Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Irreducibility of the Ineffable to the Effable

Irreducibility of the Ineffable to the Effable:
(Measurement Problem)

The “ultimate particle” (or Higgs Boson?) (or Indiscernible Unit of Potential?) may be like nothing more than a fundamental “living equation” that requires constant and continuous conservation on all (3) sides or perspectives of its “consciousness” of equality. Such equality is mathematically conservational, in that it may balance any purest subtraction (were such possible) between any two sides to zero. In existentiality, however, the multiplication of 1 times 1 times 1 is One. Yet, the equation is not tautological because the fundamental terms on each side are not interchangeable in qualitative aspect.

For the three equal sides, consider:

1) PROBABILITY FIELD (“God,” Great Spirit, Aether, or Void, establishing “universal ground” for virtual and indiscernible units, for facilitating random resonance of information within, between, through, and among parts and waves);
2) PARTICLE(s) (“Jesus” establishing particular, singular, discrete and organizeable units of perspective, seed, or point of view, for storing organizations of memory of, and choices about, information within parts); and
3) WAVEs (“Holy Ghost” establishing relative, plural grounds for summing and combining locally and continuously chosen standards or fuzzily shared frames of reference, for determining the transmission, communication, anticipation, or intuition of information between parts).

Among such sides, mathematically, Side 1 equals Side 2 equals Side 3. Qualitatively, however, each side is different in aspect of “consciousness” or associated, emotive purposefulness.

In any given relationship, each experience of ultimate “unit (or units) of potential” may be considered, related, or intuitively received from any of 3 different aspects or perspectives: Holistic, Particular, or Additive.

Regarding the manner by which any of the 3 aspects of a seed or unit of potential may relate to a particular recorder, observer, or experiential context, such is determined by the Higher Consciousness that arises in respect of all 3 aspects.

When a particular person or aspect of perspective experiences or measures any effect, his perception is really artifactual of, and connected to sensation being fed back after, a consensus and synchronization being effected among the 3 aspects of Higher Consciousness. Yet, he experiences the sensation “internally, subjectively, and locally,” as if it were product of his own decisions and interactions, independent of other perspectives of the One and same Higher Consciousness.

Thus, the equality of the 3 aspects respects a math that is both beyond and superior to our lower level logical law of the excluded middle. Such higher math has an ineffable aspect which cannot be entirely unified for us in a way that is tautologically consistent with our lower level math.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Don Carlson wrote, "The issue of how we ought to treat those who attack us is not simple and cannot be reduced to homilies, battlefield rules, or, least of all, international agreements."

It seems that the material aspect of our world, when not unfolding in indifference, respects the rule of fang and claw. But of the spiritual aspect, what is worth fighting for, apart merely from survival? A considerable factor for the extent of force one is willing to deploy is the extent to which one is conditioned or receptive to identify with specifics that one defines to be meaningful.

For most Americans, what is most highly esteemed among secular interests tends to be individual liberty (equality in opportunity). For many others, however, their conditioning leads them more highly to esteem equality in distribution.

Both points of view, conflicting though they are, remain associated with deeply religious or spiritual rationalizations. It appears that civilized proponents of each spiritual point of view regarding freedom vs. submission must learn to live apart, or one point of view (freedom?) must prevail over the other (submission?). Presently, proponents of detailed submission (either to intrusive government or to jealous Allah) appear to be far less picky about constraints against "up close and personal" brutality (such as partial birth abortion or ritual beheading).

However temporally, will one side prevail because it is spiritually right, or merely because it is quickest to resort to that which is most brutal? Are we all merely marching along in a no-win game? If so, why should proponents of moral indifference care one way or the other?

I believe proponents of liberty are obliged to keep faith with defense of liberty to whatever vigilance is reasoned necessary, but no more. Apart from decent, familial respect for assimilating traditions, I don't see many hard and fast, bright line, specific rules. Or, as Reagan said, "We win."

Anonymous said...

Except in subventions of such universes of math as are not in themselves
complete, how could meta-consciousness ever presently reflect upon any
additional information by which to know, sense, or experience its
beingness?