Representations of ITSELF, for each such Perspective to receive and translate some such math functions AS IF they were frequencies of energy, resonating for each Compartment's interpretation.
If so, each of us is a Holonic Perspective of such Meta-Consciousness.
Perhaps each of us --- by engaing with some such "meta-struggle" to maintain our separate FUZZY integrity as a mathematically-lensed, holographically-representative reflection of the Whole --- thereby translates or interprets some sort of RESONATING VIBRATION, energy field, or ground of mortal being. Thereby, each of us acquires a mortal point-of-view relative to a limiting frame-of-reference.
Self-consciousness of a particular self-identity requires a point of view (POV) and a frame of reference (FOR), for the “self,” on some level, to be aware of its derivative relationship with a Meta-Essence that avails it to have such a POV and FOR.
HOLISTIC IDENTITY (whole-part):
Mortals do not have empirical or mathematical access to Holistic Identity of Consciousness (God).
But, intuitively, for IT (God) to have Identity as a Holism, IT also may, “in some sort of different way,” beyond our comprehension, have a general need to relate to such various particular perspectives as IT avails.
Regardless that ITs essence is not limited to occupy any point in geometry or space-time as we can comprehend, some aspect of its holistic essence may allow IT to preserve or experience qualia of ITSELF from perhaps an infinity of holographically imaged and Compartmentalized perspectives.
Because “physics” does not exist independent in itself, Holistic Identity would seem to relate to particular “parts” or “aspects” of ITSELF by leveraging images of math, thereby somehow compartmentalizing perspective of points of view as relating to frames of reference.
Perhaps this process avails God of some sense of God-self.
CENTRALITY OF PERSPECTIVES:
No perspective, while entirely defined or limited to one universe, is allowed to peer beyond or outside the space-time of such universal holography.
Rather, every perspective is limited to perceive the holography of space-time that is assigned to the limits of his life-path.
He is required to perceive his space-time as being all around him, as far as he can detect, in all directions.
The light by which he perceives and receives information cannot by him be experienced as traversing outside his space-time.
This is because space-time is not in itself real, independent of perspective.
Rather, wherever one goes, there goes also the entire holography in respect of which one’s perceptions are related and defined.
Were it otherwise, a mortal, in “seeing” the edge of his universe, would directly perceive the trick of God, i.e., God imaging meta-algorithms.
In a way of thinking, in respect of centrality of perspective, Copernicus’ notion of centrality was incomplete.
HEIRARCHY OF HOLONS:
I believe there subsists a hierarchy of superior and inferior holons (particular “wholes-parts”), radiating fractals, frames of reference, and points of view. (Perhaps even a hierarchy of “Elohim.”)
For example, myself and another holon-perspective may overlap to share most of our perceptions in common. The holon-holography that encompasses both of our perspectives may be thought, in some respects, as a step up in the hierarchy. For a step down, there may be “bugs” that inhabit many of my pores, some of them perhaps sharing considerably overlapping “perspectives.” And so on.
Mathematical Information and sensory stimuli that come within a particular holon’s field of experience may be mainly limited to that field. Or, it may overlap to be shared horizontally, among other perspectives approximating the same level. Or, the information may be of a type that radiates up and down, vertically, through various levels. In any event, information will tend to be defined and limited among levels and layers of holons that happen to resonate to be receptive to record or sense such information. At edges, such resonance of information may be “fuzzy.” Such FUZZINESS may be secondary to a perspective’s attempts to preserve its separately compartmentalized integrity, to keep its perspective central, notwithstanding that there is no “real” physical geometry or central locus in space-time, to "re-normalize" its informational receptivity to its own sense of centrality.
Thus, perspectives of consciousness and levels of receptivity for Patterns Of Information are Compartmentalized, so that each compartment of perception may receive information not necessarily received or interpreted by many others, if any.
Thus, there is a hierarchy of perspectives of consciousness and of recognition of patterns, even though such hierarchy may flux, change, overlap, and fuzz. Such hierarchy, as interpreted to consciousness, is byproduct of a Holism (God), imaging, compartmentalizing, leveraging, and interacting with math functions at a meta level.
Some informational relations (speed of light, acceleration due to gravity, etc.) seem to be experienced as constants, relative to perspectives, even across mathematically-based vertical and horizontal levels and compartments of consciousness.
Other information-packets may “exist” only to the resonance of perspectives adapted to receive them.
None of such information is based on any “really physical” particles of geometry of space-time.
Rather, all such information is derivative of a Meta-Source imaging a hierarchical build up of algorithms functioning with algorithms functioning with more algorithms, all across various vertical and horizontal levels of interaction with some essential “Substance” (which we do not perceive) of the Meta-source.
COMPARTMENTALIZATION OF HOLONS AND PATTERN RECOGNITION:
An observer may only experience two patterns as interacting with one another when the algorithmic functions of which both are derivative have become joined with a present holography for being experienced as that part of a meta-mind wave of which the observer is derivative.
The patterns do not exist as such, in themselves, but only in derivative relation to an observer. To be perceived as interacting, merging, or collapsing, the patterns must first be perceived as part of the observer’s holography.
To the extent one of the patterns were derivative of an algorithmic function which was not part of any meta-mind wave of which the observer was derivative would be for such pattern to remain irrelevant to such observer.
This is not to say that such pattern may not remain relevant to some other observer. And if such other observer were simultaneously interacting with the first observer, then, at least indirectly, the two patterns would have overlapped in their holographic influence.
Note that neither observer’s capacity to observe would be entirely derivative of any mere system of algorithmic functions. Rather, the algorithmic functions would have no existential effect were they not availed such effect in association with the meta-mind wave of an imaging meta-consciousness.
Except to the extent patterns are sensed as such, within some level of shared holography, they would have no more capacity to be perceived as identifying, interacting, or recognizing themselves as existential patterns than would two abstract numbers, being simultaneously imaged in one’s mind.
This is not to say that two inanimate asteroids could not collapse or collide unless some mortal perspective were there to sense it. Rather, information regarding a collision could be preserved or recorded for later “reading,” in respect of, or to the extent that, there is always some potential level of shared holography, even if only at a level of Holistic Meta Mind.
Or, each asteroid may remain virtually non-interactive with space-time of the other, each being subject to perception or influence relative to a perspective of consciousness that is beyond experiential Resonance of the other.
Or, the asteroids may remain mutually non-interactive to the extent each remains derivative of a virtually separate Universal system for defining or imaging algorithms.
AMBIGUITY OF “THE HARD PROBLEM” OF CONSCIOUSNESS:
Is “the hard problem” to learn how unconscious physics generates epiphenomena of consciousness?
Or, is “the hard problem” to learn how consciousness generates epiphenomena of physics?
Answer? Higher Consciousness imaging meta-math generates and compartmentalizes holographic perspectives of consciousness, for enjoying derivative illusions of physics.
