Monday, November 30, 2009




As we age, among other things, we learn that:

1) Many judges decide issues based on who contirbutes to their campaigns. (Example: Most folks would think it a no-brainer that relatives within the same vehicle who are injured in an accident and who sue the same defendant highway contractors or trucking companies should, in the interest of judicial economy and conservation of resources, have their claims consolidated for consideration before the same court. In my evaluation, however, the most common and decisive factor is based on what the plaintiff’s attorney wants and whether he holds local political clout.]

2) Scientists are no less human than judges, and may easily become invested in fudging data, as for pharmaceutical companies, for improving chances for government grants, etc.

So, as we become adults, we see past the stars in our eyes, and it becomes mundane to see people we entrust to decide and report important matters fall far short.

Now we find we have people who want to change: marriage to mean parriage; diversity to mean no national or assimilating ethos; national defense to mean completely open borders; patriotism to mean paying taxes to finance the melding of Big Gov with Big International Corp; and liberty to mean complete protection (and subjugation) under the State.

So how do we as a nation assimilate socializing mores?


How do you instill character for keeping science honest (i.e., not agenda driven) without instilling character? To me, the import of the main article cries out in anguish about the loss of trustworthiness (character) in our nation's leaders --- politicians, judges, and now scientists.

When people have character, they can be trusted to exercise a general liberty, without needing grossly intrusive legal compulsion or constant supervision. Is not character inculcated by conditioning people to consciously assimilate respect for a higher source of moral values and principles? Those moral principles do not appear to be objectively proveable in science, math, or godless communism. If they were, I doubt we would have such a history of outrages by sociopathic socialists. Rather, principles for sustaining decent civilization appear to be intuited and inculcated by people who act in good faith. (That does not make such principles less valid.)

So, what is “good faith,” if it is not based in faith in something supernatural, i.e., superior to complete reduction to pretenses of objective natural science? To me, having good faith without expressly mentioning God is simply to have good faith while impliedly appreciating … (think it, you don’t have to say it).

There is a turf war going on, during which some among both secularists and spiritualists have become over greedy. Given human nature, I think it is na├»ve at best to believe that our leaders in politics, law, and science can simply be trusted to be honest and authentic without either (1) having in some fashion been “churched” to assimilate socializing mores or (2) having become kept under totalitarian watch of Big Bro. IOW, except upon assimilating good FAITH, how do we as a nation assimilate socializing mores?

A Global Atheist Convention is being scheduled in Melbourne, the point of it being: “The bigger we can make this convention, the stronger the signal it will send to Australia's religious and political institutions that atheism and secularism are forces to be reckoned with.”

For instilling a “secular brand of good faith,” one may easily substitute in the quote above, so that the words “that atheism and secularism are forces to be reckoned with” may just as well be changed to say “that religion and traditional family values should be swept into a small corner.”

Many well-buttered people have learned to argue that their positions are objectively based, such as in science or in equal representation under the Constitution. Those who disagree, perhaps based on respect for longstanding importance of traditional values, are then denigrated for disagreeing with “objective and fair reasoning.” This is prelude to ridiculing those who believe we should consider long term effects on civilization, before we simply toss out longstanding traditions and calling them: unobjectively founded (what moral principle is completely founded in “objectivity”?), irrational, against the consensus of science, or, worst of all, outmoded principles of “intolerant religious fundies.”

About faith: Sociopathic leaders of Big Gov have faith not well founded in objective nature, i.e., faith that they should count above everyone else. Followers of Big Gov have faith not well founded in maturity, i.e., childlike faith and trust in authorities of Big Gov. So why is it that only those with faith for being receptive to God are the ones whose faith is ridiculed as being unhelpful, unnecessary, non-objective, and “supernatural”?

What drives interest in the rise of atheism? To me, it seems a general angst is gathering, and competing schools are assimilating to try to address it. Some scientists feel their domain (even enlightenment itself!) is being threatened by over greedy creationists. And now religious and spiritual believers feel themselves threatened by over greedy scientists. It seems as if one side truly believes in saving souls, while the other side truly believes in saving the planet.

Regarding over greedy atheists: I’m not confident that scientists’ leading of militant atheism will be either scientific or enlightening. I could appreciate if scientists’ bugaboo were religious literalism, if religious literalism were a threat to science or enlightenment. But science already suffers from its own over greedy charlatans and wannabes, looking for easy grants. To expect empirical objectivism to squeeze out spiritual intuitionism and culturally assimilating religious allegories is to push empiricism too far. IMHO.

I suspect there are plenty of smart folks who consider the notion of being receptive to a higher guiding source of conscious purposefulness to be rational --- not in a purely empirical sense, but in an intuitive, moral, and perhaps mathematical sense.

If atheistic empiricists consider that humanity “should” substitute some new reasoning or source for civilizing mores, then how do they expect to derive specific “shoulds”? Do they expect to use allegories rather than rigorous science to inspire humanity to accept such new mores? If so, they are merely kicking the religious can down the road. So if the leadership for atheists hopes to invade mores, to provide us with new lists for moral behavior and human purposefulness, then I wonder why? Why must they pretend such replacement would be based in science, as opposed to being based in subjectively conditioned, personal preferences among the new leadership?

