Implicated Incompleteness Of Quantitative Based Models About Substance

Dualism of the Quantitative and the Qualitative:  To live in Quantitative harmony with this universe that we share, it seems one must attune one's mind and senses to space-time (gravity) as the aboriginal Source, force, or Field, which itself just exists, but cannot be derivatively defined, yet avails all quantities in respect of which all other quantitative aspects of our beingness are derived, correlative, or measured.

Implicated Incompleteness Of Quantitative Based Models About Substance:

QUESTION:  Are our models about Substance necessarily incomplete, yet astonishingly helpful to measurably practical purposes?  If so, why?  Upon considering roles for Information and Consciousness, is this really so astonishing?

REGARDING FINITE BUT UNBOUNDED:  What does that mean? Does it mean our universe has a finite mass, but an unbounded "edge?" Or does it mean the universe has finite mass, but no edge, because its matter and energy ride along a sort of flat surface, like the surface of an expanding balloon? Problem with balloon analogy:   The more a balloon expands, the more it appears like a two dimensional plane when considered from a particular point of view. However, the view of galaxies in space is at least three dimensional, in that observers can see other galaxies not just along the surface of an expanding balloon, but in every direction that a telescope is pointed.  (So, the ballon analogy, like most models, seems valid for one way of thinking, but invalid for other ways.  Does a better model avail, that could be valid for all ways?)  Given that case, beyond the expanding sphere of space-time, would not the leading surface of the expanding universe constitute at least a three dimensional "edge?"

PROBLEM WITH FLAT ANALOGY:  From Physics Forum --- "flat" means that, on average, space-time is just about as round (spherical) as it is inverted (saddle shaped)?) The universe's "shape" isn't like a real shape, but corresponds to the average distribution of energy in spacetime throughout the universe. So, a "flat" universe doesn't correspond to flatness like a flat surface, but instead means that on average the energy distribution throughout a "flat" universe is almost the same everywhere when you look at the whole universe.

REGARDING SPACE IS FLAT:  The increase of distance measured between bodies and galaxies, given the relatively calculable age of our universe, may seem to violate a notion of the speed of electromagnetic radiation as being limited to a constant. However, such apparent conflicting observations may be reconciled by conceptualizing the matter in the light cone of our experience (our universe) as riding with an expansion of "the fabric" of space-time (sort of like dots painted on a regular grid on a balloon, expanding in distance apart as the balloon is inflated).

POINT OF VIEW AND FRAME OF REFERENCE:  The eye of an observer a distance away and outside the balloon may perceive the dots as moving apart from one another at the same regular rate, in all directions. However, an observer whose ("20 - 20") lens of perception is placed directly next to a particular dot will perceive other dots as accelerating away ever faster, the further they are from the dot chosen to avail the point of view. (Such an observer would perceive the same effect, regardless of which dot he were to adopt for his point of view.)

NOTICE: As each dot on a curvelinear "grid" on the balloon were separated under inflation by a unit of space from each nearest dot, it would likewise separate from each next nearest dot by two units of space, and so on. Thus, the further apart one dot is from another, the faster it will appear to accelerate in separation. The same result will pertain from the point of consideration of every dot, so that no dot is favored to say that any other is accelerating fastest from a point of consideration of the balloon as a whole. Thus, the dots dissipate further apart under inflation, while never converging. Such a balloon analogy may help illustrate some aspects regarding the accelerating distance between near and far dots, but it does so by imagining three dimensional space as if it were on a curved, two dimensional surface, with no communication between dots more than 90 degrees apart on the surface of a spherical balloon.  Our "real" universe, however, is at least three dimensional, not merely two.


GRID VERSUS NON-GRID:  If instead all dots were perceived to be moving away from the point of view at the same speed, then the balloon would more likely be in a steady state, not expanding, and the dots themselves would be moving on the balloon, rather than the balloon inflating. Alternatively, if the balloon itself were inflating, and the furtherest dots appeared to be moving away at the same speed as the nearby dots, rather than accelerating, then two events would be crossing: one, the ballon would be inflating, and two, the furtherest dots would be compensating by moving along the balloon's surface towards the point of view.  (Problem with balloon analogy:  See above.)

PROBLEM WITH SPACE IS FLAT:  "Space is flat" is not meant to imply that our universe is accelerating outward in the form of a large, flat disc.  Rather, the saying relates to the fact that light rays from parallel sources tend to remain parallel rather than to converge or bend back.   (Gravity from a black hole does not attract light photons, because light photons have no mass in themselves.  Rather, a black hole, because it bends the fabric of space-time, lays a path before light so that it, uncharacteristically, converges and does not leave the hole.  It is the distortion in space by which the light follows, that causes the light not to leave the hole.

REGARDING FLATNESS: 1) When thinking of space-time as one “thing,” analogize a notion of “flatness” of the universe as being like a flat trampoline, with deformations here and there that are associated with large clumps of mass.  2) When thinking of space and time as separate “things,” analogize “flatness” as the surface space of a balloon that is being inflated over time.  Of course, neither modeling the universe as a trampoline nor as a balloon can fit for all purposes.  Similarly, for some purposes, modeling particles as ever finer and smaller bits of matter becomes incoherent.  However, regardless of model or analogy used, the extent of  “flatness” found within the cone of our experience of universe seems to suggest an astonishingly degree of “fine tuning.” Why is the practicality of considering a model of a "space-time trampoline" so flat over such a distance?  And the "universal balloon" so evenly inflated in all directions?  Why would not entropy and random chaos produce a much more irregular and disordered "flatness," regardless of whether modeled as a  trampoline or as a balloon?

LIGHT CONE:  If space-time were to continue to inflate, or distant galaxies were to continue to accelerate away, may they not eventually exceed the speed of light in respect of their rate of separation, and thus slip beyond the experience of our light cone?  If so, would aspects of their mass still remain entangled with, or a part of, our universe, and would they still have some indirect effect on displacements of our space-time?  Could that be part of the explanation of Dark matter or energy?

FINELY TUNED MASS: A constant exhaust pressure, attached to an object, will cause it constantly to increase in momentum. But for the loss of mass on account of the burning of fuel, the increase in momentum would seem to increase the mass of the object. Suppose the momentum of the object continues to increase, so the object accelerates, the increase in momentum causes an increase in mass, but the increase is exactly offset by the fuel spent. Then the net amount of mass represented by the object would remain the same, even as the fuel it burns is discharged as oxidized material (which has its own mass). However, the oxidized material has a changed mass from what it had before it was burned; and part of its mass, released as energy, may be returned with the mass of the object being accelerated.

MASS AS A WHOLE:  Now take the system that encompasses the object, i.e., our substantive universe. If matter is continuously being accelerated outward, then the increase in momentum must be contributing to the mass of our universe as a whole, while the expenditure of energy that is not converted into material mass, but is instead generally dissipated and not stored in material form, would seem to indicate that, while the total mass of the universe remains constant, the material basis for it is being continuously dissipated as increasingly disordered energy, i.e., entropy.

PURE ENERGY:  Is it "really" possible that our universe could become completely dissipated into energy, with no manifestation of matter? If the balance of matter were not irretrievably being converted to energy, then would the material universe, as we perceive it, achieve only a static range, rather than a continuously accelerating "flatness?"

ENTROPIC DIRECTION OF CONVERSION:  Matter and energy can each be converted into the other, but the combined total of their mass remains constant. Something about the mass of our universe, whatever its constant quantity, is thought to allow our experience of space-time to remain "flat," so that the substance of our universe continues indefinitely to accelerate outward, and light does not converge.  (May loss of material mass be somehow compensated by an increase in Information?  To what end?)

FINE TUNING:  But why should any precise amount of mass (eventually all in the form of energy?) implicate a "flat" universe that is accelerating in its expansion? There seems to be implicated some outward force that, however slightly, overbalances all inward forces. In that case, a perpetual balance of (finely tuned?) outbound force would increase momentum of outbound particles, so that the particles would continuously accelerate outward, rather than collapse or remain at a steady, round-a-bout inertial orbit.

DARK SUBSTANCE:  Could dilemmas regarding "dark substance" relate to a gravitational effect, that comes from outside our light cone, on the space-time that is within our light cone?  In other words, may the cone we share for gravitational influence exceed and encompass the cone we share for light?  May some disturbances in space-time be qualitatively implicated as exceeding the speed of light?

FAVORED SIMULTANEITY BY REFERENCE TO UNIVERSAL PRESENT TIME:  If time for mortals does not exist, in itself, apart from space-time, then does "present time" not exist, apart from relative space-time?  (From Physics Forum --- space can't be discussed independently of time, since it takes time for anything to move through space.)

AGE OF UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE:  If, relative to ALL mortals, there is no measurably universal present, then one could not very well seem to say that the universe as a whole is presently "x" years old.  Rather, the most we reasonably could seem to say would be that, relative to our shared light cone, we experience the Information that is represented and availed to us as being derivative of x years.  That is, except by trivial like definition, we cannot say THE SUBSTANTIVE UNIVERSE REALLY is x years old.  What we CAN say is that the universe, relative to the shared experience availed to our light cone, is perceived by us to be x years old.  Insofar as our universe would seem to be a continuation of a previous prototype, barred from our perception or measure by a singular defining event (Big Bang), we have no means by which to say how old our universe "really" is --- except by arbitrarily defining substantive universe as not including any substance that may already have existed or in respect of which our shared events are singularly derived.