(Next Problem: To what limits may we understand and manipulate our experiences of (illusory) physics?)
PURPOSE OF META-CONSCIOUSNESS:
God is self defining. Math is limited only in respect of logic. God seeks and values perspectives for appreciating His/Her purposes and limits.
May Holistic God eventually teach or avail particular perspectives to a possibility, by leveraging mathematically polarized simulations, to “jump” or phase shift in empathies and points of view from and among otherwise independent frames of holographic, virtual, or universal reference?
May my conceptualizing of ideas on this website augur that other perspectives, empathetic of the same Source, as myself, are similarly conceptualizing ….? Where are they? How do I find them?
Metaphysics --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v-UJvx32NU&feature=related.
Math is the real world --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFRTgr7MfWw&feature=related.
Enigma of Numbers --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K4NPQE8ONw.
Self similar replication of numbers and fractal geometry; sentient living cells --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GaB1VMAXPQ&feature=related.
Self organizing emergent evolving complexity out of apparent “randomness” --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeKWDOJvK2o&feature=related.
Symmetrical patterns in nature --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGKLZ3NO9Qk&feature=related.
Design of bacteria flagellum (irreducible complexity vs. parts having functions of their own; building functions on top of functions) --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-j5kKSk_6U; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hW7ddJOWko.
Mathematics of evolutionary game strategies --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxU3WMYMb2w&feature=related.
Random Mutations --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGaUEAkqhMY&feature=related.
Patterns --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g3uIIg2SoY.
Fractals --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB8m85p7GsU.
Psychic Phenomena --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9aNl0J8-lo&feature=related.
Invisible Force --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xYOfWUzblQ&feature=related.
The Implicate Order (Order within Chaos) --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c1qvkOube4&feature=related.
Holographic Consciousness (Collective Resonance) --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ih3RoDASkw&feature=related.
Global workspace of consciousness --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw9Jo5qNCsQ&feature=related.
Holographic Universe --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnvM_YAwX4I&feature=related.
The Measurement Problem --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dpRPTwsKJs&feature=related.
Thought frequency and resonance; all energy has a vibration; everything is vibrational translation and interpretation; every thought has a frequency --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eDqDcZm9EA&feature=related.
Quantum physics and consciousness; pure abstract potential and resonance --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqJOIQWkfWA&feature=related.
Consciousness is in everything; everything is in consciousness; lag time between decision and consciousness; how does consciousness turn experience into illusion of matter (the inverse of “the hard question”) --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKryvqiOFNs&feature=related.
Infinite consciousness living in holographic perspectives --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgeTPubpE8s&feature=related.
Qualia of consciousness --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWmTJALe1w&feature=related.
Science of hard question of consciousness; neural correlates of consciousness --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX8xtUORDh4&feature=related.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
An Ancient Puzzle:
Some say, for empirical purposes, we should not be concerned with that which is metaphysical, which they often “define” as that which is beyond physical observation, detection, measure, prediction, or statistical analysis.
Such a definition affords a practical point of beginning, by which to attempt to apply it in specific, non-trivial cases. As will be seen, however, the devil is in the details, such that no non-trivial application of such definition appears to be complete.
Regardless, many say “intuition” of the metaphysical, as a common attractor for bringing us together, in mutual and humble respect, can and should inspire empathies for helping to lead us to more civilizing mores and traditions.
Regardless, most of us seek a bright line test by which to distinguish what is metaphysical from what is physical, and, perhaps, by which to distinguish that which is only epiphenomenal of either (or both).
Before long, budding meta-physicists and physicists become concerned with how to categorize a common condition, i.e., Consciousness, especially Consciousness that is self aware, while remaining unable presently to know or predict how it should apply (or “will”) its consciousness with regard to parameters availed for its future experiences or “choices.”
In respect of consciousness and choice making, one becomes confronted with choices regarding how one “should” choose to define and respect that which separates the metaphysical (perhaps the subjective, imaginary, intuitive) from the physical (perhaps the objective, empirical, measurable)?
So, with regard to non-trivial concerns, the puzzle deepens. One begins to ask: By what logic or system can we conceptualize any definition for any non-trivial thing or idea in a way that is clear, cataloguing, consistent, coherent, and complete?
LIMITS OF LOGIC:
In trying to conceptualize and communicate non-trivial definitions, in many respects, we soon bump up against limits and problems and concerns of logic and math, such as:
1) Circular limits on trivial definitions for communicating non-trivial ideas [Wittgenstein’s Tractatus];
2) Paradoxes relating to: mathematical infinities and the canceling of levels of infinities; how mathematical forms assume patterns by which they can be pressed to “recognize” and react to one another; nothingness vs. somethingness; and virtual particles emerging out of “nothingness” [identity ex nihilo];
3) Incompleteness inherent in logical sets respecting systems of categorization [Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem];
4) Irreducible unpredictability derivative of Chaos and Butterfly effects [irreducible complexity];
5) Quantum uncertainties regarding fundamental particles and measurements [Schrödinger’s Cat];
6) Measuring problems which affect that which is being consciously measured [Heisenberg uncertainty principle];
7) Apparently irreducible difficulties in measuring and predicting consciousness and choice making [unpredictability of free will];
8) Our fundamental dependence upon consciousness, whose essence seems to remain derivative of a “known unknowable,” making it reasonable to question how we can possibly expect, merely with “either-or” logic of the excluded middle, to make it less unknown [practical limits of logic vs. necessity of intuition];
9) Subjective uncertainties derivative of fluxing of separate points of view and frames of reference [limits of cognitive resonance and accuracy of empathy];
10) Qualitative differences in perceptions of Qualia in respect of differences in life-path accumulations of informational perspectives [cognitive qualia];
11) Artificiality of perceptual and interpretative impositions on features for defining and separating parts [cognitive conditioning];
12) Continuous telescoping of each idea not yet defined, to overrun each advancing effort to define it [cognitively perpetual incompleteness];
13) Capacity of whole mind, almost unnoticeably, to alternate among inconsistent or incoherent perspectives of parts [cognitive dissonance];
14) Lag time between change of will and brain’s appreciation and rationalization of decision (compare dreaming , when a dream, like a movie, may seem preset, as if in advance of the dreamer’s following, for the dreamer to judge and appreciate as if lagging from behind) [mind vs. brain];
15) Incapacity of particular perspectives to apprehend the whole [Whitehead problem of parts vs. whole];
16) Lack, as mortals, to direct access to Meta-Source, Meta-Consciousness, Meta-Purpose, Meta-Conceptualization, or Meta-Math [problem of regressive “meta’s”];
17) Holistic or Final Synchronicity of “physical” Causes, with no measurable source of the set of particular Causes [final cause];
18) Conundrum of Awareness of Consciousness of Self, as a separate Identity, rather than as an Identity of Indiscernibles [Awareness of Self];
19) That no perspective, while entirely defined or limited to one universe, is allowed to peer beyond or outside the space-time of such universal holography [Normalization to Centrality of Perspective];
20) That mathematical Information and sensory stimuli may sometimes pertain only within a particular field of experience for a particularly compartmentalized “holon” (level and layer of whole-part), subject to a hierarchy of other vertical and horizontal holons [Compartmentalization of Experience];
21) Ambiguity of Consciousness, regarding whether and how physics generates epiphenomena of consciousness, or whether and how consciousness generates epiphenomena of physics [Hard Problem of Consciousness];
22) Conundrum of how Meta-Source images math, in association with what “substance” [How to meaningfully relate what is beyond measure to what is measurable]; and
23) Uncertainty of purpose of Meta-Source [Purpose vs. Progress; Random vs. Chosen Evolution].
