The Quality of the Continuous v. the Quantity of the Discrete

.
The Quality of the Continuous v. the Quantity of the Discrete:

.

Is the experience of the Qualitative like the experience of the Continuous? Is it possible that both the experience of the continuous and of the qualitative can be reductively modeled to digital switching, back and forth, as from: zero to one, on to off, yes to no, positive to negative, field to particle?

.

Suppose the duration of the perpetual present abides in the fluxing instant of each sequence of charged exchanges between a reconciling field and its various, particular expressions. Suppose each particular perspective functions and fluxes within parameters of its allowed quanta exchanges. And each subfield and superior field mediates, reconciles, balances, conserves, and synchronizes all such exchanges. Suppose there were a meta-mathematical halter or gap between each particular flux and its reconciliation to its field. If so, no mortal could ever measure or experience such gap. Every mortal perspective would ecperience the unfolding of quantum exchanges as if no such gap in time existed and as if present time were extant and continuous, even though it were really sequentially discrete and granular.

.

Similarly, suppose each mortal perspective functions from an apparently superior brain, focus, or point of view, while, actually, the point of view is facilitated by an organic synthesis that functions in respect of a swarm of cells, all drawing from the context of a shared, defining, encompassing field. If so, for every charged exchange, there would abide organically synchronizing chains of supporting exchanges, below the level of self consciousness of the coordinating brain. Each exchange would determine an appreciation or decision: yes-no, on-off, positive-negative, like-dislike.

.

The appearance of a qualitative range of like-dislike for each apprehension for an entire field of sub-determinations and discharges of choices would emerge from reconciliation of all sub-decisions and subsystems in respect of superior decisions and systems. No particular mortal perspective would be able to pre-quantify and reconcile all factors that would predict and reconcile all decisions of its own supporting organism. Yet, quantitative decisions would have been spread out and made within the encompassing field. That is, the field would have measured all the quantitatives that went into the qualitative experience of the organism, even though the brain of the organism could not itself have pre-measured all the quantiatives that factored into its decisions.

.

In that way, it seems sequences could unfold discretely, even though they appear to unfold continuously, and experiences could be entirely determined by quantitative exchanges, even though they seem to be guided or determined by qualitative appreciations.

.

This does not mean the God and free will do not exist. It only means that concepts about God and free will need to extend to the unfolding guidance and reconciliation that occurs among encompassing fields, beyond mere perimeters of skins of organisms. Insofar as the reconciling field is math based, it still needs a meta-qualitative to operate the math and guide and reconcile its feedback. This does not mean that the qualitative does not exist, nor does it mean that the qualitative is reducible by mortals to the merely quantitative. It does, however, suggest that the reconciling field (God) has capacity to quantify that which mortals experience as qualitative.

.