Do atheistic activists expect to prove empirical validity for a new list of mores, so that all clear thinkers will undoubtedly follow? Or do they instead intend to foist or force their new mores? Absent connecting proof of legitimacy, why should society accept any such new listing, except upon a meta based leap of faith? How should society come to join hands to take such a leap? For moral guidance, should we be ready to replace priests with empiricists? Why?

I do think it would be well for leading thinkers to consider what mores should guide us. But I don’t think resolution or reconciliation will be found purely in the scientific method, nor in traditional religious literalism. We need ongoing means for pursuing the reconciliation of moral empathies, but I doubt hubris will suffice. We need to pursue appreciation for what separates the math which we experience as physics from the purposeful empathies which we experience more subjectively, as moral intuition. (Of the rational validity of intuition: I can no more measure subjective “you-ness” than I can physically, empirically, and rigorously measure moral intuition.)

It's not enough to think or say, "Me smart (bright?) scientist; you dumb believer."

GROUND OF REALITY: Are our moral empathies driven by nothing more than some sort of ultimate, unifying basis for what we experience as physics, sort of like a physics-in-itself (entirely derivative of some sort of [meta?] god particle)? Or are our moral empathies in respect of some sort of perspective-driven capacity for sharing renormalized and conserved images of mathematical equations? Upon what ground of reality do our scientific-based laws of conservation rest: is the ultimate ground some sort of (meta) physical thing, or may it consist in something not entirely explicable either by physics or math?

Friday, November 27, 2009



AMBIGUITY OF POTENTIAL FOR INFORMATION: Information exists in an ambiguous vacuum or state of potential, until such time as it is reduced or collapsed to the navigational experience of perspective(s) of consciousness.

CONTINUITY AND DEFINITION: A conscious being, existing within a frame or field of reference as a particular observer of a point of view, needs general continuity for experiencing itself as an Identifiable Being, but also needs means for discretely demarking and measuring particulars about its situational environment. That is, to experience meaningful changes, a conscious being needs to perceive as if there were both continuity and discreteness.

FEEDBACK PARTICIPATION IN CHOOSING: Consistent with “feedback design,” God, animals, and man may leverage and introduce various “devices” for generating, recording, and taking measures of information about developing potentials within a state of being. A device (such as a star) may be prompted for generating and recording information about a continuous sequencing of events, such as under a field or wave perspective. If so, all perspectives of consciousness which eventually access such information, to interpret it consistently, would likewise experience it consistently with a field or wave interpretation.

Alternatively, a device may be prompted for generating, recording, and taking measures of a discrete sequencing of events, such as under a particle or quanta perspective. If so, all perspectives of consciousness which eventually access such information, to interpret it consistently, would likewise experience it consistently with a particle or quanta perspective.

SHARED FIELDS OF INFORMATION MADE MANIFEST: Suppose, within a state of unfolding potential, one device is introduced for taking measures consistent with a wave interpretation of continuity, while another is introduced for taking measures consistent with a particle interpretation of discreteness. If information “had existence” independent of perspective, it would seem problematic were one device to interpret it as wave-like, while another device interpreted the “same information” as particle-like.

However, information does not have manifest or independent existence apart from perspective. There is no “existent information” that could be interpreted in two different or conflicting ways because information does not exist as an identity in itself. Information is experienced to generate shared experiential feedback, but information does not in itself exist.

SHARED RULING ALGORITHM: Because of a ruling Algorithm, each and every device within each and every shared perspective of reference will have the information it measures and interprets shared and renormalized consistent with the experience of each perspective which shares, records, and interacts with it. Each device and perspective which shares interpretations of information is sharing meaningfully communicable interpretations of potential, AS IF such interpretations were real, even though none of such interpretatons of potential constitutes reality-in-itself.

Rather, each device and perspective that shares interpretations of potential is part of a derivative or inferior reality, which is only shared with such potentials of consciousness as are consistent with such interpretations of potential. We do not share a same physical reality, because there is not such a thing. Rather, what we share is an overlapping renormalization of experiential reduction of potential of reality to shared and communicable interpretations of perspectives.

COMMUNICATING ABOUT SHARED PRETENSES: Indeed, not even that which we take AS IF it were the identity of each perspective of consciousness is intependent in itself, but is part of an interprtation of potential, for sharing and communicating with other such perspectives (such as, friends). Although my friends do not “really” share a same “physical universe” with me, they do share significantly overlapping and renormalized aspects of a shared interpretation of the potential of beingness --- AS IF it constituted a real universe. (As to Who or What avails the sharing of interpretations of potential information, I intuit: There is meta-action in respect of a higher Consciounsess, interacting with a field of potential information in accordance with a parameter setting algorithm.)

PHYSICAL REALITY: An infinity of parallel physical universes does not exist, because there is no real physical universe in itself. Likewise, there is no real time travel, because there is no real physics within which to time travel. Likewise, an infinity of perspectives of consciousness which are in identity with my own and which are inhabiting parallel universes does not exist.

UNIQUENESS OF LIFE PATHS: Rather, each perspective of consciousness takes the measure of its path of experience through the field of potential information in its own unique way. It could “repeat” only if information reduced to conscious or recorded experience within the field could be lost. If such information, once made manifest to experience, cannot be entirely lost (which I intuit to be the case), then each layer of new information will necessarily preclude any subsequent sequence from being precisely repetitive. In other words, our perspectives of consciousness are discretely different, even though our ultimate source of consciousness is continuously the same.