Where does all this empirical uncertainty and incompleteness take us? It seems to take us to a “place” of existential angst, where we become considerably less certain of any bright line by which to distinguish between the Reality of what is “physically accessible” to a scientific or empirical method of Indifference versus what is “metaphysically accessible” only to a holistically-intuitive, self-reflective, and empathetic-Caring of consciousness.
Metaphysics of Caring:
To me, all this leads to receptive, Holistic Intuition that “physics” of Indifferent nature is merely a convenient hindsight representation, and that metaphysics of Caring consciousness is synchronized among varying perspectives, which emerge in concert or interaction with Something else (God).
I believe all our differently conscious perspectives of “physics” emerge in derivation of a Meta-Source of Consciousness, exercising power to enspirit perspectives out of nothing more than capacity to image a mathematics of self-replicating and building algorithms.
Fusion of Physics and Metaphysics:
Accordingly, for all non-trivial and practical applications, I believe physics and metaphysics are FUSED. That is, no means is availed to mortals to impose any absolute, bright-line of distinction between the apparent Indifference of physics and the Caring of metaphysically empathetic consciousness.
In other words, no mortal attempt to define any non-trivial thing or idea will ever be so complete in itself as to be constrained within “bright lines.”
In other words, metaphysics relates not to a withdrawn Deity, but to an interacting, caring God.
Appreciating the FUSION of metaphysics and physics hardly cures existential angst, but may leverage faith and hope, which are often self-fulfilling for civilizing purposes.
Inducing Mathematical Telescoping Of Physical Science And Art:
Platonic Existence Of Qualia:
As I imagine a clown balloon, being caused to twist and bulge, my brain pictures the balloon as a result of my many disparate synapses assembling something which is not a really a clown balloon, but something for me to interpret as a picture in my mind of something having the quality of a clown balloon.
So, regarding the qualia of such a clown balloon as I imagine it: Where, if anywhere, does that exist?
Such a mental image of mine does not exist in another person’s brain. But, may it somehow “exist” in a realm of potential, un-manifested possibilities? Is there a realm of Higher Consciousness, whose essence has planned and availed the storing of images of platonic forms of un-manifestations, by the leveraging of its higher essence with layers of algorithmic functions of math, which is not generally availed for objective manifestation to mortals?
May some mechanism ever be invented for mapping the quality of a clown balloon as I may image it in my mind and simultaneously projecting it upon a three dimensional holograph, so that others may objectively perceive that which I am only imagining?
Perhaps, to some extent. But I doubt the mapping of imagined and fluxing shapes, forms, colors, textures, and associated feelings (and “will”) could be entirely accurate.
After all, my imagination is built not just on synapses, but also on a fluxing history of information stored generally within my brain (and wider mind), including a history of emotional associations. So, how could any such a physical projection also project my subjective and fluxing feelings to the objectively consistent understanding of other persons, whose own interpretations and perceptions will likewise be separately clouded in different and fluxing ways through the lenses of their own histories? Further, the very act of mapping and measuring the images in my mind will to some extent alter them, perhaps both to my interpretation as well as to the interpretation of each observer.
Teleological Aspects Of Science:
I suspect it is in The Panoply of consciously willed choices, which affects how mathematical functions merging on mathematical functions are accumulated, by which our telescoping of “objective” science is directed and made manifest.
After all, who has not noticed the eerie timeliness by which new discoveries in math seem to create new possibilities in science and technology?
In other words, how objective, really, are “laws of physics”?
Higher Evolving Art:
Perhaps, our one universe is based on God’s “playfully” synchronizing exploration of artistic possibilities associated with building upon one fundamental, otherwise self-replicating, algorithmic formula.
Perhaps, each of us will eventually subsume into a holistic perspective, where the information regarding each of our life’s experiences will be re-considered and re-combined, for further exploration at variously interesting and overlapping levels and degrees.
If God, to God’s satisfaction, exhausts such artistic possibilities, perhaps the essential formula as applied to God’s essential Mind may be recombined or remixed, to begin each new universal system, to be based on such new, re-combined formula, as such new universe’s systemic basis, perhaps with its own coordinate counterparts of entropy, space, time, matter, energy, and associated relational constants.
Regardless, each of our holographic perspectives seems to be derivatively epiphenomenal of a Holistic Perspective, or Synchronization, for imaging a fundamental formula or unity, in respect of which each of us appreciates that we share one universe at a time.
God need not make all possibilities manifest to all perspectives at all times. Rather, God may choose when and where each perspective and possibility may be made manifest within God’s synchronizing system. The quality of holistic and holographic empathy each of us gives expression to may be evaluated to God’s artistic, holistic taste. Of such empathies, some may be carried forward into re-sequencing manifestations, and some perhaps not.
Gene Man wrote:
Unless 'pure math' can conjure up mass, then that argument won't get it. Math is a symbol or map and as Korzybski taught, "the map is not the territory" -- symbols will not produce reality.
It's reasonable to assume that the particle zoo will forever increase, but there are grounds for doubting this, as explained in the book I referenced, "The Atheist and the God Particle".
Either you believe that consciousness is 100 percent non-physical, or else you concede that consciousness interacts with the physical world. If you agree that it does, you might be surprised by some of the implications, covered in the book.
Appreciate your reference. I'll read that book.
I do recognize the concern, regarding pure math conjuring up mass.
I recognize that we mortals cannot produce physical reality out of mere symbols.
At first blush, it seems counterintuitive that even God could.
But, if the Higgs Boson (or Group) is not found, won't resort have to be made to a mathematical function, to account for how mass is transferred?
In any event, in the experiment brewing in my own mind, I am not quite ready to throw in the towel.
Note that I do not posit pure math-in-itself doing the conjuring.
What I "posit" is a holistic Source of the conjuring, One I doubt any mortal, particular perspective will ever confine to a mapped explanation.
Even so, a set of fundamental mathematical relationships does appear to govern the universe we share.
