When we sense and measure things, we don't sense them as things-in-themselves, but in relational respects. When we seek to manipulate things, we don't sense ourselves as directly manipulating any thing in itself, but as manipulating relational aspects. How we approach a manipulation will depend on relational purpose and context. The same model of approach will not work for all purposes and contexts. Thus, models rely on analogies, which rely on metaphors and figures of speech, i.e., models facilitate attempts to approach appreciations of one kind of thing in terms of another, even as we remain aware that such comparisons, while practical for some purposes, will not be precisely accurate or literal for all purposes. Example: A cosmologist discussing the "flatness" of the universe need not mean that the universe is literally a flat disc, but simply that light rays need not curve back into any geometrical center.
A problem with scientific experts is that they tend to bind themselves narrowly to the linear, often non-dynamic math that defines limits for their favored models. When devoted to explicating reality in respect of a particular model, a scientist may not see much beyond the fuzzy borders for his model, because no single model can avail a complete, coherent, consistent map of reality. Separate models, once pushed to their limits, cannot avail precise mathematical translations among themselves. The way a term is measured for one model may not avail a same meaning or measure for how aspects of it may be referenced for another model. Math itself may show that the identity of a "physical thing" that can be scaled in terms of one kind of thing or aspect (charge, polarity, entanglement, spin, orbit, level, vibration, direction, locus, inertia, angular momentum, amplitude, frequency, intensity, density, size, shape) may not unambiguously translate across its being split, eaten, or scaled in respect of a different kind of thing. Values cannot be scaled in respect of one kind of thing (or identity) and then taken and unambiguously scaled in respect of a different kind of thing. Rather, translations in qualities expressed among quanta occur in discrete leaps, interludes, and fractals. During or across such leaps of quanta, no mortal can predict precisely how, whether, or why a particular pattern or result will emerge. A cookbook may make predictable a practical translation from one quality to another, but it will not precisely explicate the quality of all that is done during or across the transposing interlude or instantiation. Indeed, by definition, the qualitative aspect of a translation across boundaries of kinds of sets cannot be quantitatively reduced. One cannot take components of a cow, rearrange them into a different kind of beast, and then non-arbitrarily measure the Frankenstein in terms of its "cowness."
There is also the qualitative aspect of what it means to try to sense, think, and predict as a cow. That is, there abides a problem of infinite regress in trying to quantify the quality of experiencing consciousness as a cow. An infinite regress consists in this: To be of objective service, the math for each model must be treated as if exterior to one’s subjective consciousness. Yet, one’s subjective consciousness is part of reality. Yet, one cannot very well quantify or plug a prediction of one’s future behavior (or of the future behavior of anyone else) into a formula and then build on that to predict subsequent results. Why? Because at the same time one predicts one’s future behavior, one will have simultaneously altered the factors that will constrain one’s future behavior, as well as the behavior of all to whom such prediction was communicated. Knowing what one intends or is likely to do, one simultaneously becomes free to alter it. And so on. When you compound this by similar degrees of freedom availed to every human (or other) perspective of consciousness, you begin to apprehend a many-faceted problem in math. Thus, an infinite regress marks our incapacity to reduce our own consciousness to mathematical precision, prediction, or control. The infinite regress also marks our incapacity to comprehend the mystery of how various perspectives of consciousness somehow synchronize to avail coordinate signification and meaningful communication among themselves. We may intuit a reconciling Source for such synchronization of perspectives of conscious experience, but we cannot objectify, predict, or control IT, or how IT may guide that which is to unfold as our future.
If our universe somehow constitutes an a-temporal, one-of-a-kind class unto itself, as a Qualitatively-Quantifiable Holon (of a class of one, with capacity to leverage its oneness into appreciations of countable math), then intuition suggests it carries an holistic aspect, nature, or character, which somehow correlates with Its capacity to Be, yet also to always be in a state of Becoming, or changing (its only constant being that It constantly changes?), and to transmit that aspect with various (kinds of layers and levels of degrees) of perspectives of Itself. That transmittable aspect would not itself be a severable part of a hierarchy, but an indivisible aspect of a holarchy. IT finds, experiences, prehends, apprehends, appreciates, and synchronizes qualities of changing expressions by attaching and identifying Itself with variously temporal, fluxing, quantifiable, measurable significations of feedback within and among Itself ... as a holon. In some meta-mysterious way, IT has one-of-a-kind circular capacity to will Its destiny based on feedback appreciation for the unfolding of Its destiny. How IT expresses Its perspectives of conscious will cannot be reverse-engineered by the kind of tinkering that is availed to our incomplete sciences and mortal perspectives. Our "scientific" attempts to quantify Spirit or to measure or find the locus of conscious Mind ("the ghost in the machine") in some part of the brain cannot but come to naught.