META-ENTERTAINMENT: It is through us, the various perspectives of consciousness, by which the experience and interpretation of information from the field of potential beingness are made meaningful. I intuit that aspects of information from our experiences are somehow preserved or continued, for influencing the continuing unfoldment of beingness, for the meta-entertainment of a higher, unifying, synchronizing, holistic Source of consciousness.

RENORMALIZING TRICK: Thus I concpetualize the trick by which our shared experiences of chronological sequences of information are interpreted, both as continuous and as discrete, in ways that are renormalized to preserve our shared experiences, i.e., illusions derivative of higher Source.

MODELING CONSCIOUSNESS IN MATH: Instead of trying to model math and physics for why space-time is either continuous or discrete (“either-or”), we need to model how math is consistent with both continuity and discreteness, depending upon purpose and choice of perspective of consciousness. That is, “perspective-of-consciousness” needs to be interrelated with our math, for renormalizing “particular point-of-view” and “field frame-of-reference.” We need to overcome “either-or” notions about “physics-in-itself” and move on to try to interrelate and understand “consciousness of beingness in itself.”

CONSTANCY OF CHANGE: Regarding one’s meaningful experience of change: Continuity preserves a sense of Identity of a thing that is being experienced of measured. Discreteness facilitates its measurement. “As if” experience, both of continuity and discreteness, is requisite to the meaningful experience of change. Neither continuity nor discreteness can be banished from existential relevance merely by “either-or” thought processes.

CARING CHOICE, PREDETERMINED FATE, AND RANDOM INDIFFERENCE: Consider that a device, recorder, or person has been introduced into a state of being for “taking measurements” of apsects of field-like information versus particle-like information. How “should” such introduction into the state of potential information be conceptualized? Ultimately, should it be conceptualized as in some sense having been (1) chosen; (2) predetermined; (3) randomly generated; (4) mixed; (or (5) imagined? Regressively, if imagined, should a field of imagination be conceptualized as having been chosen, predetermined, or randomly generated?

GOD’S ALGORITHM: As best I can intuit and conceptualize, I believe each such introduction of each such “device” is backed originally by a higher Source of conscious choice, which avails a field of potential by which such device is imaged, and which also predetermines a patrameter limiting algorithm for generating random interactions of such devices, subject to a continuous role for such higher consciousness and its avatars or perspectives for exercising feedback choices or degrees of freedom within such parameter limiting algorithm.

As for the most fundamental “device”: It would seem to be a basic unit with a meta-aspect for controlling how information (about expressions that we measure as “matter” and “energy”) is conserved.

In other words, that which we take to be “physics” is derivative of a “God particle” interacting with a field of potential information. As a result, parameters for such physics were chosen or set for ruling degrees of freedom. Holistic God and particular Avatars of consciousness, in expressing such interactions and in participating in taking measures thereof, by such means effect meaningful feedback choices within such degrees of freedom.

SPIRITUALLY EMPATHETIC CHOICES: Ultimately, such exercises --- of degrees of freedom, avatars of consciousness, and algorithm for generating shared limits for experiencing potential of beingness --- are all derivative in respect of a meta God particle interacting with a meta field of potential information.

Thursday, November 26, 2009



Math, logic, and geometry teach us that we can derive and construct all manner of proofs” for falsehoods and confusions, simply by beginning our interrelations with one false axiom. The result is that we end up with parallel yet asymmetric models, which we try to make as internally consistent as possible, but which stubbornly resist unification or reconciliation between themselves.

Example: If physics rests on a basis that is independently real, then is that basis consistent with a model or theory of continuous fields and waves, or is it consistent with a theory of discrete particles and quanta? Is space-time continuous or is it granular?

Well, we struggle to reconcile such notions because we presume physics is real. But what if the higher reality is that physics is dependent and derivative of a relation with Something that is beyond physical measure, but not necessarily beyond adducement to mathematical consistency and intuition?

In “ultimate reality,” I intuit that each of us does not really exist as a separate and independent identity. Rather, each of us is a perspective of One higher consciousness, which itself finds expression by interacting within a meta information field, which Something actively and sequentially synchronizes to avail algorithmically controlling parameters upon experiences of its own perspectives and degrees of freedom.

Nevertheless, each perspective among us defends his or her sense of autonomous identity and perspective to the last breath. Each of us constructs, interprets, and interacts with his or her perspective of the “physical universe,” AS IF it were true that we are separate identities and that physics is independently real.

In doing so, the price is that we entertain asymmetrically fluxing and parallel models, which continuously evolve and morph and “progress,” as we try to make such models as internally consistent as possible, even as they stubbornly resist unification or reconciliation. That is, each “progressive” step towards unification of our “as if” models simply opens up new vistas for wonderment.

Monday, November 23, 2009



What does it mean to be aware of one’s self? Is “self” purely a byproduct of physics? Does “self” participate via feedback in effecting choices within parameters of physics? Or is self’s participation purely epiphenomenal, and otherwise ineffectual? Are the patterns of forms chosen by God or Spirit entirely determined, or are they determined by some kind of mathematical function for generating randomness? To the extent events appear to signify in obedience to parameters that may be expressed mathematically, what is the “reason” for that?