And, as to the math part, we very well may eventually reduce fundamental aspects of that set to a single, unifying, fundamental, self-replicating algorithm.
Provided, I do not believe we can reduce Consciousness within that algorithm.
Rather, for math to conjure would seem to call for a Mathematician.
As to whether some Meta Source of Consciousness ("God") may be the conjurer, able to conjure our perspectivistic translations of "physics" by imaging a system of fundamental algorithms for building algorithms for building yet more algorithms, I doubt we, in applying our limited perspectives of "physics," are equipped to pass judgment on whether God could do that.
As I see it, the problem consists in:
1) not implicating any more work for "Goddidit" than is necessary to a most consistent "solution";
2) reducing an explanation (mathematical) of our individual perspectives to a simplest form that will still serve all fundamental concerns, both "physical" (empirical) and metaphysical (spiritual).
I am a lawyer, hardly a physicist or scientist.
I am trained to have a B.S. detector, so I am not "candy" for narrow experts.
Even though it sometimes takes awhile for me to detect my own B.S.
I will brew and read the book.
Re: "Either you believe that consciousness is 100 percent non-physical, or else you concede that consciousness interacts with the physical world."
I am not so sure. I believe there is a Meta Source of Consciousness. It may be "physical" to its own understanding, even though its thing-in-itself physicality is beyond our limited, particular comprehension. That is, IT may be comprised of "substance" that, in imaging mathematical relationships, has capacity to present "physics" to our appearance. If so, to us, at least while we remain mortal, I do not see why IT would be other than metaphysical, or "100% non-physical."
If IT is holistic, its "Consciousness" may be so far greater than ours as to be beyond our compare. For all we know, its Consciousness may "interact" with the physical world as is presented to our limited translations in a way that is beyond our physical or empirical detection, i.e., by imaging the coordination of a holistic, synchronous, orchestra of inter-functioning algorithmic perspectives of itself.
The trick would be in math; the trickster would be the Mathematician. Leveraging a built up, heirarchical system of math, God would not need to be operating "on the seat of his pants while sweating every last conscious choice" among parameters of possibilities for every last nit, bit, and quanta of our particular interactions.
I do not "posit" such notions as hypothesis for physical or empirical testing. This is because any such testing would be beyond us; plus I believe "physics" is epiphenomenal to God imaging and leveraging math.
I posit such notions only as possible bases for rationalizing a source of higher empathy, as a basis for inspiring civilizing and moral cooperation. I recognize that I am rationalizing mainly from intuitive evidence, rather than reasoning from "physical" evidence.
It is the mathematical implications that may be somewhat more testable.
If a mathematical function can be useful for explaining mass transfer, that may begin to show a way.
Next, mankind will need to reduce a NQTOE (not quite theory of everything), to try to map, model, or account for all "physical" measurements as derivative of a single fundamental, apparently self-replicating algorithm.
I say "apparently self-replicating," because I believe the evolutionary path taken by such replications would still require a synchronizing source of directive choice (aka, God) among all possible parameters.
If so, each of us is but an expression of self-reflective perspectives of such Holistic Synchronizer of Choices for “playing” with implications emerging out of the interactions of mathematical algorithms. In a way, we are each a perspective of a caring God.
It is in hindsight to the past that "physics" appears to be "indifferent."
In respect of choices for how our future will unfold, the Synchronizer is empathetically caring.
But even the Synchronizer seems to feel constrained, to synchronize with respect to what we perceive to have been the past.
That is, each new building up of presently expressed algorithmic information, while availing tools for choosing among parameters for the future, is limited in respect of the previously existing system of algorithms upon which it is built.
The past is indifferent, but the future is wild.
Re: “It's reasonable to assume that the particle zoo will forever increase, but there are grounds for doubting this, as explained in the book I referenced, "The Atheist and the God Particle".”
Well, so long as our basic model remains mistaken with regard to the reality that underlies our experiences (apart from God), whatever the descriptions of forces and particles that our measurements and calculations may point to, as we try to derive them consistent with such mistaken model, will necessarily remain incomplete and mistaken, and will change with each newly substituted, incorrect, and ambiguous hypothesis or model, never to produce an accurate, complete, exhaustive, mutually exclusive set or coherent inventory of fundamentals.
That is, so long as we adhere to inconsistent and incoherent models of the holistic reality that holds and encompasses our fundamental set of particulars, we are hardly likely to derive consistency within such a set among the component parts themselves.
Concern: Suppose some meta-substance or Mind, by itself conjuring with pure math, were postulated to account for all of physics, as secondarily derivative of such Mind of Math as it conjures with math.
This, then, would seem to beg a question: Trivial formulas deal only with numbers. So, how could any sort of non-trivial formula be of any practical or meaningful application, unless its numbers and functions could be related to “things” (like dollars, grams, energy, distance, time, or other commonly experienced aspects of a physical nature)? How could mortals find it useful to try to formulize whether physical things (or perceptions of physical things) can be derived only out of pure math?
Well, there may be paths for wrestling with this seeming conundrum.
For one thing, if the Higgs Boson (or Group) is not found, won't resort somehow have to be made to a purely mathematical function, to account for how mass is transferred?
For another thing, suppose the “thing” to which our most fundamental algorithm applies, upon which all other functions are built, were a “unit” of “empty” space? After all, what space, void, or nothingness is “really” devoid of somethingness?
Until such “unit” is solved for, it may be considered unknown. Meanwhile, taking all other “physical” things we perceive, we may relate each of them towards trying to adduce the parameters they may share in common with the postulated fundamental “unit of space.”
Eventually, we may adduce a fundamental, “building block algorithm” that applies to each fundamental “unit of space.”
In other words, each unit of space within our universe may be equal to all others in potential for expressing phenomena to be translated by forms of conscious perspectives. Each unit may capacitate differently observed features or aspects of density, inertia, mass, spin, charge, polarity, radioactivity, transference, or radiation, and yet remain equal in potential with all others.
The potential of each unit of space as it is expressed may relate to how it is relatively measured or observed by each form of conscious perspective.
CONCEPTUALIZING ---- MYTH MAKING AND JOSEPH CAMPBELL; INTELLECTUAL INTERPRETATIONS OF HINDUISM; VEDANTI:
Holonic Functions --- Holons nesting in a Holarchy:
Seeking Coherence regarding the non-trivially Non-Verifiable:
So many people seem to assume there is a clear way to distinguish ideas about metaphysics (supernatural and intuitive) from ideas about physics (nature and empiricism).
But who, if anyone, has produced a clear idea for defining a way or line of distinction, such that most folks would be able to agree to categorize any particular idea as relating either to metaphysics or physics?
In other words, when we use the words “metaphysics” and “physics,” how much of a clue do we have about what we are talking about?
Can you coherently explain anything that is not trivial that is physical but also not metaphysical?