CONVENIENT RESORT TO MODELS:  Notice how Quantity Reductionists (aka atheistic empiricists and scientists) often resort to convenient models, then, when noticing how such models are always incoherent when pushed beyond a convenient use, simply rationalize by saying, after all, they are only models, i.e., figures of speech.  Yet, notice how often Quantity Reductionists complain when Quality Intuitionists (aka moral philosophers) do much the same, i.e., explicate religious texts as figures of speech.

MODELING FOR CONVENIENCE VERSUS MEANINGFULNESS:   Both with tools of math and logic, one can test to what purpose and limits various models and analogies may serve as accurate or worthwhile concepts, both in terms of mathematically quantifiable degrees and in terms of logically qualified categories. (Since categorical logic is easily availed even by persons with no particular specialization in math, priests for Quantity Reductionists often sniff that non-mathematicians are simply incapable of understanding their language, and therefore not qualified to critique their models.)
However, it seems one can --- mathematically, logically, and/or intuitively --- adduce the purposes, points, and edges at which various models or ways of thinking tend to become meaningless, noisome, or inapt conflations of wholes, parts, and points of consideration.  For example, Quantity Reductionism becomes obviously noisome when inappropriately drafted to try to support some grand theory regarding qualities of morality.

MASS FROM POINT OF CONSIDERATION OF UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE:  Does it avail any worthwhile model to consider that the Substance of the universe constitutes a system, which stores energy?  From the point of consideration of an individual photon, it is often modeled that it has no mass, but is a form of pure energy.  If numerous photons could somehow be conceptualized as being confined to a box, presumably they would be conceptualized as stored energy, thus contributing to the mass of the box.  Thus, may it be worthwhile to any purpose to conceptualize that photons, as energy stored to the substantive universe, contribute to its mass?

INAPTNESS OF QUANTITATIVE MODELS TO QUALITATIVE POLITICAL AND MORAL CONCERNS: Even were a unifying TOE for physics possible, it could hardly provide a precise solution for how to derive "ought" from "is." Insofar as a quantitatively precise guide to the "ought" issue is not possible, yet we have no choice but to make choices regarding that issue, we necessarily turn to qualitative models in order to rationalize and guide our choices.

FUNDAMENTAL INAPTNESS:  Many blinkered enthusiasts of Quantity Reductionism deride all models that pertain to moral and political figures of speech.  They tend especially to deride imaginary renditions of perhaps a most fundamental of religious metaphors, i.e., the face of God.  The most fundamental of metaphors for Quantity Reductionists seems to consist in a notion of a most fundamental point "particle," sort of like a tiniest bit of charged dust --- only not.  Logically, is not the notion of a fundamental point particle, when pushed to try to serve a complete theory of all of measurable Substance, charged with its own inherent incoherence?  At the point of considering the interfunctioning of beingness with choices to be made by consciously self aware beings, would it not be reasonable and worthwhile to consider how a model for a trinity of relations --- among (1) Conservable Substance, (2) Recordable Information, and (3) Conscious Self Awareness --- may enhance our Quality Intuitionism?

INTELLIGENT MATTER(?): How could mere illusions of continuous patterns (or models?) of relations “fill in the gaps” to sense and recognize one another, in order to relate to one another, as patterns holding Information, to store Information? Can mere patterns, simply as patterns, model one another as patterns, in order to be interpreted as CONTINUOUSLY taking notice of and interacting with one another, or must some trinitarian aspect be entailed? Intuitively, it would seem there must abide some singular, qualitative kind of orienting, pre-set of Information and Conscious Will (Will on autopilot?) that continues to be functioning, without which there would be no continuous filling in of gaps or shared appearance of patterns. Shared pre-sets must abide, subject to some mathematical function (Virtual Higgs Boson?), by which each pattern that is availed capacity to manifest or to store Information is also availed with an appearance of mass, in order to be subject to being recognized (signified) for interacting with one another within our common cone of experience.

REGARDING POINT PARTICLES:  Notions of Higgs bosons (or Virtual Higgs?) and other "point particles" may better be related to mathematical representations of some Aspect, whose fluxing quality can only be measurably apprehended in respect of point of view, context, practical purpose, and choice of model by which to “fill in gaps” with appearances of continuity — which are not otherwise real.  There is a qualitative separation that occurs between experiences of quantum gaps that fill patterns with continuous illusions (like the movies?).  Is this byproduct of subconscious PRE-SETS (of a holistic meta Source), or is it byproduct of  CHOICE SETS (made subsequent to feedback by and among beings imbued with particular, conscious identities)?  Or is it byproduct of both?  Should a mass inducing point particle better be conceptualized as a "Virtual Higgs," rather than as a “particle,” which in itself, as a mathematical function, cannot itself be accelerated, or even made to appear to be accelerated?  Should a Virtual Higgs better be conceptualized as a mathematical function that abides everywhere, which inter-functions between a meta Source and each other relative pattern, such inter-functioning being necessarily accompanied with “filling in gaps,” causing things and events to appear to be relatively massive, continuous, and movable, as well as transposable, among and between other appearances of relative patterns?


MODELS AND SELF FULFILLING AND GAP FILLING ILLUSIONS:  Our conscious minds inter-function and intertwine with relations and self-involved illusions, filling in gaps with things that are not there, continuously making substantive calculations regarding models for things that are not in themselves substantively continuous.  Our brains give significations to model supposed quantities for substances for which there abide no substantive reality.  To my intuition, the reason we are unable to adduce a model that can correlate with substantive reality in a way that is calculably complete, coherent, and consistent is because no such an underlying substance-based reality abides, apart from how "reality" is given signification via an interfunctioning with non-quantifiable, non-substantive qualities of Information and Consciousness.  Our communications are about a singularly shared illusion of substantive reality, not about substantive reality itself, because no such a thing is available to the mortal perspective.  Our models about Substance will always be warped to incomplete purposes, however astonishing the trip may be.  Our search for fulfillment is coextensive with a search for a model of substantive reality that, in itself, does not exist.  There is no ultimate substantive or mass-inducing particle or Higgs Boson by which to tie up all of substantive reality in a pretty bow.  If there does abide a singularly shared way for quantitatively explicating how substantive mass is induced or adduced, it abides not in substance, but in math itself.  And that will beg qualitative questions about an interface with Information and Consciousness.  Periodically, laughs punctuate God's patience.

*******
COMPARING FUNDAMENTAL FORCES AND FUNDAMENTS OF BEINGNESS:

Gravity has to do with providing a space-time MEDIUM for the storing and conveying of distortions and impressions of INFORMATION about our common cone of experience.  (The void became a medium.)

Strong and Weak forces have to do with providing means for DIGITAL FEEDBACK regarding measurable SUBSTANCE in respect of exchanges of DISCRETE quantitative quanta in interactions between the whole and the parts, the membrane and its strings, the waves and their local expressions of particularly observable and measurable effects.  (God saw that it was good.)

Electromagnetic Radiation and its relative constancy in speed across space-time has to do with providing means for perspectives of CONSCIOUSNESS to restrict and share illusions and gap-filling perceptions of a quality of CONTINUITY in substantive relations among perspectives inter-functioning within a common cone of experience.  (God breathed consciousness, and then self awareness, into perspectives and particular identities of consciousness.)

NO PARTICULAR THING IN ITSELF IS MEASURABLE OR KNOWABLE TO MORTALS, BUT ONLY INTUITED OR IMPLICATED: SUBSTANCE does not, in itself, exist. But the appearance of its existence, as means for storing sequences of INFORMATION, is NORMALIZED, via a relative-constant (speed of light), so that all who abide within a common cone of perception and CONSCIOUS experience are availed means to sense and communicate regarding their sequences of experiences.

CHRONOLOGICAL PROTECTIVE MECHANISM:  To perceive a complex pattern unfolding from widely separate loci in space-time is not necessarily to perceive subpatterns associated with it as unfolding in the same sequence from every perspective.  When points of view are near one another in space-time, or near a Substantive subpattern being observed, then Information regarding the sequences of unfolding will tend to be Consciously interpreted and perceived as occurring in the same chronology.  However, there is no knowable, existent, substantive, quantitatively measurable, pattern-in-itself.  Rather, there are appearances, and they are normalized to points of view of perspectives of Consciousness.  Even so, because of a Virtual Higgs Mechanism, which may be quantitatively derivable as a mathematical function, some appearances of relations, at very fine detail, may be computed as having unfolded in a same, quantitatively measurable sequence.  Intuitively, this would be in respect that The Source does exist and abide and interrelate with us, even though IT cannot, Itself, be directly sensed or quantitatively measured as a Substantive Thing or Birther of Particles.