Are choices derivative of some aspect or component of “will”? If there is an aspect of self or free or meta will, what, if anything, may it signify physically … or suggest spiritually? Is meta will determined not merely by accumulations of information of the past, but by purposes for the future, perhaps even teleological purposes which pull at such will, timelessly?


What non-triviality may emotively, reasonably, or meaningfully be said of such “will” … or of holistic or meta-will versus particular or mortal-will?


And is there any way, “objectively,” to “know” whether any other being is consciously aware of itself, as a “separate” perspective of consciousness, as opposed simply to being physically programmed to make appearances AS IF it were self conscious? What if it appears to store information, learn, adapt, respond consistently within expected parameters, and express rationalizations for choices?

But if a universe may appear to confer me with self consciousness, by what “test” may or should I reason that it appears likewise to confer self consciousness upon other perspectives of beingness? May other, particular perspectives of consciousness only “appear” to be separate, while “really” being of the same holistic perspective?


I choose not to believe that awareness of self is purely derivative of physics. I choose to believe that all of physics that is accessible to mortals is derivative of a meta will or consciousness, interacting within a meta information field, which is set to obey algorithmically controlling parameters. Such controlling, unifying Algorithm may in some sense be accesssible to mortal, measurable derivation.

In other words, our best evidence for perspectives of “selfness” and “will” may be subjective, internal, empathetic, and/or INTUITIVE. But our best evidence of “reason” may be objective, external, empirical, and MATHEMATICAL.

However, I also believe “reason” is derivative of “selfness.” That is, our experiences of empirical “physics” are derivative of our various “selves” SIGN-ifying and de-SIGNing forms for sharing expressions of math, which would be dimensionless but for being shared and limited within a common defining Algorithm.


But Who has availed such Algorithm? Perhaps “God” or Holistic Consciousness, aka Meta God Particle interacting with Meta Information Field. If so, all dimensions and expressions of physics (space, time, matter and energy) are derivative of, and subordinate to, such “ongoing” meta interaction, which may as well be conducting its entire concert on the head of a dimensionless pinpoint (sort of analogous to a physical Big Bang out of a dimensionless point of virtual nothingness).


Those tending most purely to be devoted to empiricism often scoff at notions of “intuition,” as if intuition should never form a basis for belief, as if the only belief worthwhile must be supported in respect of objectively measurable math. For them, I ask: apart from ongoing “intuition,” how do you form, unify, or COMPLETE any reasoned belief that any other perspective of self aware consciousness actually exists?

My point is this: There is a reasonable realm for measurable empiricism, but there is also a reasonable realm for moral intuition. I believe to think less is to follow only the poorer half of a philosophy.


Why is this of import? Well, “elite” campuses worldwide are hell bent to deconstruct all meta-thought about freedom,dignity, family, decency … in short, civilization.


In that regard, so-called hard-science “empiricists” have hardly covered themselves in glory with their half baked philosophies bent on denigrating and replacing spiritual intution in respect of a New Moral Priesthood … composed of scientists, bureaucrats, and (in the vein of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”) intolerant, fascistic, religious oppressors.

In short, many godless scientists, in presuming to replace religion, are perverting spirituality, becoming as bad or worse than any spiritual teacher they seek to replace. That is, many empiricists have become fervently “religious about science;” they have become neo-moral-fascists, bent on denigrating fundamental traditions and institutions requisite to decent civilization.


I intuit that there exists an Information Field (Aether?). It is not composed of information, but of potential information. It is the interaction of such field with Some Essential Aspect (Mind or God Particle?) that generates (Genesis?) present information about experiential existence, i.e., Identity of Beingness (reactiveness for storing potential for the unfolding of information to consciousness, subconsciousness, consciousness, self consciousness, spiritual consciousness).

It is the interaction of such “Metas,” i.e., Potential and Mind, which expresses, as byproduct, a competitive, cooperative, evolutionary unfolding and flourishing of freedom to imagine, interpret, express, communicate, translate, allegor-ize, and share interpretations and de-signs within algorithmically prescribed parameters.

Thus, experiences of information become organized among various perspectives (varying points of view within shared frames of reference), which share overlaps, which are derivative both of heirarchical (superiors’ and inferiors’) and horizontal (peers’) interactions and communications.


Each of us is a perspective of the Consciousness or Mind of God, interacting with a Field of Potential Information. To realize separateness of perspective, and to be able to communicate with similarly separate perspectives, we each assume (or are brought to assume) a role within our common Source’s (God’s) existential game of “let’s pretend.”

To play (“exist”) in any such game, we are required to accept its parameters and rules. Such parameters constitute a web of mathematical laws of nature, i.e., the Algorithm, which limits and defines all “physical tokens” (aka symbols, forms, models, and metaphors) for our interactions within the game. What we take to be our “physics” is what we must accept as conventional in order to participate, SIGN-ify, and communicate within the rules of the game.


So who or what is The Source-Interactor (or Mind or Will of God) that interacts with the Information Field? Being “meta,” IT may better be called “spiritual” than “physical.” Being meta, IT is not any sort of measurable or physical particle, not even as an “ultimate” physical particle of matter (insofar as we are accustomed to thinking of what is measurable in physics). Nor is the meta Information Field any sort of ultimately measurable physical field of waves, particle packets, or quanta of energy.