Apart from one’s conscious and regressive attempts to ideate or conceptualize classifications and categories of metaphysics and physics, do such concepts actually apply to any real ideas or physical things?
God’s Habits And Arts:
God’s Present Time:
Perhaps, what presently synchronizes for God is not “time itself,” but all present and local perceptions of time, regardless of whether present time for some perspectives or persons may seem to be running faster or slower than for others.
As God’s synchronicity functions for a local perspective, God may factor all information then and there available to such local perspective, but need not then and there factor how light information from such local perspective, 40 years later, may excite some then possibly distant perspective.
For God, through my present perspective, to see and factor information that is 40 years old conveyed by light from a star 40 light years away presents no problem to God regarding time synchronicity.
Even so, God may appreciate or factor at local space-time point A that a mortal perspective will only receive light information 40 years later on account of the mathematical basis of an event presently taking place 40 light years away.
That is, God may presently deal with present choices availed among all parameters, through synchronizing functions of math, everywhere and everyplace.
God’s Present Interests:
The universal present structure of hierarchical levels and degrees of inter-functioning algorithms affords God adequate information in real time. God need not “time travel” to the past to retrieve information of interest about previous choices because such information, to the extent deemed of interest, is availed in the mathematical record of the universal present.
Ultimately, there is no “physical cause” of each succeeding event. Rather, there is synchronous coordination of local perspectives of present experiences of choices.
From our mortal, holographic perspectives, we may augur some of the present tendencies of God’s artistic preferences. When such tendencies of God are of a base, common, fundamental character, they may as well be considered by us as if they were immutable “laws of physical nature,” even though physics exists only as an illusion, derivative of God of Math conjuring with math.
Because previous conjurings with math function as base for present conjurings, any present change or addition will necessarily sequence and merge on with the old. (That is, unless God were to decide to collapse or swallow base aspects of the mathematical ground of our apparent physics.)
Laws of Nature based on Mathematical habits of God:
So long as God preserves the continuity and flow for building, replicating, and mutating new algorithms on top of old, our mortal experience of the arrow of Time (chronological sequencing), the direction of entropy (of apparent physics), and the accumulation or record of informational experience are preserved.
But God need not necessarily be bound to such “laws,” except to the extent God’s consciousness remains habituated or invested in identifying with our ever-developing travails of mortal consciousness.
Because God is the holism, there is no other holism to “cause” God to make the choices God makes.
Somehow, God appreciates and judges the holism of experience of all perspectives of consciousness and synchronizes choices for how they shall continue, based on God’s “artistically holistic interests.”
Information Guiding God’s Evolution:
Essence of God:
Some essence of God seems to interact with algorithms, to lend imaging (“illusory physics”) to functions of math. New mathematical functions are merged or built onto old ones, to complicate, add, multiply, divide, subtract, log, leverage, compartmentalize, reorganize, remix, reduce, dissolve, grow, and multi-task.
Preservation of Information:
Aspects of Information relating to old forms of mathematical functions are continuously carried forward to the present --- there to endure, mutate, devolve, or evolve.
Even if some such information may seem to be lost locally, it need not necessarily be lost beyond God’s capacity to reconstruct or remember, in respect of holistic perspective.
All the while, God may leverage math to leverage multi-tasking from and through variously translating perspectives of God’s essential self.
Thus, the Essence of God’s Substance may consist in meta-capacity to translate perspectives of images out of otherwise pure math.
Art Bound To Tradition:
Thus, the New need not be blind to the Old, nor free to just start anew, in chaotic happenstance. Rather, the New is constricted in that its mathematical operations must be based in some algorithmic way on previous sequences. Thus, a cumulative sequence is preserved, as a record of Information. Thus, choices are availed to the new, but must tie to the past.
Thus, God is about choices, always in the synchronous present, based on a record of mathematical imaging from the past. That is, the New is not completely Free or Random, but is tethered to the Previous.
Choices Bound to Art:
So, among possibilities for the new, how does God arrive at choice, path, or artistic purpose? Is it in respect of holographically random happenstance of eclectically artistic pleasure, or is it in respect of holistically synchronized choice and vision? Perhaps, both.
Regarding Meta-Reality based upon the building of algorithms replicating upon algorithms, and so on:
As mortals, we do not have direct access to Meta-Source, Meta-Consciousness, Meta-Purpose, Meta-Conceptualization, or Meta-Math [problem of regressive “meta’s”]
I intuit or believe that some form of Meta-Source (meta-substance, or God), by imaging its meta-substance in respect of meta-math, underpins the “physical reality” that appears to our mortal experience.
I posit that some Fundamental Algorithm may function with meta-substance, replicating meta-functions upon meta-functions, and so on, so as to produce our Reality out of its own imaging of otherwise “pure math.”
I assume what we often call “laws of Nature” consist instead in a God imposed hierarchy of habits and reliable tendencies, being translated and presented to us out of nothing more than a hierarchy of algorithms inter-functioning with Substance Of Meta-Source (Mind of God).
This begs a question: To what extent may mortals participate in directing the change and flow of Reality, by imaging our own forms of algorithms?
I assume we may eventually draw close to the Fundamental Algorithm. But, until then, using only inferior and partially true algorithmic models, may we ourselves thus change some of the landscape of our underlying Reality? In other words, could our deployment of false algorithmic modeling bend us towards a self-fulfilling Reality?
There may be a kind of inferior or derivative truth in such a notion. This may be why advances in mathematical modeling often seem eerily to coincide with unexpected advancements in technological possibilities.
However, false algorithmic modeling can also easily lead us to build on false foundations, eventually to disastrous collapse.
Perhaps, the way to account for this is as follows: It is not directly the false algorithmic modeling by mankind that changes the “habits” of God (or “laws of science”). Rather, even our false modeling is under-girded by a meta-true, meta-system of algorithms. As that system of replicating algorithms, i.e., the meta-system, is directed to build up and express choices and changes in courses or phases, so also will it account for the incomplete and false algorithmic modeling at our mortal level.
In other words, changes we make in our mortal modeling are not necessarily unaccompanied with choices being synchronized or made at the level of Meta-Modeling.
Regardless, our problem is not to reduce God (or Meta-Consciousness), but to reduce what can be reduced. That is, our problem is to PROGRESS towards reducing a NQTOE, or “Not Quite Theory Of Everything.” It may even be possible for us to reduce to the Fundamental Algorithm for all parameters, save and except the spiritual parameter of Conscious Choice Making. That is, human conceptualism will remain limited in respect of the meta-function of God.
ART, SCIENCE, SPIRITUALITY:
Limits of Rationality and Rationalization ---http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsmD2ujZiRo; http://www.princeton.edu/~smeunier/JonesBounded1.pdf.
Blake and Paine --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tikLELXGoWU.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Sweeping Ambiguities Under One Carpet:
Given the apparent cloud of ambiguities behind our genesis, Nature, respecting our perceptions of Genesis, cannot very well be said, in itself, to be “practicing” unambiguous math, logic, physics, or science.