IN-FORM-ATION AND PATTERNS:  Patterns are appearances of continuous forms.  The continuity consists in gap-filling illusions.  Quantifiable relations among point quanta at nuclear and chemical levels avail patterns that can be sensed and interpreted, as if they were continuously interacting forms.  However, as things in themselves, there are no continuous patterns.  APPEARANCES of patterns are associated not just with interfunctioning with quantitative Substance, but also with qualitative Information and Consciousness.  When results appear to follow interactions of patterns, masquerading as Substance, such apparent interactions among patterns are not in themselves causal, but epiphenomenally NORMALIZING for the sharing of appearances.  Patterns and forms neither exist in themselves, nor interact in themselves.  They are only apprehended to interact, or availed potential for being later apprehended or interpreted.  Absent interfunctioning with some level of Information and Consciousness (whether pre-set or post-set), there would be no property of continuosity in Substance to interpret.


NORMALIZATION: Do "virtual particles" function as appearances, secondary to playing a buffering role, so that all perspectives within our shared cone of experience may appreciate a common notion of universe, even though precise and particular aspects may fuzz or vary in sequence or appearance, depending on point of view and frame of reference? Are there other phenomena that play similar buffering roles for normalizing and conserving experiences, such as the relative-constant speed of electromagnetic radiation? Is such buffering necessary and secondary to how Consciousness manages to split among separate perspectives, so that each may convey meaningfully different apprehensions of possibilities to others, but within a commonly conserved logos and universe?

IS SUBSTANCE BEST MODELED AS BASED IN PARTICLES OR AS BASED IN MATHEMATICAL FUNCTIONS:  It seems oft expressed that quanta expressions of SUBSTANCE consist in "point particles" --- which lack space-time dimensionality in terms of measurable size, but not in terms of mathematically measurable expression of concentration of force of energy.  Even though conceived of as only measurable expressions of interfunctioning of mathematics, these "particles" seem to be the basis for all of matter, energy, mass, geometrical deformations in space-time for giving expression to gravity, and illusions of continuity for filling in gaps in patterns  (Is the geometry of space-time better conceived of as being deformed by Substance?  Or is it better conceived that Substance simply follows along the deformed geometry of space-time?  Or is it best conceived that both Substance and deformations in the geometry of space-time are best explicated by reference to a mix of Substance, Information, and Consciousness?  Perhaps the "answer" depends on purpose, point of view, and context.)

Regardless, patterns can be sensed as INFORMATION to the common interpretation of such apprehending perspectives of CONSCIOUSNESS as happen to share the same, singular cone of experiential beingness.  It does not seem that actual, sizeable physicality --- in terms of any dimensional occupation of grid-assigned loci in space-time --- is necessary to the experience of quantitatively measurable, Substantive Reality.  Indeed, an interpretation of unfolding functions of MATHEMATICS, operating upon a Meta Substance or Source, may better explicate the appearance of "ENERGY" than a notion of force being applied to particular bits of "matter."  Thus, a mix of Information and Consciousness, so long as sharing the same cone of experience, seems best to avail potential for apprehending continuity in unfolding of patterns and forms, even though such patterns are conceived as being based in an interfunctioning of mathematics rather than in force being applied to "real matter."


OF PRE-SET WILL AND POST-SET WILL:  A notion of a Source's deploying of mathematical functions to operate on or with a meta potential need not be inconsistent with an interpretation of "energy" appearing in relation to operations among sizeless point particles.  Such mathematical functions, operating with or on a meta potential, could express (1) pre-set determinants (natural laws), (2) random determinants (evolutionary replication of "the fittest" within degrees of freedom), and (3) post-set choices (higher levels of choice responses by individual perspectives to feedback from beyond their separately conscious identities).  That our universe exhibits astonishing potential is self evident.  It need be no more astonishing that such exhibitions are secondary to a Meta Potential for Willing, and mathematically guiding, various expressions of pre-set determinants and post-set choices (conscious and human free will).  That Meta Potential is what various perspectives of Consciousness may respect, or refer to, as "God."  Thus, Substance, aka "energy" (or stored energy), may be conceptualized as an illusion derivative of pure mathematics operating with meta potential, just as easily as it is conceptualized as being derivative of a meta notion of sizeless point particles that are imbued and charged with some kind of perpetual conservation of expansionist inertia.  There is a moral difference, however.  For the first, there is conceived room for God and empathetic moral reality; for the second, God and morality are either dead or illusions.

CAUSE IN ITSELF:  It would seem that not even God would "know" whether God were The Cause as opposed to merely an epiphenomenal puppet for The Cause (or The Source).  There seems to abide little of worth in such speculation.  However, it is practical to conceptualize and consider causes in relation to purposes, in relation to points of view and contexts.  Depending upon purpose and model, one may conceptualize causation as being indifferently pre-set (Determined), pre-set to randomly unfold in obedience to availed degrees of freedom (Random), or caringly and consciously guided (Chosen).  Regardless, every conceptualization of "cause" will occur in relation to a mix of Substance, Information, and Consciousness.

CAUSATION BEYOND SPACE-TIME PROXIMITY:  Insofar as patterns, in themselves, have no Substance, and point particles (quanta) have locus but no dimensional size (apart from measure of force), then the common illusion of causation in respect of bouncing billiard balls or pin balls, by itself, is incomplete, incoherent, and inconsistent.  Missing in the common analysis of causation is the necessity for qualities of Information and Consciousness to be in the mix with illusions of quantitative Substance.  We need Conceptualization for how Substance, Information, and Consciousness inter-relate, inter-conserve, and inter-transpose.  We need conceptualization for how Conscious Will can be stored, pre-set, guiding, or post-set --- to appear as Information and/or Substance, depending on purpose, point of view, context, feedback, and potentiality.


WHO IS THE PUPPET:  Does Information show that Consciousness is merely the derivative puppet of Substance, or that Substance is the puppet of Consciousness?  Or is it most consistent with intuition that none of Information, Consciousness, and Substance are derivative of the others, but that all are co-equal expressions, fluxing in respect of a digital like process of feedback among a holistic Source and particular representations of Itself?  Is that feedback process so singular and one of a kind that our math, logic, and models necessarily fail us each time we try to comprehend, construct, or replicate an exactly correlative duplicate?  Are the words "puppet" and "causation" necessarily inadequate and incomplete when it comes to trying to intuit or comprehend the relationships between each of our perspectives and the true Source?  For mortals, "CAUSATION" seems best modeled under notions of Qualitative fields (of Information, Consciousness, and Substance), fluxing and inter-functioning, thus giving Quantitative expression and direction to particles.  Reconciliation of Qualitative purposefulness with Quantitative practicality seems less well modeled under mechanistic notions of ultimate particles, as if causation should best be understood as mere byproduct of pinballs, Continuously bouncing off one another, without reference to Discrete, digital, quanticized expressions within fields.

WALLING AWAY PRAYER:  Whatever our notion of "Causation," we must accept that it cannot be entirely Quantified.  Rather, each time we choose or Qualify a point of view, we will necessarily contaminate any effort to separate a complete and entire Quantification from an interpenetrating aspect of Qualification.   The effect of Observing and the raising of Consciousness cannot be entirely walled away from from Causation.  Rather, the raising of Consciousness and the power of positive thinking are aspects of a qualitatively paranormal power --- the power of conscious PRAYER and meditation.  It is tediously asinine to prescribe that prayer must be WALLED away from the public square, because it is simply impossible for Conscious Prayer to be walled away from Secular Purpose.   This is because every perspective of consciousness is NECESSARILY IN A CONSTANT RELATIONSHIP with the Field of Consciousness (aka, God).


POWER IN ITSELF:  Constitutions, laws, and regulations are oft resorted to, in order to check and balance social proclivities.  As mere representations of Information, they are without power, in themselves.  They have effect only insofar as they are respected, and they are respected only insofar as they are consistently applied, either by social moral consensus and acceptance of tradition, or by consciously organized agency of force.  A good intention that is enacted as a law is with little effect for a society that does not want it, is not ready for it, and does not respect it.  For example, a balanced budget amendment would little avail to induce a society to be fiscally responsible, once society has overburdened itself with entitlement-minded attitudes and peoples who are anything but fiscally responsible.  There is no magic in law, or lack of law, that can reform a corrupt, ignorant, un-insightful people. To be decent, a people must assimilate values in respect of a consensus about what is necessary and desired in order to sustain a decent civilization.  Multicultural diversity in America has so rotted out the values under which America has heretofore been assimilated that there is little hope that America can soon find the will to clear away the rot.  As things stand, all significant American institutions, including those of science, are blinkered with rot.  Rot that is resolutely aligned to corrupt or wipe away every institution that is needed in order to sustain decency.

********

MODELING GOD:  Conceptualize God as that which reconciles all feedback in mathematical operatives among the whole and the parts, and among all degrees of freedom, including degrees of freedom within operatives that are pre-set, operatives that are random, and post-set operatives that are responsive to apprehensions of observers.  The more pre-set and controlling the mathematical operatives, the greater the confidence of an observer in making predictions.  The more uncontrollably random the mathematical operatives, the greater the confidence of an observer in making statistical analyses.  The less the applicability of pre-sets, randomness, or control, the greater the uncertainty, until a result is made manifest.  The less the applicability of pre-sets or controlled randomness, the less any man should dare conceit to predict how God shall reconcile the sum of all apprehensions --- unless such man be imbued, blessed, or cursed with hubris enough to feign to know and prophesy the Mind of God.