Each particular perspective of Mind coalesces in concert with its self-identifying in relation to a contextually-embodied, quantifiable frame-of-reference and point-of-view. The clarity of a perspective's severable coalescence will depend upon the fuzzy character of the cluster of undecided and unchosen possibilities that accompanies the unfolding experiencing of its perspective. All that buffers and separates each perspective of Will from being re-absorbed into the holon of Mind is correlated with that fuzz. Simply put, the aspect of each perspective for being separate will not be found in any correlative, physically-measurable "thing" or part of the brain. It is the Holon's meta capacity for dividing its unitary perspective by interposing patches of fuzz that avails each-perspective-that-experiences-Itself-as-being-separate with an illusion of being wholly derivative of "nothing but" the substance that it measures around itself. However, the experience of each perspective flows in a stream of two-way feedback, from the whole to the part, and from the part to the whole. Thus, each mortal perspective has no logical, empirical, or objective basis by which to disbelieve its "Intuition" (if such it has) that the Holon (God) experiences an entirely correlative and empathetic dance with ITs various perspectives of consciousness (that is, that the experience of consciousness among every perspective is shared in a same, fundamental, reconciling, unifying, holistic quality and aspect).
That said, in practice, we do TRY to model and bend our future to mathematically objective controls. For that, economists and other social and political mathematicians and “scientists” tinker with techniques and leverage models that often astonish us in their unintended, dynamic consequences. However, there is no math by which to leap, convert, reduce, control, or objectify the DYNAMIC back and forth dance between models, between the subjectivity of the eating signifier and the objectivity of the eaten signified. To the extent we cannot roboticize human beings or model the subjective quality of consciousness, our scientific models and the math we apply to them will never avail us the foresight to apprehend all of that which our inventiveness may or should next leverage. To hope to receive vision and guidance that can bend beyond the puny math of our practical and political constructs, one must be receptive to empathy, insight, and vision "from on high." Yes, we can construct various models and myths to our hearts’ content, and we can make the Math Within The Limits Of Each Model just as rigorous as we want. Still, there will always remain a fuzzy interface that will preclude the unification of our various models into any grand construct that could possibly allow a mere perspective of consciousness to measure its touch to the face of the holistic field of consciousness.
Thus, mortal mathematicians and modelers do not have capacity to divine that which society should do. To let math fool non-mathematicians into believing they can our should surrender their responsibility for their own empathies and choices would be to surrender their dignity as individually responsible beings of consciousness. Math modelers CAN avail us with techniques and telescopes by which to focus on various layers and levels of exterior reality. Within limits of Bell curves, modelers may interpret how an exterior reality of “Y” will likely follow “X.” They CANNOT tell us what will likely happen when a situation or model becomes heated or consumed beyond its descriptive parameters, when more and more events begin to fall off the Bell chart. Nor can they reconcile all the many perspectives and models that avail color and character to our unfolding choices.
Bottom Line: No team of scientists in service to a despot can be qualified, top-down, to best regulate and distribute all aspects of society. This is because the best system of regulation is that which best avails the responsibility of individual perspectives of consciousness, bottom-up. That is an issue for spiritual empathy, not for scientific determination. Except in service of Bilderbergers falsely claiming to be more spiritually evolved, scientists can hardly assert a decent claim to expurgate spiritual empathies from the public square. Rather, to twist top-down scientific determination in order to force spiritual empathy is to subjugate heaven to hell. Mutually imposed hell is what Anarchists, Atheists, Islamists, Socialists, Fascists, Crony Capitalists, and Despots would subjugate the world to. Scientifically coerced destruction or redistribution is NOT individually responsible charity. Rather, Coerced Charity is the lying calling card of Big Brother, owning and operating and pillaging Big Government, posing as Secular Religion. The Obama Regime carries all the hallmarks of unspiritual unsanity. Neither Truth nor Justice is in its science or its intuition. What is in the Regime is a near-naked confidence and aggress in the corruption of will to absolute power; that is, a reduction of humanity ... to Eloi ... by Morlocks. Obamaginem esse delendam.