So, then, is “Nature practicing” some sort of ambiguous “art”? Well, if lacking conscious intent (or mind for design), how could “objective nature” sensibly be said to be practicing its artistic expression (or “subjective judgment”)?
How may one complete a rational (or rationalized?) explanation respecting such ambiguities? One seems unable, at some level of express or implied representation, to avoid covering a rationalization by making some sort of meta-reference.
Perhaps, the “best” one can do is to try to reduce one’s meta-rationalization so as to make it as unified and unobtrusive as possible, even while always intuiting its presence, as some sort of invisible Cheshire cat (wave), behind an apparent grin (particle).
Whatever the character of such ambiguous Meta-Source that one takes as completing us, one may as well label such Source as a sort of Synchronizer of Consciousness, aka, “God.”
One may thus model one’s worldview AS IF such Source were working its ambiguous “magic” out of perspectives of consciousness, which are considered, on faith and intuition, as being based in nothing else but interacting layers of algorithmic functions of pure math. (That is, the “Higgs” mechanism for transferring illusions of mass may be modeled as a purely mathematical function.)
Thus, one may seek to reduce, cover, respect, and make reference to all ambiguities under one unifying carpet, i.e., “God.” Thus, one may seek to focus one’s empirical inquiries on concerns not swept under such meta-carpet, even as each perspective of consciousness respects such Meta-Source as that which avails receptivity in common to the inspiring empathies and moral purposes of all significant others.
Thus, even scientists can come together, in respect of such Meta-Source, to seek, reason, and rationalize regarding their common arts and purposes, both in politics and in science.
Artistry of Consciousness (God) in driving Evolution of Genesis:
How does God sponsor God’s synchronizing art of genesis and evolution?
All other things being equal, which sorts of environmental niches tend more to favor the rapid selection of new mutations? In which sort of niche would rapid evolution be most favored: A niche that is relatively stable; a niche that is relatively challenging; or a niche of wildly upheaving and tempestuous extremes? For what reasons may some levels of genes become more rapidly amenable to mutating under stresses of social and environmental niches?
May the “answer” depend solely on the particular MICRO character of each gene in each then availed gene pool? Or, may the “answer” depend as much or more on the sensate, empathetic, holographic, holistic MACRO quality of social consciousness of the organisms that are together expressed in the niche’s gene pool? May “natural selection” reasonably be reduced to a micro analysis, or to a macro analysis, or to a fluxing (ambiguous) analysis?
Or, may some Meta-Source (God), functioning through algorithmic levels of pure math, guide, affect, and synchronize all apparent effects of holography, relating both to each gene pool and to its social and exterior niche?
May one “reasonably” choose to rotate among one’s models, depending upon one’s arts and purposes — empirically, individually, socially, and spiritually?
Regarding Natural Selection, it is only trivial to say the following:
If nothing exists which is superior to that which appears to our minds and senses as being physical, so that nothing other than such physics exists, then the origin of our consciousness and of the various forms of life with which we associate could not reasonably be explicated or discussed in any aspect apart from such physics.
In other words, assuming God does not exist, then God does not exist.
In other words, assuming the only worthwhile model for discussing life on earth is a natural model, then there is no worthwhile model for any discussion for any purpose or aspect that is apart from a model based entirely on natural physics.
In other words, assuming the physics we can measure is real in itself, independent of any intuition of any higher reality, then the physics we can measure comprises our only reality.
In other words, assuming that consciousness is entirely epiphenomenal of physics, and that physics is not epiphenomenal of consciousness, then consciousness is epiphenomenal of physics.
In other words, assuming we are each not a perspective of a common consciousness, then we are each not a perspective of a common consciousness.
In other words, assuming there is no unifying and real basis for empathy of consciousness, then there is no unifying and real basis for empathy of consciousness.
In other words, assuming there is no real basis for empathetically sharing common moral values, then there is no real basis for empathetically sharing common moral values.
In other words, assuming any basis for inculcating civilizing values is a lie, then any basis for inculcating civilizing values is a lie.
Vaunted atheists, riding on the coattails of successful Christian nations, tend often to discount moral arguments by pointing out how their values, habits, and empathies are often conditioned and inculcated just as well by their upbringing and culture as for any theist.
This is well and good, but it lets them off the hook when it ignores how their values, habits, and empathies would have been conditioned or inculcated but for the fact that they had been brought up in a culture whose moral momentum was already chugging along under variously assimilated religious and spiritual notions about God and moral meaning beyond one's own selfish life.
Atheists should be asked:
1) Have they studied the moral and empathetic values of any successful culture in which there is not an underpinning of spiritually based moral insturction; and
2) Regardless, how civilizing or worthwhile do they think their values would have become had they been brought up in such a society?
Game theory: By strategies of rationally directed work and emotional investment, what is IT that we are seeking? Is IT materially selfish balms or is IT empathetically spiritual balms? Are we seeking IT, or are we merely experiencing rationalizations in respect of IT, being synchronously made by homunculus’ “all the way down”? Are we playing ego games, or merely experiencing synchronized rationalizations of ego games?
Monday, February 9, 2009
The act of procreation is performed by perspectives of consciousness, if not at the level of self-awareness, then at least at the level of sensateness. In other words, some level or aspect of consciousness always participates in choosing whether, when, and where to procreate. Procreation is generally not divorced from consciousness, even if only at the level of sensateness.
Indeed, human beings will soon be consciously, artificially, and directly re-engineering and mutating their genes. Thus, we have conscious, direct, Artificial Evolution, not “natural selection” free of artifice or conscious choice making.
Specific, artificial choice-makings among perspectives of consciousness are not very well or reliably predicted or determined. Nor may we purely or only reduce choice-makings to blind natural determination, devoid of guidance expressed through facilities that defy precise scientific measurement or complete prediction.
Nor are choices affecting evolutionary decisions directed solely on account of precise electrical impulses confined within a “physical” cell or brain. Rather, even impulses within brains are generally triggered in responses synchronized with holographic waves of stimuli from sources including those external to the brain’s experience and beyond its complete measure.
In large part, evolution is byproduct associated with inter-functioning consciousness of choice-making, which itself is byproduct associated with an entire environment of experience of each holographic perspective of consciousness.
A notion of natural selection that supposes evolution is blind or impervious to choices of holographic or holistic consciousness is neither coherent nor helpful to the advancing of a testable or reliable hypothesis. To expect, in pure science, to precisely and indifferently model, control, direct, or predict the evolution of a specifically prescribed complex form of living behavior or consciousness, independent of skilled, artistic, and dignified applications of empathy and mutual faith, is to be religiously incoherent.