Being meta, the “Information Field” and the “God Particle” are necessarily beyond quantifiable relation or measure in physics or science. They are to be subjectively experienced (in intuition of potentiality of perspective and imagination). They are not to be objectively reduced, converted, or harnessed to mathematical relations or measures, They are not that which is mathematically (or statistically) measured, but that which avails measures. That are not of the game, but that which avails the game … and that which sets the teleology of the game.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Free Trade vs. Smart Trade

Free Trade vs. Smart Trade:

Can American style free enterprise compete with China? Can domestic small businesses compete against the productive economies or coordination of scale of large corporations?

For domestic national security, cultural assimilation, and wealth,the advantage of dividing labor among international competitors is offset by the cost and environmental damage that is attributable to shipping. Further, enriching unfriendly nations carries its own cultural frictions and costs.

So, to preserve American style individualism and culture, how may American governance be trusted to encourage Smart Trade and help small businesses remain competitive? How may government be trusted to increase incentives inclined towards encouraging more diversified ownership, vision, direction, and management, i.e., more democratic spreading of wealth and influence so that oligopolists and aristocrats do not simply buy up the politicians and regulators who define government?

Perhaps government, once made enlightened by an informed electorate, should:

Forbid corporate involvement in most politics or lawmaking;
Progressively tax individuals and managers based on engagement of lobbyists or lobbying;
Impose import and export taxes, designed to discriminate against corporations that try to leverage competive power based on foreign entanglements;
Adjust relative lengths of patent and copywright protections;
Regulate to increase minimum wages paid by corporations, but not by small businesses;
Make employee health insurance portable and competitive across state lines, so as to make small businesses and independent contractors more competitive;
Encourage privitization of various department and managerial functions and services;
Encourage more involvement in mid-level management by independent contractors;
In rare cases, split up corporations, vertically and laterally;
Better educate a civically responsible electorate.

Saturday, November 7, 2009


Anytime there is a discussion about population management or the effect of population on our carbon footprint, someone always trots out the epithet, "eugenicist," or "Nazi!"

Granted, the holocaust should have conditioned us to be wary of failing to accord due respect and humility when it comes to direct interventions inclined towards producing a superior race. So, we became rightly concerned about test tube babies, genetic manipulation, stem cell research, government financed/accorded abortion, and population management incentives.

Still, when it comes to deciding whether to procreate, to choose to trust to blind chance is itself a form of choosing. No one trusts purely to randomness when it comes to any other important function, such as driving, working, or even playing. To decline to make difficult moral choices is itself a form of choice -- often an irresponsible one.

It is past time to question some uncomfortable or unquestioned assumptions. In this day and age, to leave procreation entirely to quantum chance is not just silly -- it is socially irresponsible. Choosing to rely entirely on random chance is simply choosing to be irresponsible.

While often having hearts in the right places, Catholics' notions about sex and procreation too often stretch too far into absurdity. Simply put, God is too important to entrust entirely to fundies.

Regarding human reproduction, what should be the most significant factors for distinguishing between what is to be encouraged versus what is to be discouraged?

Factors To Be Receptive To: Specific affronts to present human dignity versus general incentives or disincentives to future reproduction; what is needed to sustain a decent and viable civilization; what is reasonably consistent with spiritual values, without being unnecessarily counterproductive to scientific quests; what forms of incentives would be least intrusive upon human freedom and dignity; manning and defending national borders.

No Choice Not To Practice Eugenics: We need not imagine that, absent our intentions, evolution somehow refrains from “practicing” eugenics. Rather, every interaction imparts a eugenic tendency or effect, even if only in present meme leading to eventual gene, whether of not directly intended to do so. So it hardly elevates us, morally, to pretend not to notice how the acting out of our intentions so obviously affects eguenics, regardless of whether or not a specific eugenic effect was intended.

Friday, November 6, 2009



Suppose time, space and physical circumstance have no reality independent of Mind engaging in consciousness in "meta-nowness." Suppose all that we interpret as separate physical experiences are secondary to nothing more than mathematical tricks, derivative of capacity of One holistic consciousness to borrow virtual experientiality against meta-time?

Suppose that Oneness has capacity to split in sequential, virtual time, into mathematically offsetting (positive and negative) versions of itself. Further, so long as always conserving a balance of zero, suppose each such positive or negative version likewise has capacity itself to split into sub-positive and sub-negative versions of itself. And so on.

If so, what visions may such mind imagine, in derivation of such sequential splits? With what sort of non-body, out of body, or multiple body perspectives may such mind entertain itself, all subsisting simply as variations on one theme? What sort of trading on empathies, memories, or information may such Oneness perpetuate, either in lethal passion or in disinterested or circular autopilot?

Is not the “One” always the odd One out, forever precluding a complete annihilation into absolute nothingness (whatever that may “be”) as a result of any collision of all mirror positives with their mirror negatives? Indeed, byproducts of the One manifest in respect of indication of non-mirror parity (broken symmetry), such as in observations of muons that are only “right handed.”

It seems that our realm of mathematical possibilities is infinite, such that the possible forms of manifestations unto consciousness are nearly magical in responsiveness to mathematical investigations, so long as each particular mathematical investigation is not inconsistent with the math that is manifested in the physics that is secondary to the ruling synchronization of choices then and there being effectuated in respect of the interaction of all perspectives of beingness.

