Saturday, April 18, 2009

Resolving The Algorithm

Essentially, each relational experience or resolution of an “ultimate particle” is expressed as a stand-in for a common unit or numerical value, which is assigned to mark or measure relations to a single Algorithm by which each of us, in order to exist as a perspective of our Creator, consents by living to be governed.

Except in relation to such Algorithm and potential perspectives of our Creator, no such particle exists in itself. No such particle can be measured in itself because it has no existence in itself. No particles-in-themselves associate, combine, react, or organize to sense or produce higher organizations of patterns, matter, things, characters, or consciousness.

Rather, all higher organizations, patterns, sensations, and perspectives of Consciousness are markers of relations imaged by Holistic Consciousness (God) in respect of one Algorithm (Nature).

The common numerical value, however, of each ultimate particle in respect of parameter ranges in which each may find expression in relation to the Algorithm, may eventually be derived --- when the Algorithm is resolved.

For measuring purposes, there is a common, smallest possible unit value for correllating with parameter ranges for aspects of the expression and sensation of differentiable, exclusionary patterns. Although we cannot directly measure the potential of each perspective of consciousness, we may indirectly represent, trace, or "lens" markers of each such perspective's recent interrelational history or sequential path.

Although consciousness "is," we cannot directly measure it. But we can measure parameters for its smallest markers of mathematical inter-association and perspective. Eventually, we may relate such measurements to a unifying Algorithm, which rules parameters, but not choices, for all perspectives of consciousness that associate with our universe.

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Believing Sacred Stories

Believing Sacred Stories:

What does “belief” mean, as related to mind v. brain?

Well, “physical” representations are held to be accessible by my brain, such representations being sometimes correlated with information organized and stored about my present and previous sequences of associational experiences. To the extent information stored in my brain is fairly accurate in how it correlates with the way the world presents its promises and threats, my brain may become more likely to choose such mental states as are conducive to its emotionally conditioned interests. In that respect, “belief” may refer to abstract weighing of information about how previous capacities may or should relate to present challenges.

One whose mind has associated with conditioning for believing consciousness can phase and effect changes in material via a feedback loop may more likely be fit to inhabit and develop the very sorts of organizations among patterns of matter that will better leverage such feedback effect into reality.

A consciousness that believes its capacity to phase changes in its mind states may in fact show the reasonableness of modeling matter as if matter were merely derivative of consciousness as it images among mere placeholders and symbols of math.

Taking God as Holism, and each Perspective of God as associating with Holography for expressing each of us, various sacred texts may come to seem more reasonable, especially for availing contextual figures of speech for conditioning and facilitating communications regarding our interactive moral intentions.

Pound for pound, when it comes to winning Nobel prizes in science, whose population is mightier than Israel’s? Whose populations are among the weakest? Why is it that one society riven with traditions produces the best scientific minds, while other societies riven with traditions produce hardly any? In one, its members feel free to talk to God; in others, members feel hidebound so as not to question at all what their leaders interpret as the commands of God. In between, we find societies fomenting traditions for banning or ridiculing questions about God. Maybe that can tell us something about God, as well as tradition.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Mapping Mind with Matter

Mapping Mind with Matter:

Is there a directly required correlation between states of consciousness and representations of physics?

If markers of physics, i.e., “physics as represented,” do not necessarily represent the synchronized qualities of each state of consciousness, then do the synchronized qualities of each state of consciousness necessarily represent the same markers of physics?

If markers of physics can reasonably be conceptualized as more the derivative of synchronization of choices of consciousness than as the necessary byproduct of synchronization of consciousness itself, then such markers need not represent exact correlates of all of reality.

An Algorithm seems to set parameter limits for choices among sequences.

In balancing the Algorithm, no representation of a unit change (quantum leap) is allowed to be changed mid leap.

Weights of influence among varying holographies may enjoy varying degrees of freedom in their synchronization among other holographies.

But, the Algorithm need not be conceptualized as defining, limiting, and predetermining all sequences among seemingly emergent possibilities.

Rather, from feedback among perspectives of consciousness, much seems negotiable between the synchronizing Holism and the sum of its particular, experiential holographies.

Feedback from mindful appreciation of each perspective of consciousness, depending on the dignity of its “progress” in respect of the Algorithm, may factor into each wider, sequential apprehension of events.

Even were my body to become enslaved in subservience to a monolithically dictating government of collectivist tyranny (“Borg”), my mind, so long as associated with a representative body, would retain some degree of freedom respecting the quality of its mind state (fundamental emotion, attitude, will, consciousness).

