STANDARD META PHYSICS

STANDARD META PHYSICS / DOVETAIL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
.
LINEAR SCALING ABSURDITIES: The various philosophies about moral concerns seem always to wrap into confusion, contradiction, and absurdity. Example: "God" (the ultimate final causal first mover fundamental principle of morality):

Operates outside of space-time --- except when he-she-it doesn't;

Presently desires that we apply our free will to become acceptable, either in humble acceptance of grace or in learning to avoid sin --- except that God already knows we will fail, how we will fail, and how we will learn;

Gave us free will --- except that God knows how that which we do has already been determined;

Saves us by grace --- yet teaches us from hard knocks based on our fallen lack of merit;

Could have created us not to need hard knocks to learn how to overcome or compensate for imperfection --- but chose not to;

Recognizes we are completely dependent upon how we are created --- yet judges us based on merit;

Waits to judge us on merit --- yet already knows our merit;

Cares about and is entertained by us --- yet already knows the show;

Is omnipowerful --- yet cannot change what God knows to be foreordained;

Is God so objectively all-knowing that it is impossible for God to change his-her-its subjective mind?

Is God so objective as to be more like a perfectly wound clock of nature than a subjective appreciator of companionship?

Etcetera.

.

NON-EXPLANATORY EXPLANATIONS: The various platitudes and homilies offered by preachers to "explain" such confusion, contradiction, and absurdity constitute no rational explanation --- though they may, in time, help heal all wounds or wound (or bruise) all heels.

.

All such platitudes suffer from a common ailment concerning System Set Theory, generally, i.e.: The subjective (judgmental, purposeful, moral, contemporaneously determinative) quality of consciousness that arises within such a system as a whole cannot be reduced to objectively complete, consistent, or coherent explanation merely by resort to analysis of variously and arbitrarily modeled parts. That being so, may worth be adduced in an explication for how the objective does a dovetail dance with the subjective? Should we give up searching for an "objective" first material empirical cause versus a "subjective" free will? Should we instead conceptualize about contemporaneous determinations made by a kind of "living system," which respects and synchronizes feedback that dovetails from perspectives of conscious appreciation? See Asimov's Foundation series.

.

SYSTEM DOVETAILING OF THE QUALITATIVE SUBJECTIVE AND THE QUANTITATIVE OBJECTIVE:

.

PRESENT CONSERVATION: All qualities presently experienced are presently quantitatively represented by the System, but not simultaneously from any one perspective.

.

FUTURE POTENTIAL: There is no limit to the capacity of the System to express abstractions of abstractions.

.

LIMITS OF PERSPECTIVE: No single perspective or model or algorithm can account for all possible abstractions.

.

DOVETAIL: The intelligent perspectives of a super intelligent Being would need to be aided by micro processors, objectively processing in space-time, for all of which such Being could not be availed objective present capacity simultaneously to account.

.

THE MICROPROCESSORS: Unknown to the super being, and beyond its control, while it was enjoying its perspective, would be twisting new things out of the System, i.e., new technologies, new maths, new microbes ....

AND SO ON.

.

ORIGIN OF THE FIRST SYSTEM: No single perspective within a System need know.

.

********************

.

QUESTION: Is any situational perspective so qualitative as to be beyond the entire quantitative prediction and control of a higher, more encompassing, more complete perspective? If the concept of an objective highest cause or first mover lacks consistent sense, then may an alternative concept of a CIRCULAR DOVETAIL EFFECT of some kind make better sense?

.

QUESTION: Can a perspective of consciousness ever fully know, predict, and predetermine its own decisions (contemporaneous determinations)?

.

CONSIDER: A perspective in space-time cannot apprehend a qualitatively subjective experience that is completely devoid of quantitatively objective signification. A subjective perspective must be committed and identified with functioning at an objective level that is below that which would produce an impossibility, i.e., a purely qualitative experience. That is, to appreciate and experience a qualitative perspective, one's perspective must not be below a level that would have quantitative capacity to factor, evaluate, predict, and reliably control the entirety of the otherwise qualitative expression at issue.

.

SYSTEM Relations with particular "insides" versus situational "outsides": A system may obey an internally defining algorithm which is applies in order to consume and reduce such outside food and energy as is rolled to it by its envirionment. What is to be rolled to it is of a quality of not being complete quantitatively; what it internally produces therefrom may be quantitatively predictable and reducible.

.

CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE: We can hardly make sense of a concept of a supreme perspective that would simultaneously enjoy qualitiative contemporaneous will in combination with omniscient foreknowledge of quantitatives. May we make better sense of an alternative concept of a circular and cracked dovetail effect, such that no single perspective need simultaneously have both supreme qualitative control and supreme quantitative knowledge?

.