Among possible choices and experiences of information availed to each perspective, all require a subsuming synchronization in respect of the web that comprises each and every other perspective of being (as well as in respect of the holistic author of the common algorithmic ground that is shared by all more particular perspectives). Within the web we share for the communication of information, we live, die, and evolve, depending upon how our niche for receiving information strengthens, weakens, or even kills us. As information synchronizes before us, it, as in the case of lightning, can be immensely powerful or lethal to our developing interests. (Kill the mind and the body dies.) Often, a visionary being will be caught in a local web that may seem to be atavistic evil, yet may also serve as foil for progress along moral purposefulness.


EXISTENCE REQUIRES RELATION: Insofar as the quarks that comprise matter are never alone, are they “real,” or are they only Mathematical Constructs for conservational accounting? On one hand, quarks exhibit properties, such that they can be separately differentiated even though they can never be alone. On the other hand, they can never be differentiated except by means of relational reference (insofar as they act together in discretely measurable units, fractions, numbers, charges, or spin parity). While individual quarks that are bound (glued) together may be separated, such can only be experienced in quantum jumps, instantaneously (or “virtually,” by “borrowing against the future”), in such a way that conservation is always glued back together and restored for the here and now.

REALITY OF MASS: So, unless some “real” particle (Higgs?) can be shown to communicate “real mass,” then apart from function of mathematics, what “physical force” enforces such function of conservation, really? Must not all relationships be renormalized to each measurable perspective only as (and when taken as if) the locus of each such perspective is at the center of the here and now?

TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION: Regarding “spooky action at a distance” --- can information ever be “transmitted” through space-time at speeds exceeding the speed of light? Well, suppose such spooky action at a distance does not proceed “through” space time or “at speed.” Rather, suppose the information action simply appears, simultaneously and instantaneously, at two loci that appear to be separated in different parts of space-time. Suppose the apparent reality of the physics by which information is organized (i.e. the reality of particles, matter-energy, space-time, distance) is mere byproduct of a higher reality (i.e. consciousness communicating with itself in respect of a chosen algorithmic medium). If so, information that appears to be imparted simultaneously to two loci separated by a distance may in higher reality simply be information being experienced simultaneously by one and the same perspective of higher consciousness, albeit, in varying aspects.

THE CONSERVER: Intuitively, every sensible relationship measures consistent with a higher level unity of one, even though our local measures tend to be inaccurate, incomplete, or fuzzy. So Who is the Conserver of the Conservation of One? If no quark can exist alone, but always requires a relationship with a variation of itself and within a field, then the means by which it is required and directed in the relationship would reasonably seem to be the higher reality. That is, that which rules the relationship is that which rules the thing related. In other words, a higher reality exists, which is too high to be accessible to our mathematical measure.

THE UNITARY RELATIONSHIP CONSERVED: Mathematically, apart from its unit, each sub-unit of a unit can never be consistently imagined or perceived to exist for more than a discrete, quantum interval, without somehow restoring itself to complete and conserve its unitary relation. Likewise, apart from its subunit, each subrelation to a subunit can never be perceived to exist for more than a discrete quantum interval without somehow restoring itself to complete and conserve its unitary relation. Every unit, subunit, and subrelation is simply a different aspect of the one holistic unit.

THE PERCEIVING RELATIONSHIP CONSERVED: Each different aspect is induced by the imagination, will, choice, or imbued identification or perspective of a higher spirit or essence, beyond mere math. Each unit of perspective may combine with other units, to express, epiphenomenally, perspectives of consciousness. Each unit cannot contribute to the experience or lifeline of a path of consciousness except in respect of a higher, synchronizing, super unit. Apart from its super unit, no unit or perspective of consciousness can exist for more than its lifeline without restoring itself towards the completion of its super unit.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Active Ingredient of all Renormalizing

Active Ingredient of all Renormalizing:

RENORMALIZING: What I mean by "to Renormalize" is to experience a difference in feedback or perspective and then to translate and communicate ways to appreciate the difference to other perspectives, and sometimes for them to confirm the appreciation.

CONDITIONS FOR COMMUNICATION: How is that-which-is-manifested-into-existence made or renormalized out of that-which-is-of-a-virtual-vacuum?
There occurs for us a constant and continuous renormalizing of our experiences.
Were such not the case, I can conceive of no way for any two living, conscious beings to experience different perspectives and still be able to relate to one another regarding their states of being.

SUPERIOR LAW: For conceptualizing a law of nature, such Process Of Renormalization, in encompassing consciousness of experiences, appears to be superior even to what is commonly referred to as the law of conservation of matter and energy.
May a Law of Renormalization, when considered with derivative Law of Conservation, account for our experiencing or measuring of virtual particles or bundles of matter or energy?
Is not the borrowing of such virtual particles against the unfolding future (i.e., choices unfolding along our lifepaths) a form of renormalizing?
What sort of Mathematician of Pure Math could account for such renormalizing of experiences of consciousness?

FUNDAMENTAL UNIT OF POTENTIAL: To coordinate the experiential effect of a generally quantifiable and measurable sequence and direction for each unfolding process of renormalization, it seems there must be prescribed and/or obeyed some sort of fundamental Unit of Mathematical Potential, which may be borrowed from in various of its secondary expressions, but which must always be balanced.