EVIDENCE OF GOD:  Evidence of God's continuing and reconciling presence does not, and cannot, abide in the reliability of empirical statistics or the methods of pure, substance-based, measurable science.  Rather, the evidence consists in three other aspects:  First, there abides what C.S. Lewis called "inside information."  This is borne out of awareness of our own separately unfolding conscious identities.  Second, there abides an obvious condition of conscious beingness:  That is, we have no choice but to make unfolding, unpredictable, non-scientifically determinable, purposeful choices from among such degrees of freedom as are obviously availed to us.  Third, there abides as much or more moral utility, mathematical coherence, and logical consistency for a notion of a field of consciousness (God) as for a notion that the only "real" field is entirely and quantitatively based in unconscious Substance, consisting of entropically directed forces (or energies) --- but otherwise dumb, inanimate, unconscious, and without moral purpose.  It is at least as practical to suppose that energy is the illusion, derivative of reconciling mathematical operatives of God, as it is to suppose that reconciling mathematical operatives are the illusion, derivative purely of substantive energy.  There is no necessary or mathematical inconsistency between a field of conscious reconciliation of mathematically-based degrees of freedom versus a field of energy.

RECONCILIATION OF MATHEMATICAL OPERATIVES:  Somehow, within our shared cone of experience, some meta source (God?) reconciles the mathematical weights of our variously entangled and qualitative perspectives of apprehensions.  Each manifesting upshot is reconciled out of fuzz of feedback among variously contending apprehensions among degrees of freedom availed the parts and the whole.  To the extent various perspectives share a common, entangled context and cone of experience, each sequential upshot will be interpreted as part of a shared, connecting pattern.  What binds, to avail our shared illusions of continuosity?  Do point-particle-placeholders for mathematically charged operatives function together, to convey illusions of interconnecting, continuous forms?  Are such illusions derivative of point particles and electrons ACTUALLY being shared among variously charged collections of sizeless particles, or are such shared and charged point particles mere ILLUSIONS, derivative of meta-based interpretions signified to variously entangled perspectives of consciousness?  One may model such entanglements and bindings as accompany perceptions of continuity or simultaneity as being associated with (1) shared electrons as actual substance, or (2) appearance of shared electrons as mere logos of God, serving as commonly apprehended placeholders in order to facilitate communications among perspectives of Consciousness.  Either model can be as suitable as the other, depending on purpose, point of view, and context.  One may model sizeless particles and charges as if they are actual, or as if they are mere indicia of mathematical functions, secondary to logos-placeholding for apprehensions among variously entangled perceptions of meta-Consciousness.  The "question you have to ask yourself" is this:  Does the notion of a "sizeless particle" seem any less metaphysical than a notion of "meta-Substance of God?"

ASSOCIATIVE ENTANGLEMENTS SHARED WITHIN OUR NORMALIZING CONE OF EXPERIENCE:  Space-time associates with the normalization of Substance and mass within the context of Information availed within our shared medium.  Electromagnetic radiation associates with the normalization of Information conveyed among points of view within our shared medium.  Strong and weak forces associate with the normalization, reconciliation, and collapse of perspectives of Consciousness within our shared medium.  Qualities of continuosity are derivative of mathematically quanticized and digitized feedback within the quality of a meta Source, between its capacities for representing holistic versus particularistic expressions of self Will.  Apart from the Oneness of such effect, we have no sub-model by which to replicate, correlate, map, or demonstrate IT's capacity or potential.  There is none other like IT.

*******

NON-TRIVIAL ESSENTIAL ONENESS OF THE SOURCE — THE ULTIMATE ONE-OF-A-KIND THING-IN-ITSELF: Purely mathematical formulas that show equalities on both sides of their equations merely state tautologies, and thus are trivial in their statements. When quantitative mathematical operatives are applied to forms that are not changed in their underlying qualities, their processes tend to be reversible and trivial. However, substantive, qualitative conversions and transformations of kinds, that unfold in respect of chemical and nuclear formulas, tend not to be trivial, because they discharge byproducts in processes that tend not to be easily re-gathered or reversed. A sequential, often entropic, DIRECTION to such processes tends to be sustained to the our common cone of unfolding experience. Thus, non-trivial applications of mathematical operatives are attached to transform experiences of RELATIONAL QUALITIES of substances into different qualities. In those cases, the “TERRITORY” that is operated on and measured in mathematics is not mere math. Rather, “Something” that is qualitatively different from pure math is being operated on by, or in respect of, the math — and that Something cannot be reduced to pure math or to pure quantification. That Something can partake of, or unfold to represent, various forms of relationships — but its essential aspect necessarily remains beyond empirical measure, thus Metaphysical. Indeed, the very notion of "forms" brings to mind in-form-ation. OF WHAT ARE ALL THESE "FORMS" COMPOSED OR IN-FORMED? Intuitively, must not all forms to which we can relate eventually trace back and be composed of one common meta-substance, Source, or thing-in-itself, to which we, in our separately relational Identities, within our common cone of experience, cannot, at least not directly, relate? Is not every form with which we relate but an aspect or perspective of the one Form with which we cannot, at least not directly, relate, nor quantitatively know, but only intuit and indirectly apprehend, via an innate quality of love or EMPATHY? Must that Something somehow have directionally "cracked symmetry" and "looked at Itself in a mirror?" Must atheists be somehow irretrievably, objectively, and scientifically opposed or indifferent to empathy beyond objectivity? Or are they simply confused by their own falls into bottomless rabbit holes of faux-quantifiable "objectivity?" Does the wiring in their brains become that of an addict, twisted or ensnared by their own muscle-bound devotion and addiction to trivial aspects of mathematics?

NON-TRIVIAL THREE-BODY TRIADS: Once META-ONENESS of symmetry is cracked, much of PRACTICAL LOGIC BECOMES DIRECTIONALLY TRIVALENT, with no clear, “either-or,” reversible, correlative mapping. Rather, triads flux in their directional correlations, fuzzing and transposing in their connections and relationships. Triads such as: wholes, parts, sums; essences, forms, relations; discrete, continuous, appearance of continuity; math, logic, chance; space, time, direction; past, present, future; quantity, quality, capacity; uncertain potential, present manifest, likely unfolding; been, being, becoming; Substance, Information, Consciousness; known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns; indifferently determined, randomly determined, caringly determined; stored consciousness, active consciousness, self consciousness; energy, stored energy, mathematical operatives; pre-set, guided, post-set; replicable, predictable, purposeful; trivial, practical, moral; brain, mind, soul; measurable catalyst, unmeasurable catalyst, non-replicable evolution; legislative, judicial, executive; directional purpose (Father), medium of context (Holy Ghost), concentration of perspective (Son).  While METAPHORS and parables may avail insights for apprehending unexpected ways in which such triads inter-relate, bivalent logic will not avail precise predictability for such non-trivial, three body concerns.

*******
Lay level research to do:  Flat universe; Light cone; Time simultaneity; Chronology protective mechanism; if matter is constituted of stored energy, what of mass?

@Thus spake Dlanorrenrag.

The Metaphysical Signification of Physics

I.  BOOK:  Imagine a book regarding The Metaphysical Signification of Physics:  Consider general possibilities that should number among its concerns.

A.  CONCERNS ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL RELATIONS AMONG ALL PHYSICAL SUBSTANCES:

1.  SUPERPOSITIONING:  Super positioning of all Substance of physics with an active (qualitatively interfunctioning) field of metaphysics.

2.  RELATIONSHIPS OF SUBSTANCE AND ENTANGLEMENTS OF PERSPECTIVES:  Relational Entanglement of all of Substance.  Spooky Action at a distance:  When two substantive relations are symmetrical, polarized, and entangled, then significantly separated from all other relations: will any effect that is Apprehended regarding one, that is not perceived to combine or convert it with any other, necessarily be perceivable as having a like effect on the other, even across a leap of non-proximate space?

B.  CONCERNS ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL RELATIONS OF SUBSTANCE WITH NON-PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF INFORMATION AND CONSCIOUSNESS:

1.  NECESSARY ASSOCIATIONS:  Are entanglements among relative representations of Substance necessarily implicated with the signifying, storing, sensing, and/or potential for conveying Information among perspectives of Consciousness?

2.  UNCERTAINTY:  Are uncertainty and fuzziness at the most precise levels of quantum measure associated with inherent incapacity for any particular perspective to measure any exact perspective of Substance, because Substance is not measurable as a thing in itself, and instead consists necessarily in relations of feedback between wholes and parts, waves and particles?

3.  DOMINANT DIRECTION OF IDENTITY:  Must every relation that finds expression exist as a relative entanglement, whose dominant measure is necessarily associated with or responsive to a most clear, consistent, and coherent consensus of shared relative perception?  For any identifiable perspective of Consciousness to be relatively effective, must it somehow intuit and impress the more powerful among perspectives with which it shares an entanglement?

4.  FAITH AND META PROPERTIES:  May meta properties abide beyond our logical comprehension, to fill us with purpose, awe, empathy, and intuitive capacity to strengthen apprehensions with faith?  May there abide a meta "Force," which reconciles, synchronizes, and guides us in how to be strong, moral, purposeful?  A source of renewal of I-ness?  May there abide some meta substance, which has capacity beyond our world modeling, in respect of relations among apprehensions of patterns of wholes and parts, to flux and present relative representations to the significations, interpretations and modelings of Substance, Information, and Consciousness --- depending on perspective, point of view, and context?  Yes, mortal modeling of Substance can be astonishingly practical, yet it can never be non-trivially complete, coherent, and consistent, in a quantitatively measurable way.  For concerns that are qualitative, we constitute only intuitive, sensing, tools.  We are not our own calculations.   Perhaps we should try to leave most of the synchronizing, reconciling, and precise Quantitative calculating of moral judgments to God, subject to respectful, Qualitative receptivity to guidance.