Borg can constrain the degrees of freedom which are availed, as represented to the holography that marks my physics, and Borg can greatly influence my mind state, but it cannot control the entire quality of my mind state.

And feedback (prayer?) from such quality of mind state, so long as such mind remains associated with a living frame of reference, will in some respect be heard and factored by the Synchronizing Source of Consciousness.

My mind state may retain some appreciation or attitude of freedom, notwithstanding gross invasions of my physics by Borg.

Representations that mark the “material” associations of each of us can help each perspective of consciousness to communicate empathically, but not in precise objectivity, about the quality of its mind state.

Still, in participating to shape methods of governance, I need to remain wary, lest I sacrifice my consciousness to ever lessening freedom, in trade for ever more stultifying illusions of physical security. Reality of Spirit need not surrender to Illusion of Borg (i.e., for some, the “N.W.O.”).

One emotive state of Holism experiences innumerable perspectives of emotion and empathy.

Ommmm.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Schrödinger’s Cat

Schrödinger’s Cat:

During my daily shower, I got to contemplating Mark Twain (Did he really say (?), “For every durable piece of nonsense, there is an irrational frame of reference in which it is consistent”)?

Anyway, I looked up some wiki’isms at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger_cat.....

A thought occurs that physicists may be failing to make a serious effort to integrate a role for conscious observers (i.e., “perspectives of consciousness,” or “sensors of collapsed uncertainties”). Perhaps they fail because they imagine no measurable or scientific way to proceed.

But, what if the meaning of “conscious observers” were understood to relate not just to perspectives of intellection, but also to capacities to sense, detect, and effect exclusions among patterns (i.e., that which we merely assume to be marked only by inanimate, “unconscious,” purely physical reactiveness)?

Suppose it is not material physics that is “entangled,” but perspectives of consciousness (which happen to be entangled in sharing a same algorithm for how they mark their relations)?

Suppose that which we take to be superimposed in a mix of indeterminacy is not potential states of “physical matter,” but potential choices to be synchronized among “perspectives of consciousness”?

If that which holistically synchronizes has capacity to collapse choices based on feedback summed from among particular perspectives, then not every possibility needs to be chosen or made to exist “in some world.”

IOW, the body of Schrodinger’s cat would not be required to exist in innumerable states spread among a multiverse of possibilities. This is because a body of physics has no independent existence apart from signifying for a state of synchronization among perspectives of consciousness.

IOW, insofar as the consciousness of the cat were entangled with the consciousness of its owner, there would be only one combined state, i.e, the owner would either be happy (cat alive and conscious) or sad (cat dead).

Issues:
(1) Does any test rule out such an approach?
(2) Could such an approach leverage means of quantifiable formulation (as by “lensing” among “primitive units of exclusion”)?

What would Mark Twain say?


****

Re --- Spooky action at distance among entangled particles:

If particles do not exist in themselves, but are only illusory byproducts and derivatively representative markers of entanglements of perspectives of consciousness, then what affects one person at a distance may have significant simultaneous effects on persons closely entangled with his perspective of consciousness.

Do scientists working on a same problem often share nearly simultaneous “aha” moments? If so, there may be some higher validity to transcendental meditation and prayer.

But, interpretation of statistical validity would inherently necessitate subjectivity and intuition, since consciousness itself, by definition, is subjective and not completely objective.

So, unless and until indirect means can be developed to leverage (or "lens") some method for more reliably correlative measurement, empiricists will obviously be disposed to remain bored by such a notion.

****

Dave,

Actually, I am suggesting no multiverse need exist. All states that collapse to the macroscopic detection or consciousness of observers may do so in just one universe, which synchronizes the experiences of perception.

The quantum fuzz of indeterminate possibilities may consist less in "actual matter" than in a sea of "immaterial choices."

If the consciousness of the Cat survives, there need not be any alternative state in any alternative universe where the cat does not survive. If so, it may be that it is not the material bodies of the owner and his cat but the entanglement of their consciousness that sequences forward within a single universe of conceptual experience.

There would be no alternative universe for the state of a dead-cat-body because neither physical matter nor the body of the cat exists independently of entanglement with consciousness.

The main difference in being hit by a train in an awake state versus a dream state is that, in an awake state, other perspectives of consciousness are entangled with your perception of the train. In aware state, your perspective of consciousness is killed as a correlate of the entanglement. In dream state, you may merely be startled awake.

****

Re: "In dream state, you may merely be startled awake."
I know.
You're thinking, "What if the dreamer is driving across a train track in his sleep."
Answer: He goes to train heaven.