When not inconsistent, the notion of natural selection tends to say little more than a truism, that: “What happened, happened.” As a scientifically causal explanation, such a notion utterly fails, partaking more of babbling of incoherent religion than of rigor of science.
The way to get a synchronizing path of evolution across fractal holographies is with a synchronizing agency. The agency that always functions in the eternal-present is the agency that is conscious of the present, i.e., consciousness. Absent consciousness at some level, there is no basis for measuring or apprehending change. There is little meaning to evolutionary change apart from some basis for recording or measuring change.
Whatever the factors that may “cause” change, they cannot be entirely impervious to consciousness. Some level of consciousness always interprets our existential being’ness. No meaningful concept of evolution should ignore that.
It should be no part of a scientific theory relating to evolution to expect to disprove a holistically synchronizing, guiding role for interpenetrating, cooperative, competing, subconscious, intentional, artistic, ambiguous aspects, layers, fluxes, and dignified perspectives of Consciousness (aka, “God”).
Sunday, February 8, 2009
NATURAL SELECTION UNGUIDED BY HIGHER CHOICE-MAKING IS NOT A TESTABLE THEORY:
An ambiguous variety of notions, often passing under a common pretext or label of “natural selection,” in inconsistent and confused aspects, is often advanced as if it were a “theory” for explaining why our natural, “physical” environment should have brought forth the origination, competitive adaptation, and group cooperation of the sorts of bacteria, plants, animals, and symbiotic and altruistic societies that we find in our environment. Such notions are often presented in shape-changing or swapping ways, as if they were peas for being passed under a shell game, the hand and mouth being faster than the eye and the comprehension.
Quite a variety of errors in reasoning adopted by proponents of natural selection is well explained by David Stove, in his book, Darwinian Fairytales, 1995. The errors are so fundamental and egregious that the “theory” should better be considered a mere collection of conflicting notions.
Taking one example: Proponents often wish to show natural selection to be a coherent, scientific explanation, both at the level of adaptations by individual mutants and at the level of adaptations by group societies. One problem is that an adaptation that disadvantages the survival and reproduction of the genes of an individual by rendering him less aggressive may advantage the survival and reproduction of the social unit of which such individual is a part by reducing its group disharmony. That is, group dynamics for altruism may favor replication of a recessive gene that can be harmful to individuals.
That is, natural selection, in the sense of selecting for genes most advantaged for survival and replication, will often pull in one direction at the individual level and in another direction at the group level. How, then, could competition to survive and replicate be expected “to choose” which attribute to favor?
Absent some Other Moderating Principle or Source, such a notion of natural selection, by itself, cannot very well be expected to apply equally well, both to individual selection and to group selection (sociobiology). Rather, such a notion of natural selection becomes not a good explanation in itself for all cases of evolutionary change.
Regardless of whether or not considered to be guided by a Meta-Source of higher choice-making, natural selection is not a testable theory.
PURPOSES OF PROPONENTS OF NATURAL SELECTION:
So, what are proponents’ purposes for “Natural Selection,” as an empirically based “theory,” by which to explain origins, adaptations, and choices of perspectives or forms of consciousness or life?
Does Natural Selection inspire or inform us to appreciate:
1) The original cause of our universe;
2) Consciousness, will, and choice-making;
3) How we should participate, artificially, in our processes of natural selection;
4) What, if anything, may limit our imaginative artifices and capacities, conscious perspectives, incomplete frames of reference, and interpretative manipulations of algorithmic functions of math;
5) How we relate, or should relate, to a Demi-Urge;
6) Whether the Demi-Urge (selfish gene?) is concerned with more than just transmitting our sexual reproductions of copies of our genes through time, but may also be concerned with transmitting, improving, or changing our empathies, arts, skills, and capacities to puncture limits through time;
7) How the Demi-Urge may be layered and leveraged in pure mathematics; or
8) How conscious experience and choice-making may be appreciated or enhanced, as skills in modeling and math become enhanced?
In light of chaos theory, butterfly effect, and quantum uncertainty, how can Natural Selection, as any sort of a concrete or exclusive theory, hold any specifically reliable or predictive value by which it could be tested, confirmed, or FALSIFIED? If it does not, does it not become fair to ask whether the purposes of its proponents pertain more to concerns that are moral, amoral, or political than “scientific”?
In what way is science or politics advanced merely by ASSUMING that Nature, apart from receptivity to guidance from a metaphysical Source of conscious empathy or altruism, is the only reasonable explanation for all mortal functions and purposes?
In what way is it (morally?) “REASONABLE” to assume evidence for non-trivial concerns should be sufficient, based only on assumption? In what way is it reasonable to look at the past and assume that, at the time it was in the present, no choices alternative to it were then available? Apart from TRIVIALLY MAPPING our past sequence and labeling it the result as “Natural Selection,” of what practical use is any notion of Natural Selection? Of WHAT PRACTICAL OR MORAL USE is it, for guiding us concerning what decisions we should make now?
In what way is it “reasonable” to assume only “physical” evidence can be pertinent to reasoning about non-trivial concerns, apart from deep consideration of mathematics, intuition, conscious empathy, and altruism? Are not deep mathematics and consciousness also pertinent aspects for empirical appreciation?
In order of derivation, is not perception superior to math, math superior to physics, physics superior to biology (genotypes and phenotypes), and biology superior to geography? Why, then, defer to biologists over mathematicians for anthropic calculations of mathematical probabilities and indications with regard to “evidence” for Natural Selection free of guidance from any conscious, moral, purposeful, or choice-making Source?
Why choose to believe, merely because we, in hindsight, cannot change the past, that neither we nor any higher consciousness (God) has any present participation, in foresight, for choice-making for the future? Why ignore obvious, self-fulfilling, moral aspects of coming together in spiritual forums for seeking to reason together, in altruistic, empathetic, resonating, synchronizing, moral respect of Higher Consciousness?
Even if non-testable, a scientific notion, if “Natural Selection” is one, may help us appreciate the “physical record” of our past, regarding aspects which we are unable now to change.
However, a spiritual notion, such as a notion of “Natural Selection guided by Higher Consciousness,” would more inspire us to come together in good faith and empathy to seek consensus about what we should do with our common future.
MORAL BANKRUPTCY OF NOTIONS OF PURE SELFISHNESS:
Should one very well or reasonably trust an Objectivist-Libertarian-Rand’ian to do the presumptively right or civilized thing when no one is looking?
GAME THEORY AND INTUITION:
MORAL SELECTION OF CHOICES: CONSCIOUSLY WILLED OR NATURALLY DETERMINED?
Rather continuously, each of us participates in experiencing a game for rationalizing that which we want to do next.
Often, a choice or rationalization may have been made or synchronized at a level and time before the nerve impulse for making it has even been instigated or appreciated.
Regardless, respecting any non-trivial choice one makes, one’s senses never inform one of all the specific or measurable data for all pertinent factors by which such choice was made, as synchronized with the wider environment.