5.  GOVERNMENT AND THE REGULATION OF MORALITY:  How can or should decent civilization teach and protect the ignorant, gullible, weak, and unlucky?  Perhaps more by protecting voluntary, experimental charities and moral churching, and less by "final solutions" based on detailed and forced governmental redistribution?  May good distinctions be made regarding voluntary associations of clubs, charities, businesses, political parties versus involuntary governments, to rationally justify the moral deployment of some forms of social regulation more so than others?  Should government constitute itself just enough to protect viable charities, and regulate itself just enough to avail decent protection against national, international, and non-national corporations of sociopaths who prey on the weak minded, weak provisoned, and weak bodied, thereby to elevate themselves to power over their moral betters?  When should it be deemed necessary for decent government to play a moral or taxing role in limiting and regulating incentives for the propagation and reproduction of imbeciles, addicts, strange religious fanatics, and libertine hedonists?

6.  REGULATING RACKETS:  Has government-regulated legalism now brought forth, via the corporate form, a world ruled by a new aristocracy, i.e., gangs of international, non-competitive, merit-irrelevant corporatists?  Should the corporate form be redefined, closely monitored, and deprived of privacy, in order to reduce its aristocratic power to protect gangland turf with government licensed monopolies and franchises?  In an age of trillion-function computers, should corporately owned patents and secrets continue to be recognized and protected?  Can the corportate form be redefined and reduced, so that it better recognizes national, social, and individual empathies, and so that it will compete more responsibly and with greater accountability to higher morality?

7.  FREEDOM AND DIGNITY:  How can independence, self reliance, and individual self esteem be squared with decent equality?  With equality of opportunity versus equality of distribution of economic wants?  How can inequality in distribution of wants be decently reduced, while preserving meaningful freedom of activity?  What should be the respective roles of the corporate form, the national form, the sect form, etc.?  How may such purpose meaningfully relate to us?

C. WHAT SHOULD CONSTITUTE THE CONCERNS OF SUCH A BOOK?

1. LOGICAL INCOHERENCE OF ULTIMATE PARTICLES AS THINGS EXISTING IN THEMSELVES: Is the notion of a fundamental, Substance-based building block of physics inherently incoherent (especially if attempted to be related to moral issues)?

2.  THE MEANINGFULLY TRUE:  What distinguishes the trivially true from the non-trivially insightful?

3. LIMITS OF LOGIC:  What may limit forms of bivalent and trivalent Logic and the rule of non-contradiction, as applied to interrelationships among Consciousness, Information, and Substance?

4.  POWER OF ENLIGHTENMENT:  Can Enlightenment enhance paranormal power over Substance?  If so, to what social purposes should enlightenment merit to be applied?

5.  UNFOLDING POSSIBILITIES AND SYNCHRONIZATION:  What meta, logical, qualitative, quantitative, or substantive relationship may govern conscious apprehension, will, cause, associative cause, informational fuzz, synchronization, and reconciliation?

6.  PHYSICAL BLINDERS:  What important concerns are poorly addressed by a monopolizing tendency among substance-based physicists?  Are those concerns worth discussing, considering, factoring?

7.  SIGNS AND LOGOS OF GOD:  How does Physics arise?  What accounts for physics?  Are worthwhile aspects quantitatively hidden, yet qualitatively intuitable, among and between the measurable leaps and transpositions of physics?  Why and how does measurable Substance occur?  What are the philosophical limits of measurability?

8.  RELATIVISTIC REPRESENTATION, MANIFESTATION, SIGNIFICATION, AND MEASUREMENT:  Is there a mathematical law or prevailing rule of thumb that functions to give mass its quantifiable signification?  May a notion of ultimate quanta of Substance make complete and consistent coherent sense, for all worthwhile purposes?  May a bivalent notion of yin-yang, 1 - 0 representationalism, coherently, as Information, represent all of Substance?  How do patterns of feedback come qualitatively to be signified and recognized, in respect of systems of wholes and parts?

9.  DETERMINISM AND WILL:  Can meaningfully coherent and consistent distinctions be made among (1) Indifferent determinism, (2) Random determinism, (3) Evolutionary fittest determinism, and (4) consciously guided or Chosen determinism?  Between autopilot-preset, random-unfolding, intermittant-guidance, and subsequent active free will?  Between holistic Will and individual perspectives of Will?  Does there abide a concept of holistic Will that makes reasonable, NOMA, and coherent sense, even in respect of measurable physics?

10.  GOD:  Does reason arm faith in a concept of an Holistic, Empathetic, Purposeful God?  Can a concept of God or Holistic Consciousness make sense, as intermediary between The Source and all perspectives of Consciousness?  Does God Learn?  Does God's meta Power increase as God's Potential does not?  What is the potential of God?

11.  CIVILIZATION:  What is requisite to sustain a decent, viable civilization?  Why are there both suffering and joy?  If a worldwide cataclysm today would not constitute "evidence" of loss of God, why not?

12.  RELIGION:  What is "religion?"  Are forced conversions the "practice of religion?"  What is proper role for religion?  What should limit the free exercise versus the establishment of religion?

13.  ASTOUNDING POTENTIAL FOR CONSCIOUSNESS TO TINKER WITH SUBSTANCE:  Why is tinkering with notions of physics and orders of magnitude and degrees of signification so practicably effective and astounding?

14.  WHAT PROPERTIES DISGINGUISH CONSCIOUSNESS, INFORMATION, AND SUBSTANCE:  Is there a relatively clear way to distinguish among properties of Consciousness, Substance, and Information?

15.  SUBSTANCE AS LOGOS:  How is Substance guided to effect significations (signs), as placeholders for storing Information and conveying communication among potential perspectives of Consciousness?  How may God reasonably be conceptualized as synchronizing Substance, Information, and Consciousness?  Does it reasonably seem that God gets "buzzes of ideas," tests them  through various perspectives and significations, evaluates feedback, and somehow selects as "the fittest," perhaps factoring in some way that is only qualitatively intuitive to us, that which may be: interesting, shared, consistent to a more encompassing self, empathetic, evolutionary , meaningful, passionate, reconciling, accepting, receptive, beautiful, sensible, consistent with vehicles for communicating significations, and so on?

16.  IDENTITY AND PURPOSEFULNESS: Is there a worthwhile distinction between noise and music, between non-trivial truth and beauty? What is Morally right or just? Are there purely qualitative aspects to Information and Consciousnss? May Substance, Information, and Consciousness intertranspose? May any quantitative law of conservation limit Consciousness and Information? What is the relation among Consciousness, Information, and Substance? What is "I-ness"? Of what may innate intuition of I-ness be evolutionary? Does "I" revivify?

D.  MERIT:  Ultimately, it seems that merit is not to be found solely in signs of relative wealth, pretensions of fashion, or displays of power. More reasonably, merit may be intuited to be related to how one interfunctions as a conduit that is receptive to unfolding apprehensions of God. The desired civilization is the civilization that accords with that approach. Indeed, if merit were solely derivative of measurable interrelations and displays of Substance, and if such displays came to have no relation to any higher value, but could be accorded merely on whims of pill or interventions of genetic operation, then merit, so measured, would come not only to be devoid of Qualitative merit, but also devoid of Quantitative merit.

@Thus spake Dlanorrenrag.

Of Merit and Purpose

MERIT AND PURPOSE: Who should be selected to decide or guide how civilization should develop? When it comes to allocating goods, what are "merit" or "enlightenment," once pills and manipulations of genes and Substance can be quickly accessed, to rewire anyone for intelligence, energy, empathy, strength, agility, courage, and/or drive? What becomes of desire for recognition for achievements? Are not some lower classes needed to remain as lower classes, to aspire to serve and succeed to higher class purposes? Who shall do what, or be permitted to do what, once all could otherwise do anything? What can or should be done to manage, instill, or reduce competition among powerful beings? Is there a meta aspect to character or consciousness, to which one should be receptive, to accept and be guided in one's present choice of empathies along one's unfolding path? How may meta empathies guide how best to sustain decent civilization?

Ultimately, it seems that merit is not to be found in relative wealth, pretensions of fashion, or displays of power.  More reasonably, merit may be intuited to be related to how one interfunctions as a conduit that is receptive to unfolding apprehensions of God.  The desired civilization is the civilization that accords with that approach.  Indeed, if merit were solely derivative of measurable interrelations and displays of Substance, and if such displays came to have no relation to any higher value, but could be accorded merely on whims of pill or interventions of genetic operation, then merit, so measured, would come not only to be devoid of qualitative merit, but also devoid of quantitative merit.

@Thus spake Dlanorrenrag.

Facts Are Funny Things

Responding to a physical challenge brings in emotions and conditioned reactions. Challenging another person's worldview or absolutes may seem to them a lot like challenging their person. I suspect everyone can be flipped, by pulling on their known trigger points. When something does not immediately affect me, I try first to interest myself in devining where the other person is coming from.