BORROWING AGAINST VIRTUAL REALITY: How else may one account for measurable borrowing of virtual particles against the future, or for the “twin paradox,” unless some perspectives of consciousness receive, interpret, alter, and/or choose aspects of information somewhat fuzzily, differently, and/or incompletely from others?

NORMALIZING THE ABNORMAL: In the proverbial case of the space-traveling twins, one will age more than the other, depending upon how much more quickly he experiences sequences of information during his life path and along his spatially changing and renormalizing frames of reference. During their lives, one twin will age faster and be crammed with a different quality of more information and, upon his turning back, even experience his own renormalizing loss of part of the stream of information that yet continues to be availed to his twin.

RENORMALIZATION OF EXPERIENCE OF INFORMATION: In other words, no particular particle, wave or field of light is renormalized.
Rather, what is renormalized is the conscious experience of the observer himself.
Physics does not, in itself, borrow against the future.
Rather, each conscious being, in approaching each situation while interacting with other perspectives, acts as a choice-inducing agent.

SYNCHRONIZER: And the sum of all such choices must be renormalized in obedience to a synchronizing Wielder of a higher Algorithm.
In other words, it is because virtual loans can be taken against the vacuum of the future that it is possible for us to experience ourselves as choice-effecting agents.
But for such process of renormalizing to perspectives of consciousness, whether particular or holistic, physics would not manifest, inasmuch as it makes no coherent sense to speak of “physics in itself.”

IMPLICATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS: For Physics to relate in any relevant way, Consciousness, at least in potentiality, is necessarily implicated.
Perspectives of physics, and storage and interpretation of information about physics, are renormalized not in respect merely of any physics-in-itself, but in respect of perspectives (or at least recorders of potential perspectives, i.e., measure-inducing observers).

PHYSICS AS A PLACEHOLDING CONVENTION FOR AVATARS: That which we call “physics” is artefactual of how consciousness stores (“placeholds”) its perspectives of information, after the fact of each renormalization.
That which we measure as “particles or waves of physics” is after-the-fact artefactual of something more fundamentally essential, i.e., renormalizing feedback from the interacting of our particular and holistic perspectives of consciousness or choices of imagination.

FEEDBACK WITH AVATARS: Each particular perspective appreciates each sequential novelty as feedback, a slight step later than it was prescribed by a holistic, synchronizing, Renormalizer of consciousness.
That which one takes to be one’s body serves only as Avatar of Something spiritually deeper, beyond physics.
I am unable meaningfully to conceive of any existent field-in-itself which would renormalize itself for the Purpose of renormalizing perspectives of consciousness.
Rather, I can conceive of a physical field only as a secondary placeholder, artefactual to a synchronizing perspective of consciousness.

GROUND OF BEING: I am unable Meaningfully to conceive of “dumb physics” or “dumb math” as providing the ground of being for the renormalizing of perspectives of consciousness, sans Physicist or Mathematician.

INTERACTIVE GOD: For us, no field exists as our “ground of being in itself,” but only artefactual of the synchronizing imaging of an Interacting Agent of renormalizing, i.e., “God” -- not a mere disinterested or uninvolved deity.
Every choice we experience is artefactual of feedback with a higher Renormalizer.

PARITY AND CRACKED SYMMETRY: Exact parity is not required for each and every perspective of being. Rather, the symmetry of experience is “cracked.” Were it otherwise, it would seem that communication between perspectives of being would not be possible, if there could be only one perspective.
Rather, different beings must experience different perspectives, but of the same underlying source of expression or ground of being.
The ground of being that we share as a frame of reference must be one and the same, yet it must avail us with non-parity in perspectives.
Example: There is a conceptualized a particle called a (“righthanded”) muon. In some relations, it is measured as spinning clockwise on its axis of movement, but never counterclockwise. In other words, a muon can be experienced only by a measurer who is sympathetic with its direction of movement. No measurer can ever experience a (“lefthanded”) muon as spinning counterclockwise, because no measurer can ever approach it except in sympathy with clockwise spin about its direction of movement. This violates parity, and allows one who is in sympathy with a muon’s direction of movement to receive and interact with information about it that may not be available to one who otherwise would relate to the muon from a non-sympathetic perspective. In other words, the universe we share renormalizes available information about itself differently to one who is sympathetic to the frame of movement of a muon as opposed to one who is not. May other relations pertain, by which parity is violated?

FUZZ: If you and I are accessing different microscopes that are focused for observing the same bacteria, we will interact with the information differently from those in our lab who may be accessing microscopes focused only for observing the same atoms within the bacteria. Each observer’s information will be renormalized within shared parameters, subject to “fuzz,” insofar as no two observers will perceive exactly the same perspective. The more we share the same parameters for focusing, the less the fuzz that needs to be renormalized in our attempts to coordinate our notes. No non-trivial communication or sharing of information is exactly coordinate at all levels and layers of consideration.

PARAMETERS FOR NON-TRIVIAL COMMUNICATION: While we do not share independent stories, we do share differently renormalized stories on a theme. Depending on level of story precision, consensus can be reached about information that is within the same parameters or margins of statistical error. Insofar as physics does not exist in itself, but only artefactual to perspective, no level of precision will ever produce a clear or complete picture or description of any “particle (or any other thing) in itself.”