How, then, may one rationalize any agency by which unknown measures were factored, in order to produce one’s choice (or gamble)?
In sensing incompleteness in one’s senses, one may, by indirection, reasonably “sense,” “intuit,” or rationalize the involvement of unknown factors.
In turn, habits of rationalization may themselves become instantiated as factors, albeit somewhat abstract, as in circumstantial superstitions, omens, biases, or subconsciously guided random gambles.
Thus, abstract relations may instantiate to guide one to “intuitions,” whether mistaken, conditioned, subconscious, or conscious.
Even so, for non-trivial choices, a mortal always has incomplete information and capacity, whether or not instantiated in some nervous pathway, such that he always engages in incomplete guesswork and rationalization, never knowing the full scope of potentially vital factors.
That is, no non-trivial conscious choice is ever free of some kind or degree of rationalization --- before, during, and after.
Rather, every non-trivial decision entails some aspect of “putting one’s finger to the wind,” as if to ask God (or Nature) to guide one’s intuition.
Somehow, at some level, one rationalizes one’s choices. Not really knowing why, one may call one’s unknown reasons instinct or “intuition” --- regardless of whether later judged “right.”
After all, if one could pre-know one’s correct choices, one would neither be mortal, nor would one be playing the game of life.
Perhaps, a Holistic Synchronizer makes our choices, while we participate as appreciative, rationalizing, holographic perspectives.
Perhaps, a spiritually Holistic Consciousness (“God”) of synchronization of perspectives-of-interacting-functions-of-math (mortals) has no choice but to exist, for a purpose of inspiring, and rationalizing what we experience as our “choices” and “whys.”
Perhaps, God is unable consciously to choose to “do nothing,” but is able to choose to put that which God, at various levels of involvement, is relationally or relatively unconscious of, or indifferent to, under the temporal direction and control of pre-set or randomly indifferent and overlapping levels of mathematically fluxing functions and perspectives.
Perhaps higher, fluxing layers of consciousness are leveraged out of slave-like math functions manifested at lower, sometimes “revolting” levels.
Perhaps, under girding the most skilled and powerful levels of mortal consciousness, God subsists as an eternally present Source, which need not learn or acquire skills at all, because IT already knows, and simply uses us as perspectives somehow to enjoy and recycle its arts, perpetually.
Perhaps, every mortal is epiphenomenally derivative of such ultimate, synchronizing Source.
Perhaps, holistic, fulsome, God’s concern is always intervening with our holographic, fractal, perspectives, subject to fluxing kinds and degrees of involvement.
Perhaps, our receptivity to higher guidance and purpose may augur aspects of God’s involvement.
If so, such need not be inconsistent with a notion or appearance of “natural selection” that is guided in respect of God.
Such guidance may be rationalized (philosophically) as a “moral explanation” for inconsistent clouds of confusion that otherwise confound the notion of natural selection.
But, may such guidance also be suggested indirectly (scientifically?), by logic and math?
PURPOSE BEYOND PURE REASON:
For any self-consciousness of perspective (mortal being) to participate in a game of existential experientialism (“life”) is to play within circumscribing rules (“laws of nature”).
Such rules must have derived (artificially?) in respect of some Source (God?) beyond them, in respect of which such rules, by themselves, are incomplete.
Regardless of conceit, mortals are necessarily insensible to such rules or forces as exist beyond nature, such that mortals lack completeness of definition by which, apart from trivialities, ever to be completely “objective” or “reasonable.”
Perspectives of consciousness that share and relate to our universe have capacities to interpret among an overlapping variety of geometrical and mathematical FORMS.
Sensing a particular pattern, one attaches an interpretation to it, from among possible interpretations of forms stored for our capacitating access (minds).
Having related a presenting pattern to a form selected from among one’s interpretative capacities, one experiences or assigns an EMOTIONAL MEANING to it, i.e., to how it relates to one’s self valuation and inspiration.
Having attached such meaningfulness, one may wish then to COMMUNICATE such meaning to such others as may seem empathetically receptive.
That is, it is unreasonable for a mortal to deny that “reason itself,” unguided by any intuition beyond, is unsatisfactory for completing his or her non-trivial choice-making.
1) Innate spiritual empathy, in every perspective of Consciousness; vs.
2) Nurture, through culture, education, and inculcation; vs.
3) Nature, in genes, instinct, and natural receptivity to bonding and to habituated neural pathways:
Altruistic feelings may often be thought, generally, to flow most strongly and orderly through self, family, blood relatives, in-law relatives, clan, tribe, nation, trading partners, allies, continent, hemisphere, world, other species, and robots.
Should altruism best be conceptualized as consisting in enlightened empathy (cooperation) or in enlightened selfishness (competition)?
Perhaps, expressions of spiritual levels and degrees of conscious altruism guide our adaptive, competitive, and cooperative efforts and reproductions.
Most fundamentally, interactive altruism seems to stem from some level of identification of, or consciousness of, empathy, which seems often to associate with sharing, in significant respects, models of reality and purposefulness.
Why should higher orders of consciousness empathize more among themselves?
Perhaps, by innate programming, instinct, or intuition, they partake more of one another’s spiritual consciousness and compatible interests, tastes, and affinities.
At lower (more easily manipulated) levels, innate (“physical”) programming may be dominant. Even if “physics” is a lesser form of reality, derivative of higher consciousness and math, such physics remains empirically reliable to the skilled manipulation of higher levels of consciousness over lower levels of mathematical expressions.
That is, higher levels of consciousness can more empirically rely upon projections of detectable directions of mass flows of underlying gangs of lower functions and, where they meet, their random competitions. Such is basis for the appearance or illusion of “physical laws,” i.e., God’s synchronizing expressions in “Nature.”
Even absent governance, members of human societies may be expected altruistically to favor one another over other species. Why? Because civilized society requires culture, which requires inculcation (nurture) of traditions and rules for coextensive cooperation. This leads to organized tribalism, i.e., sociobiology, i.e., altruism within tribes, thus, often, hostility against outside tribes.
In such groups, we often “cooperate to compete,” trying to flourish in our environments. Thus, consciousness acts out its urges to appreciate and understand itself from various perspectives. Enlightened consciousness seeks to avail civilized populations that are stable, sustainable, and surpassable.
Those patterns of consciousness which endure are those which are guided, altruistically, in facilitating the transmission and passing on of appreciation and empathy, at some level of information regarding each one’s existence, within an environment signified and shared with others.
Inasmuch as physics is only a bookmarking derivative, it seems the case that consciousness is what guides and seeks empathetic promotion, to enhance its chances to inculcate and pass on love, altruism, empathy, and information.
Ultimately, it is levels of consciousness, appreciation, and sensateness of information that seek to survive, reproduce, and be passed on, rather than merely derivative, “physical,” biological, genes.