Non-trivial "facts" are funny things. I don't try to argue or defend non-trivial, absolute facts about substance-based things, because I doubt such absolutes abide. I suspect that what non-trivial absolutes there are do not abide purely as Substance, but only in trivalent relationships with Information and Consciousness, perhaps largely dependent on point of view, context, and purpose. So, I try to back up and consider what is the other person's point of view, context, and purpose.

Once I have a better feel for that, I may sense more reason in what they are saying (even if I remain skeptical that what they are saying is as substantively absolute as they might profess). Problem is:  In an age of slogan campaigns, emotional selling points, and fleeting opportunities, one often needs to strike a dramatic pose and save nuance for discussion with smarter, more relaxed, more self assured, and less threatened groups. Most folks seem to want to know only whether you are then and there with them or against them.

******
How are substantive relations apprehended to relate to other relations in order to effect perceptions of change within a system whose holistic potential does not change?

@Thus spake Dlanorrenrag.

Abiogenesis v. Matter accompanied with Consciousness

QUESTION:  How are substantive relations apprehended to relate to other relations in order to effect perceptions of change within a system whose holistic potential does not change?

Conscious beings sense, know, and interact with significations of Substance only in relations.  By definition, a relation is not a thing in itself.  How could a (Substance) relation-in-itself exist without violating the logical law of non-contradiction, apart from some extra-qualitative or non-quantitative capacity or potential to record (Information) or apprehend (Consciousness) it?  How could a relation-in-itself exist in order to affect other such relations, apart from some non-quantitative capacity or potential to record or apprehend it?  A non-substantive property cannot very well substantively collide with or push a substantive relation.  So, HOW do relative perspectives, or capacities to apprehend relations affecting relations, INTERFUNCTION in order to experience, affect, or cause changes in such relations?  Must consciousness itself, whether holistic or particular, carry some meta or paranormal power to collapse, direct, signify, or change perceptions of relations?  How is it that such changes are holistically synchronized to the shared, measurably common experience of various perspectives of consciousness that abide in proximate space-time?  HOW does one exercise or practice in order to enhance or enlighten one's meta power or receptivity for immeasurably channelling, guiding, apprehending, or affecting significations of substantive relations?



How do SENSES AND MIND work?
HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS --- seems to consist of awareness of self awareness of representations of representations.
However, how do quanta, particles, atoms, molecules, cells, bodies, cycles, information, codes, language, qualities of consciousness, and phases of patterns transpose, recur, reproduce, change, and evolve ... so as to have availed HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS? Did some scientific aspect of a Big Bang assign to quanta all such properties as were needed in order for our universe, as it is thrusted outward, to evolve all the forms of substance with which it is comprised? Is all derivative of, and preset in obedience to, a first force or bubble, spreading outward thereafter? Or is there a feedback process, so that patterns that follow are uncertain until randomly collapsed and evolved under a chaotic, complex, fluxing system, out of which are eventually propagated those patterns of individuals and groups which then and there are somehow most fit to survive and replicate? Does this process of cyclic reproducton and change arise purely from quantifying, scientific properties of Substance? Or does it implicate, at every step along the way, qualifying properties of Information and Consciousness? Does every relative form of Substance --- to sense patterns with which it can communicate in order to effect change or reproduction, to consume other forms in order to produce new forms --- require associations with some qualities of Information and Consciousness (whether preset, guiding, subsequent, or unfolding)?

MUST EACH PATTERN, TO REACT WITH ANY OTHER, ASSOCIATE WITH A REPRESENTING AND MODELING OF SUCH OTHER PATTERN THAT IT REACTS WITH AND RELATES TO?
I doubt that Substance, by itself, could preserve forms that can react with or make representations of other forms of Substance.  Still, Substance is requisite to avail means to mark, hold places for, and quantify interactions with other Substance.  I suspect the capacity, conservation, and amenability of Substance for that function is pre-set and pre-willed, subject to evolution of complex systems, to be associated with, and availed to, apprehensions of subsequent accountings of perspectives of Will.  In other words, the conserving appreciation and feedback for a system or world or universe, as a whole, is guided under a dance with aspects of Information and Conscious Will, the forms of conservation being both holistically pre-set and subject to subsequent and particular unfolding.

It seems not to be Substance-in-itself that represents other Substance. Rather, it seems to be representation of self awareness of representation of representation of Substance that represents other Substance. There do not seem to abide Representations of Substance that would enjoy a "property of existence," independent in themselves; it seems there abide only representions that can be used to hold places for, and mark current or potential relationships with, other representations within a field of conservation.

HOLISTIC CYCLING --- If matter were to dissipate to such a point that the Source of Holistic Consciousness were no longer appreciative of, or interested in, conserving it, so that the law of conservation it sponsors were to vanish, then all patterns, mass, and Substance would soon, perhaps instantaneously, phase shift, collapse, or vanish. Then, what would The Source do? Would it entertain itself with a new Big Bang? From perspectives of particular beings, would not the difference in time between death and revivication seem a mere instant?

DARK SUBSTANCE --- To the extent some such shared capacity is absent, each pattern of Substance will be "dark" to the other.
ENTANGLEMENT OF SUBSTANCE, INFORMATION, AND CONSCIOUSNESS --- Consider patterns of waves, destructive and constructive reinforcement and mutual obliviousness.  To associate in order to interreact, must not patterns get within place-held, measurable ranges of significance or fields of influence, in respect of locus, speed, direction, frequency, and amplitude?  But then, what about polarity entanglement?  Could Substance, by itself, because of polarity-entanglement, implicate capacity to represent/model/effect Brownian movement? Must one thing somehow "represent" another thing, in order to be measurably sensed to react with it (or to have reacted with it)?  For one pattern to be so polarized or charged --- electronically or magnetically -- to transmit, receive, amplify, muffle, or annihilate another, it would seem to be availed a PRE-SET capacity to represent and translate math (Information) for the representation of such other.  If not at least potentially able to recognize, model, replicate, communcate with, measure, or document a pattern, then does such pattern, relative to you, substantially exist?  May it intuitively exist, potentially or qualitatively?

*******
Re:  Plant communication --- Research in The Secret Life of Plants confirms the ability of plants to experience and respond. Missing is clear evidence of mental consciousness.

Re:  Patterns of communication within populations --- see http://www.ftb.com.hr/41/41-23.pdf -- Variability of the Quorum Sensing System in Natural Isolates of Bacillus sp.:
"Intercellular communication plays a pivotal role in the physiology and development of living organisms.
Many bacterial species, long thought to live the life of single cell existence, coordinate their physiological responses at the population level."

Re:  Sensate Matter --- see http://www.media.mit.edu/publications/bttj/Paper04Pages32-44.pdf.

Re:  Abiogenesis --- Early TUBULAR EVOLUTION, leading to abiogenesis:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg.  Counter:  http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp.

Re:  Quantum Mind Theory --- see and compare http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/problem_with_quantum_mind_theory.htm;
http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/problem_with_quantum_mind_theory.htm

Does matter represent those pre-willed patterns which Holistic Consciousness has pre-set, with apparent capacity to be interacted with by Consciousness in ways that conserve matter?  Is matter necessarily derivative in association with patterns imaged by Will, rather than derivative solely of patterns of other matter?  If matter itself is derivative of an association with Will, then matter is not, in itself, sentient.
Rather, even when pre-willed, matter (Substance) is accompanied by Consciousness.  But, such accompanying Consciousness seems often pre-willed, or pre-pre-willed (for random evolution of complex systems).  How is pre-setting of Will reflected or stored in matter (as Information?).  Can matter, when it interacts with other matter, be reasonably conceptualized as being accompanied with a capacity to represent (or mirror, model, or sense) such other mater?

Matter would seem not, in itself, to be imbued with pre-will, animation, sentience, or potential for expressing consciousness.  Matter (Substance) seems necessarily and dualistically to be accompanied with Consciousness.  Indeed, quantifiable communications between perspectives of Consciousness seem to abide only in respect of trivalent associations among Substance, Information, and Consciousness.  A (self aware) representation of a (aware) representation of a (information) representation of a (substance) representaton seems not to be recorded or experienced as quantitatively existent Substance or matter, but as qualitative Consciousness.  It seems not to be Substance in itself that interacts as representions interacting with and sensing other representations.

Conservation Entails a Qualitatively Immeasurable Conserver

QUESTION:  Does Conservation of Matter and Energy, Throughout Cycles and Phase Shifts, Entail the Quality of a Conscious Conserver?

ABSOLUTES:  There are absolutes, but none of them abide "as Substance."  Rather, all absolutes abide as Information, but only regarding derivatives of qualities of relations among patterns, interfunctioning with Consciousness, subject to a Source which continues to impose common mathematical limits upon interactive sequences of relations among patterns.  But for a trivalent interfunctioning of Substance, Information, and Consciousness, that Information which we consider "absolute" would not abide.

RELATIONSHIPS:  Every substantive thing partakes of the aspect of a relation, in that no substantive thing would exist, but for its measurable relations to all other substantive things. The conserver or producer of measurable mass, fluxing within degrees of freedom, is not a particle or Higgs boson, but a mathematical function, being imposed upon all perspectives of consciousness by a higher, unifying, synchronizing, singular Source of Consciousness.