MORALITY: Materialism-consisting-only-in-itself is not an adequate model for discussing materialism. More importantly, absent conceptualization of an interacting Synchronizer of purposefulness, there is no coherent conception for inspiring moral cooperation. Attempts at moral inspiration would reduce to a hoax, or, as Vonnegut would say, a crock. Such is philosophy fit only for weed smoking Ivy profs, solipsistic totalitarian collectivists, and misled materialists.

RENORMALIZING LIGHT: Were our interpretations of light not limited to a constant, how could we experience chronology or any sensible interactions within space-time? How could we merge in identification with any sensible form or perspective of particular consciousness?

Every perspective receives information in chronological sequence from every source-direction. But suppose information from each of five sources could be transmitted at various speeds, without limitation to any renormalizing limit. If so, the observer could not renormalize to determine which incident being reported by the information occurred first or last.

For example, if the speed of information received from each different source depended upon the speed and direction of its projecting source, then the observer would have no reference by which to trust, make, or communicate sensible experience out of any chronology of incidents. That is, our experiences would be without reference to any sensible chronology. Time would neither impart meaning, nor respect memory.

It is only in respect that the speed of transmission of information has a limiting speed relative to each observer that we are able to renormalize our perceptions of events to communicate our sense of their sequential movements and relations.

But it is not the speed of light, per se, that is limited. Rather, what is limited is the renormalizing speed at which information is interpreted as being receivable to each perspective. Somehow, information “touches” each of us in sequences. What we call “light” is merely artefactual to our interpretation of how that happens. And information always “touches” us a step before we sense of react to it.

Whatever may constitute the process or renormalization to perspective, we ourselves – our bodies, brains, and experiences – are artifacts to it.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Judas Serves

Judas Serves:

Likely, what most bothers Spiritualists about Materialists’ usages of "evolution" is how jealously Materialists guard the notion, as if evolution-in-itself were their personal god. Perhaps this is revenge for all their lonely hours spent trying to reduce reality to their own deterministic math. But nothing about evolution is necessarily anti-spiritual, per se.

Consider: Survival of the "fittest to replicate" pertains to the evolution of living, conscious, and purpose-driven perspectives of being. Each local being cannot do aught but participate in contemporaneous, synchronous feedback with all others, to constantly, discretely, and continuously effect changes in the unfolding manifestation of system, planet, environment, and niche that helps to complete each of us. While the environment may reward what is "fittest," each being who is among the fittest determines which of its aspects it shall express or favor. And that feedback becomes part of the environment which rewards that which is fittest.

In other words, each of us participates in choices for the unfolding design of all that sustains us. Such unfolding of design choices would not occur but for feedback in the participation of beings who are, at some level, imbued with feedback of consciousness.

In other words, participation of purpose-driven consciousness is intimately and inextricably interwoven with the process whose effects we trivially label as "evolution." Surely, it is no sin against Materialists to term such aspect of the process as "spiritual" or "spiritually driven." Indeed, were it otherwise, why should Materialists care a whit whether Spiritualists "should" do anything, much less adopt a purely mechanistic view of our universe based on utter disregard for non-materialistic "shoulds"? After all, why should a Materialist, even one devoted to Marxist dialectic materialism, pretend to worry in any principled way about nuclear bombs, genocide, or distribution of opportunity or wealth?

Spiritualists tend to acknowledge the self-evidence that principled, purposeful design is at work. But what, if anything, is such designings’ encompassing or reconciling purpose? Is it even possible to be conscious and yet be utterly without some intuition or sense of purpose?

I believe a higher purpose relates to the unfolding of capacities for varying perspectives of being to communicate with one another in such civilized fashion as to entertain one another. If so, to advocate for submission of The Collective to mind slavery is to be foil for strengthening purpose by serving sin. After all, what else should foils be good for?

While free peoples have trustingly slept, a fundamentally evil and incoherent coalition has formed under an umbrella of faux "Liberal Progressivism." The coalition is comprised of various groups of dogmatically militant and impatient atheists, including: (1) scientific materialists, (2) economic (Marxist) dialectic materialists, and (3) pleasure-driven proponents of unlimited, immediate gratification. This unholy trinity has united to overturn essential civilizing traditions by abusing science, economics, and hedonism. It is now fired with nothing less than religious fervor to replace God with Big Government, asap. Further, because radical Islam is essentially the detailed rule of government under interpreters of what "god" deems to be good government, liberal-progressive rulers have united with Islamists in admiration of Big Gov for subjugating, by force and connivance, all Western expressions of individualism among those who are to be ruled. Worldwide, the freedom and dignity of ordinary people is more endangered now than it was in 1939.

"Government" has no more conscience by which to be "fair" than the Tooth Fairy. Government is only the armament of trust given to fallible rulers. But to entrust absolute power over one's liberty and industry to government is to surrender absolute power to fallible rulers, for whom absolute power invariably leads to their corruption, absolutely. We are in the midst of a time of madness, rushing to give government to drink from fire hoses, far more than government can decently swallow. In effect, we have turned our most important "fire departments" over to asylums for pyromaniacs, in a mad rush to reduce everything to the equality of ashes.