FRAME DRAGGING: Must not perspectives of I-ness qualitatively glide through the quantifying System, dragging frames of reference with them, eventually transcending via imperceptible changes, to the branch rule of varying and shared cones of experience of algorithms, dovetailing into other algorithms dimly perceived or apprehended?

.

*****************************

.

DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS:
.
SUPPOSE: Suppose one were to conceptualize all signification of physics as being secondary to intersectional relations among (a trinity of) 3 dimensions: (1) The Pre-Determined (in fine predictably regulated by natural law); (2) The Un-Determined (in fine random but in general emergence patterned); and (3) The Contemporaneously Willed (coterminously apprehended, interpreted, appreciated, judged, and influenced).
.
SUBJECTIVELY IMAGINING THE OBJECTIVELY IMPOSSIBLE: Were such Dimensions to remain apart and not intersect, each may be perfectly symmetrical had it capacity to exist in itself. However, upon intersecting, such symmetry would be “cracked,” such that each Dimension would relate in non-perfect symmetry to the other 2.
.
MEASURABLE AND IMMEASURABLE: Thus, influences of Dimensions (1) and (2) would be measurably quantitative, while influences of Dimension (3) would be immeasurably qualitative. Even so, even as to Dimension 3, a kind of Artificial Intelligence may develop that may acquire qualitative skill in predicting and influencing its unfolding.
.
DIMENSIONS IN THEMSELVES: Regardless, such Dimensions, in themselves, would not be physically real. Rather, their interfunctioning would associate with expressions and significations that appeared to be physically seal.
.
METAPHYSICAL ASSOCIATION: Suppose each such dimensions were restricted to a separate 2-D grid, and all 3 came to a shared point of intersection at right angles. For such and event to occur and be sustained would seem attributable either to inconceivable circumstance or to metaphysical design and creation. Such dimensions sustaining intersection at a point may be imagined as availing 8 corners of 3-D vectors, facilitating imagination of local coordinates within a kind of spherical space-time.
.
IMAGINING GEOMETRICAL MATH: Conceptualized leverage in respect of math may further complicate the model, so that each 2-D plane (or membrane) may be conceptualized as intersecting the other two at other than right angles and not necessarily at a common point. Moreover, each dimensional plane may be conceptualized as itself curving through 3-D, therewith yielding curlicues of curving intersections of multiple points, strings, curvilinear lines, and spherical and spinning entanglements. Moreover, each Dimension may be conceptualized as actively changing and fluxing in its curvature. Moreover, each intersection among Dimensions may be conceptualized as spinning, orbiting, rolling, entangling, stretching, absorbing, exploding. In short, the variety and number of possible sets and universes of interfunctions and interactions would be infinite, chaotic, and potentially astonishing. In such flux of chaos, there would be availed skills and interests in both (1) quantitative indifferent empiricism and (2) qualitative purposefulness and empathetic morality. Such chaos would “RENORMALIZE” to avail both sudden PHASE SHIFTING and imperceptible frame dragging. In association with imperceptible FRAME DRAGGING, mortals would tinker with skills, sciences, and arts in order to produce often astonishing unfoldings and locally powerful mathematical models.
.
SENSING SPINS: Thus, math would leverage models for conceptualizing, imagining, and relating properties concerning varieties and elements and particles and fields of matter, energy, space, and time, i.e.: points, strings, and entanglements, i.e., spins, orbits, and rolls within fluxing spins, orbits, and rolls, and so on. Thus, local appreciation of spins, orbits, and rolls may come to be associated with like absorbing like, similar attracting or reinforcing similar, less similar pushing less similar, unlike repelling or radiating unlike, and opposite annihilating opposite.
.
META-SOURCE: What META SOURCE would attract (vibrate or resonate?) the 3 dimensions of (1) The Pre-Determined, (2) The Un-Determined, and (3) The Contemporaneously Willed, to bring them into associational intersecting interfunctioning, in order to give signification to varieties of spins, orbits, and rolls? What would CAUSE such Dimensions to apprehend and appreciate one another, i.e., to IDENTIFY and mirror or REPRESENT FEEDBACK to one another? How does separateness of IDENTITY come to be imbued with a LOCAL PERSPECTIVE for receiving representations and significations concerning a broader frame of reference and shared cone of experience and expression? How does local quantitative signification come to be interpreted (mirrored?) to qualitative apprehension from perspective of a local signifier (Identify of selfness)? May local qualities of apprehension be quantitatively reconciled or subsumed under more encompassing and receding levels of appreciation, and so on, so that what is qualitatively willed from my perspective may be quantitatively controlled from an associated and encompassing situation? Am “I” only permitted to experience qualitative conscious will insofar as my “SEPARATE” identity is defined to remain in shared association with that which is spinning me and others like me?