SUPERPOSITIONING OF THE QUANTIFIABLE WITHIN A META FIELD OF THE QUALITATIVE:  Conservation is of quantities of relational Substance, measurable to potential observers; conservation is not of any substantive thing in itself, for there is no substantive thing in itself.  Our world is not one of dumb Substance in itself, but of shared mathematical limits, often set by higher Authority to meta auto pilot, so that Substance lasts to limits availed for us to vent our frustrations.  Our separate perspectives are nurtured and nested within the immeasurable grace of a meta provider.  Substance as a non-relational, thing in itself is a receding illusion, for there are no ultimate particles from which all others are built or given mass.  The territory upon which quantitative interactions are superimposed and availed is immeasurably qualitative, not measurably quantitative.

TERRITORY: Our substantively measurable "territory" consists of "nothing but" pre-set and/or guiding Will, as represented and conserved by The Source. That said, "nothing but" does not adequately convey another idea, to wit: Apart from various intuitions, we seem to have little idea what is the ultimate character of The Source. To my intuition, IT's character relates more to testing various perspectives of Itself, by separating such perspectives so that each cannot know, but can only intuit and empathize concerning the quality and interests of all others. In other words, the character of The Source relates more to learning to experience Empathy for various levels of self-aware companions than with Loving any particular perspective (except perhaps some ultimate perspective) above all others. That which The Source learns and deems worthwhile as a result of my experience may be preserved or recycled for future expression, perhaps in somewhat different forms.

CHURCHING DECENT COMMUNAL EMPATHIES: That which we most fundamentally intuit concerning our relationships with The Source seems fairly limited. Nevertheless, it is worth our while to join in communal celebrations of such relationships, to acknowledge and inspire appropriate, rewarding, communal empathies with regard to our unfolding daily interests and concerns within each community. Thus, we can each participate in evaluating the unfolding quality of one another's good faith and good will with regard to whether there is consistency between acts and blandishments. For that purpose, frequent reconsideration of old parables in light of new insights and experiences preserves ties of relevance between the unfolding logos of God and the present pursuits of each person and community. Perhaps, even crime syndicates and Islam may someday be decently reformed in such respect, though much work would first need to be done to spread literacy and respect within their venues for the freedom of each person's mind.

*********
QUESTION: How are substantive relations apprehended to relate to other relations in order to effect perceptions of change within a system whose holistic potential does not change?


Conscious beings sense, know, and interact with significations of Substance only in relations. By definition, a relation is not a thing in itself. How could a (Substance) relation-in-itself exist without violating the logical law of non-contradiction, apart from some extra-qualitative or non-quantitative capacity or potential to record (Information) or apprehend (Consciousness) it? How could a relation-in-itself exist in order to affect other such relations, apart from some non-quantitative capacity or potential to record or apprehend it? A non-substantive property cannot very well substantively collide with or push a substantive relation. So, HOW do relative perspectives, or capacities to apprehend relations affecting relations, INTERFUNCTION in order to experience, affect, or cause changes in such relations? Must consciousness itself, whether holistic or particular, carry some meta or paranormal power to collapse, direct, signify, or change perceptions of relations? How is it that such changes are holistically synchronized to the shared, measurably common experience of various perspectives of consciousness that abide in proximate space-time? HOW does one exercise or practice in order to enhance or enlighten one's meta power or receptivity for immeasurably channelling, guiding, apprehending, or affecting significations of substantive relations?

@Thus spake Dlanorrenrag.

Innate Consciousness Associated, From The Inception, With Every Pattern

Some patterns seem directly to bounce off or change each another.  Others seem obliviously to pass through each another.  I am oblivious to much of that which a dog hears or smells, a spider feels, a whale sings, a bat senses, a snake tongues, or a migrating bird orients.  Some people are immune to diseases that ravish others.  Not every virus shapes a key to unlock every immune system.  Not every pattern is quantitatively reactive with every other.  Yet, every pattern of substance that becomes manifest and that conveys mass seems to preserve information to record how its mass has been sequentially conserved.

Conserving limits are often shared to local fields of influence, but some may extend inter-galactically. Wider fields may induce organizational phase or cycle shifts within encompassed fields, even within bubbles of universes within universes. By what Source or Principle is Substance set to conserve and churn in such reactive patterns?  Except as an act of Will, how does a quality of void of infinity produce and preserve a qualititatively fluxing bubble of quantity?  What can we say, other than that It is that It is?

Mostly, quantifiable packets of Substance are composed of fields of energy and empty space, yet organized as self conserving or reactive patterns or relative forms, such forms in part depending for their present associative efficacy on the purpose, perspective, and context of whatever other substance, information, or consciousness may then and there recognize, quantify, and come within their field or pattern of influence. Quantitative interactions among such packets seem to be manifested or best conceptualized as bits or packets of various levels of particles charged to spin within various levels of spins within spins within spins, all in keeping with the conservation of various mathematically pre-set relationships regarding mass.

Self conservation of mass for each packet depends upon preserving its relationship with other packets within a formal organization. If the organization for a pattern is broken or changed, a new one is instantaneously substituted, so that some quantifiable aspect or mass of the total of all pattern organizations of substance is conserved. Yet, apart from the mathematics of its conservation, we know not what mass is, what is its origin or cause, or how it is transferred, apart from mere associational relationships.  Even so, every substantive aspect of every packet recognizes, obeys, and is sensate-reactive to (aware of?) a constant, conserving limit --- both for itself and for whatever it may sense or react with.  In other words, a minimal level of pre-set conscious direction seems to permeate and accompany all of matter and energy, from the beginning of the Big Bang.

Questions of intuitive, connective, moral, and empathtic, import:
Does some aspect of consciously pre-set sensate-reactiveness in obedience to conserving limits (God?) continue from time to time to guide the unfolding fluxing and evolution of such pattern reactions?
Regardless, has guidance or chance, via evolution, brought earth to a point of nurturing expressions of non-pre-set, active, subsequent, conscious wills, through higher forms of self-aware perspectives of consciousness?

@Thus spake Dlanorrenrag.

Chain of Conception and Derivation of Oughts

There abide quantifiably conserved and measurable aspects, which we call Substance.

All such measurements (whether taken by instruments or by senses) entail potential for relating or representing each pattern, locus, or quality of Substance against all others.

Such measurements as can be made for relating representations of interactions among patterns of Substance constitute Information.

When Information itself is measured, it takes on an aspect of Substance.

For patterns to change and interact, it is necessary that they have capacity to sense or recognize one another.

The capacity in each pattern to randomly sense, represent, and react to another can be conceptualized as implicating a permeating involvement with an innate, low level of awareness (or consciousness).

In most aspects, such conscious capacity for allowed parameters of patterns to sense and react with one another is pre-set, having unfolded in respect of a shared singularity (or Big Bang). We do not know the Source of such Big Bang, but we reasonably believe all that subsequently unfolds is derivative of its occurrence or creation. To some, this seems reasonably to entail God.

When Consciousness is pre-set, it takes on an aspect of Information.

A higher level of conscious observance, perhaps arising from guided evolution, can be reasonably conceptualized as entailing awareness of self, with subsequent or evolving capacity to experience non-pre-set, wilful, apprehension, empathy, and choice making.

Such higher levels of consciousness, especially when merged in concert, enjoy capacity to divert unfolding patterns of reactions from their random paths.

Thus, it appears reasonably consistent and coherent to conceptualize and believe that God has availed us a universe within which to experience empathy and will. i.e., moral responsibility.

When Substance yields to guided uncertainty, it takes on an aspect of Consciousness.

Thus, Ought is not measurably derived from random, merely substantive Is, but immeasurably derived from a Beingness that associates with an interfunctioning of Substance, Information, and non-measurable, empathetic qualities of Consciousness.

@Thus spake Dlanorrenrag.

CAVE OF MATERIALISM

Regarding Plato's allegory of the cave:  The only aspects of Reality that are quantifiable are things expressed in terms of relationships to the cave.  All that is non-trivial (trivial pertains to aspects of mathematics whose proofs follow from their assumptions), quantifiable, and therefore restricted to substance (whether of matter or energy) conveys only a stream of relative pictures or metaphors that, at the end of analysis restricted to themselves, necessarily remains incomplete, incoherent, and inconsistent.  Substance consists of relationships with recordable sensibility, not of independent bits of exhaustive, mutually exclusive particles, summed within some closed, universal, set piece.  Yes, tinkerings and appearances continue to flow forth, for which imagination avails often ingenious rationalizations, which may be made astonishingly practical to contrived ends.  Such tinkerings, however, will never avail a quantitatively complete, coherent, and consistent explication of Reality itself, or of its potential.

A problem inherent to mathematical logicians is that they often fool themselves by taking an assumption as proof.  It is absurd to assume Reality is entirely measurable and quantifiable, and then to demand that anyone of a different view prove it in respect of the mathematically quantifiable.  It is to demand an inherent contradiction:  quantitative proof that there abide real qualities which defy complete reduction to quantification.  When bivalent proof of trivalent beingness is absent, as it necessarily will be, it is folly to congratulate onself for the superiority of bivalently mathematical presumptiveness.  Those of insight immediately sense and decline such invitations to errands for fools.  For that which is inside information, intuitive and qualitative, the EVIDENCE, of course, will be intuitive and qualitative --- not empirical or mathematical.

If a non-trivial, complete, consistent, and coherent Truth or Reality abides, it must abide in connection with more than that which is merely quantifiable.  It necessitates consideration of that which clearly presents (to innate intuition, not to demonstrable empiricism) as being qualitative, beyond quantification.

Consider three obvious fundaments of the Source implicated in the presentation of Truth and the conservation of Reality:
(1) Substance, (2) Information, and (3) Consciousness.
In other words, (1) Substance, (2) Representation of Substance, and (3) Awareness of Representation of Substance.
In other words, (1) (quantifiable forms and representations of matter and energy), (2) (qualitative representations of forms [in-form] of representations of matter and energy), and (3) (awareness or sensation of in-forms of representations of matter and energy).  After all, how could patterns evolve in respect of their relational associations if they could not sense, apprehend, or somehow be aware of one another?  Indeed, except in relative, sensible association, no pattern can be thought meaningfully to exist.  All that substantively abides consists of relationships, not things in themselves.  (To what realm of non-beingness are those patterns confined which were only possible but not recorded or sensed?)

Substance may be conceptualized as being monovalently finite in actuality, even if infinite in potentiality for occupying space-time or cycles thereof.  Information may be conceptualized as being bivalently infinite in respect of an infinite variety of potential ways to figuratively or otherwise represent Substance.  Consciousness may be conceptualized as being trivalently infinite in respect of an infinite vairety of potential ways to be aware of and apprehend representations of substance in the openness of space-time.  If the Universe is conceptualized as encompassing the potentiality of, and often the actuality or manifestation of, Substance, Information, and Consciousness, then the Source of the Universe of Reality presents and conserves an interfunctioning of aspects that are finite, open, and infinite.  The non-trivial Truth of such a trivalent Reality cannot be reduced by any one of its three fundaments to bivalently measured quantification.

Reality does not avail a luxury of appealing only to indifferent, objective, quantifiable Substance.  Reality also requires of us an intuitive, caring involvement that cannot be objectively pigeon-holed.  A Substance-monist puts more faith in indifferent pre-determinism (believing that "God does not play dice").  An Information-dualist puts more faith in random representationalism (believing that "God does play dice").  A Consciousness-tri-alist puts more faith in empathetic moral guidance (believing that "God loads the dice that God plays with").  (A merging-consciousness-tri-alist believes the upshot of merging interests of perspectives of consciousness loads the dice.)

Regardless, all who partake of Reality are required to partake of a trinity:  the science of Substance, the art of Information, and the passion of Consciousness.  Thus abides the fundaments of our essence.  To fight our essence is to make ourselves and our society sick.  As a sign of sickness in our society, consider how the most corrupt are more and more found most to profit.  Our present path may avail individuals in a short run, but it will not sustain lasting, decent civilization.  A decent society should inculcate the good of its enlightened community in order that the good of its individual members may be enjoyed; a decent society should not allow contrivance of the good of its enlightened community in order to serve only the wishes of its most sociopathically false elite.  The moral goal should be (and eventually will be): decent freedom of opportunity for self expression among enlightened individuals; not sacrifice of individual minds to forced equalization of results.

**********

Confidence in bivalent, either-or, true-false analysis of our beingness, under a law of non-contradiction, would be greater --- provided the domains or fundaments of Substance, Information, and Consciousness remained as separate, not inter-transposable factors.  However, we have no empirical way to prove such separateness and non-intertransposition is the case.  Indeed, it seems counterintuitive to suppose such three fundaments should interrelate or interfunction without inter-transposing.  Indeed, why should such fundaments abide, if they do not inter-react, depending on observational point of view and shared frame of reference?  That the fundaments do inter-react is consistent with empiricism, in that tests confirm that the collapse and formation of material particles out of waves of energy depend on interactions with, contextual proximity of, and attentions of, measuring observers.

If Substance, Information, and Consciousness do interfunction, in qualitative ways and behind measurable scenes, so that any apparent finiteness of Substance is conserved for every point and context of measure, then, for all we know (and as seems intuitively likely), there are qualitative inter-transpositions that yet preserve quantitative measures of Substance.  Thus, it does not appear that mere bivalent analysis, while often astonishingly practical, will ever explicate Substance, in itself, in a way that is complete, coherent, and consistent.  Indeed, the impossibility of such a synthesis seems foretold, consistent with limitations of mathematics, per Godel.

It appears that Conservation of Substance depends upon a guiding pre-apprehension of awareness, in order that patterns that can be meaningfully and measurably related to can collapse and form.  It appears also that Conservation of Conscious awareness depends upon reliability in the presentation of forms.  Indeed, to what extent is the conservation and indifference of science and substance dependent upon the sponsor or upshot of our common, merged faith, shared Source, and shared frame of reference?

Depending on purpose, point of view, and context, reflection suggests that models of conception can apply equally well, regardless of whether Substance is considered to be reliably and indifferently pre-determined, indifferently random, or caringly guided based on upshots that merge and arise out of evolutionary competitions among perspectives of consciousness.

Thus, depending upon purpose and context, I think Conscious belief does have direct effects on Substance, but I also think such belief is supported by clear intuition, rather than by mathematically-based empirical testing.  Indeed, how could statistical testing ever confirm whether or how the quality or fervor of one's paranormal faith, belief, or pre-apprehension may directly affect substantive results?  After all, if a set of believers were suspected to have shown paranormal effect, then, to the extent they were shown to have lost such effect, it could not very well be determined whether the loss of effect were due to mere chance or to loss of faith.  In other words, before or after chance seems favorable, belief may increase, and before or after chance seems indifferent or disfavorable, belief may diminish.  Thus, a sort of uncertainty principle precludes empirical determination of whether the relation between faith and chance is causal or merely associational.  Thus, validity in one's worldview or faith regarding general moral guidance can be real enough, when related to one's unfolding context and purpose.

********
If not quantifiable, may the interfunctioning of Consciousness, Information, and Substance be indirectly qualified, perhaps estimated, even conjured, depending on purpose, perspective, and context?  May the receptiveness of Substance to inter-associational, inter-functioning fields of Consciousness and Information have something to do with what we have come to model as cosmological constants, quantum fuzz, Higgs bosons, virtual particles, and dark matter and energy?

********
Most of our universe's shared potential for the measuring of unfolding Substance and its continuing generating and storing of Information does not necessitate the associative involvement or superintending of Consciousness, beyond innate, minimal kinds and and degrees of pattern-sensate reactiveness, so that the higher conceptual guidance that accompanies SUBSEQUENTLY WILLED (loaded dice playing) choice-making is not there needed.  Rather, there is a sort of autopilot of Consciousness there at work, secondary to the fact that no part of finite Substance exists, except in association with some pre-instilled, PRE-WILLED (dice playing), pre-created (not dice playing) aspect for such autopiloting sensate-reactiveness of relating patterns of Substance.  God does not laboriously yoke higher consciousness to deciding minutiae.  However, no minutiae exists, apart from its patterns' being innately related to the low level of awareness that permeates the sensate-reactiveness of each and every unfolding pattern of Substance.  But for a permeating, innate capacity for unfolding patterns to sense and be aware of one another, all patterns would be without non-absurd existence.  That is, they would be non-patterns of patterns, or non-existing existence.

HOLISTIC GOD:  This begs a very significant question:  It seems reasonable to conceptualize that the unfolding of Substance near the realm of the human field of consciousness is necessarily consistent with the synchronized upshot of variously merged apprehensions, wills, and choices of various high level perspectives within such field of consciousness.  However, this could not explain how it is that we share a universe that sequenced from a commonality shared to a singularity, for which every pattern of Substance is pre-set with a capacity for sensate-reactiveness.  Does this make reasonable a belief in a creating, guiding, holistic, God?!

********
SUMMARY:
There abide quantifiably conserved and measurable aspects, which we call Substance.
All such measurements (whether taken by instruments or by senses) entail potential for relating or representing each pattern, locus, or quality of Substance against all others.
Such measurements as can be made for relating representations of interactions among patterns of Substance constitute Information.
For patterns to change and interact, it is necessary that they have capacity to sense or recognize one another.
The capacity in each pattern to randomly sense, represent, and react to another can be conceptualized as implicating a permeating involvement with an innate, low level of awareness (or consciousness).
In most aspects, such conscious capacity for allowed parameters of patterns to sense and react with one another is pre-set, having unfolded in respect of a shared singularity (or Big Bang).  We do not know the Source of such Big Bang, but we reasonably believe all that subsequently unfolds is derivative of its occurrence or creation.  To some, this seems reasonably to entail God.
A higher level of conscious observance, perhaps arising from guided evolution, can be reasonably conceptualized as entailing awareness of self, with subsequent or evolving capacity to experience non-pre-set, wilful apprehension, empathy, and choice making.
Such higher levels of consciousness, especially when merged in concert, enjoy capacity to divert unfolding patterns of reactions from their random paths.
Thus, it appears reasonably consistent and coherent to conceptualize and believe that God has availed us a universe within which to experience empathy and will. i.e., moral responsibility.

@Thus spake Dlanorrenrag.