Sunday, September 23, 2012

The Reconciling Field

.
THE FIELD is one reconciling field. Not a sum of 3 fields.  Sometimes, temporal, practical purposes can be served by considering or modeling The Field AS IF it were 3 fields: C-Consciousness; S-Substance; I-Information. Such modeling would be to facilitate practical appreciation of a severable point of view (C) within a (S) context towards a (I) purpose.
.
In that respect:
.
S-FIELD:  An S-Field can be modeled as if it quantitatively and presently implicates natural laws that geometrically define, conserve, and renormalize parameters for spins fluxing within and around spins within the light cone of experience that is ruled by such S Field. The S Field operates presently: contemporaneous with feedback among related sequences of sensation, representation, observation, recordation, translation, communication.  Substance is the Field's relational measurability of the present.
.
I-FIELD:  An I-Field can be modeled as if it quantitatively preserves a mathematical record or memory of the chronology of all past, preset, and previous sequences of spins transitioning up to the present, as a contextual basis or frame of reference. Even though a record of Information may have been created in the past, the light-based communication of it may take an infinite variety of times, simply by removing observers to ever more distant loci in space-time, folding space-time where needed in order to position observers to eventually receive and review such information in their local contexts. Even so, the folding of space-time for distant viewers would not alter the local sequence from which a light signal originated, although such folding may alter the sequence, extent, and clarity with which the information is received. The light that records or affects each local event would, contemporaneous with such event, be substantive. The non-contemporaneous message it conveys would be informative. All along its path, each spin that functions to define light photons, waves, and transmissions of information would be both substantive and informational --- depending on purpose of analysis, point of view, and context.  Information is the Field's recorded memory of sequences previous to the present.
.
C-FIELD:  Regardless, the S-Field and the I-Field would both facilitate quantitative measurements. But what would, at each present moment, receive, interpret, appreciate, and qualitatively react to such quantitative measurements? What field would take the otherwise chaos of the S and I Fields and qualitatively guide them, out of all possible manifestations consistent with their parameters, to "choose" any particular manifestation for any present unfolding? That would be the C-Field, the Consciousness Field, the field that sponsors particular perspectives of consciousness as they contemporaneously (not pre-set)appreciate, experience, and will among possibilities of choice.  Nowness is the qualitative experience of the Field's Consciousness.
.
DERIVATIVE DEPENDENCE:  Again, the S, I, and C Fields are not real in themselves. All are derivatives of the Reconciling Field, which reconciles pre-set with contemporaneous and random determinations, quantitative measurements with qualitative appreciations, the expression of each particular with the conservation of the holism, and the capacity for holistic and overlapping appreciation with locally perspectivistic appreciations.
.
CONSERVATION OF INFORMATION:  Since the I-Field is not itself real, it seems not reasonable to suppose that all Information must be conserved, or that the Reconciling Field never forgets. However, I think this much may be said: Regardless of whether Information can be lost to the Field of Consciousness, Information cannot, to the knowledge of any particular perspective, be lost to the Consciousness Field. In other words, your information will always be conserved and re-normalized in its potential for being measured to your local experience. In other words, when you forget something, you will not remember what it was that you forgot, and you will rationalize every measurable as if it were perfectly consistent with all that could ever be known.
.
THE CAUSE:  An avatar can experience a contemporaneous quality of intuiting or appreciating how an event is to unfold or manifest. But "the cause" is not limited to the avatar. The cause is only appreciated from the perspective of the avatar. Moreover, "the cause" would not be limited to the C-Field generally. However, "the cause" of each contemporaneously then and there unfolding event or locus of signification would factor feedback both from the C-Field generally and from such of its particular perspectives as may be within the cone of effect (or empathetic affect). Even so, "the cause" would not even be limited to the feedback within the C-Field. This is because the C-Field is only a conceptualization for aiding qualitative communication. Ultimately, "the cause" is the Reconciling Field, which defies breakdown into perfectly severable and measurable parts. This is why the math of set theory is limited and why "the whole is more than the sum of its parts": Because the Whole (the Reconciling Field) does not have true parts, but only "as if" parts, as aids for communication and dependent on purpose, point of view, and context of reference.
.
MORAL CONCERNS:  This begs moral questions: What should we believe that the Field (or even the C-Field) prescribes for what we "ought" to be seeking and doing? Intuitively, empathetically, I seem unable to ascertain any linearly or measurably achievable goal in itself. I intuit there is only a shared qualitative goal: to perpetually seek to apply our intuitive capacities to express ourselves empathetically and artistically. For that, we are availed means, but no measurable end. We pursue happiness; we don't achive or own it. Our reach perpetually exceeds our grasp, perhaps even the grasp of the C-Field, and even the Reconciling Field.
.
QUALITATIVE V. QUANTITATIVE THINKING:  Thinking in feelings and observations:   Feelings are qualitative thoughts; observations are quantitative thoughts.
.
IS V. OUGHT:  Measurable How (IS) v. Immeasurable Why (OUGHT): Measuring trends of what IS will suggest ways for effecting measurables. It will not suggest the qualitative immeasurables one OUGHT to attempt to express.
.
Don't think "time." Think chronology preservation among vibrations and spins, preserved and synchronized in respect of a universal nowness. Substance is the relational measurability of the present. Information is the Field's recorded memory of sequences previous to the present.  Nowness is the qualitative experience of the field -- which experience can be called Consciousness.
.
REALITY:  The only real thing that exists is the qualitative entity of a field that presently avails contemporaneous expression of Consciousness. Every "thing" else is mere math, quantitatively derivable, i.e., mere geometrically formulated signification of the "Substance" of spins and vibrations in respect of such field, or "Informational" accumulations of previous significations in respect of such field.  Apart from present fields and perspectives of consciousness, every "thing" else is stubborn illusion.
.
 

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

DECENCY: Feelings are qualitative thoughts; observations are quantitative thoughts. Measuring trends of what IS will suggest ways for effecting measurables. It will not suggest the qualitative immeasurables one OUGHT to attempt to express. The field of consciousness (God) can be worthily meditated about, consulted, importuned, and worshipped from a wide variety of figures of speech. However, no mortal can confine God to measure or control under any single conceptualization. One can choose to participate with the Deity (1) in respect of its capacity to facilitate mutual respect and caring cooperation, or (2) in respect of its capacity to fuel fanaticism that seeks to rule under fraudulent elites. One can relate to God (1) as a guide to consult in good faith and good will, or (2) as a despot to help sociopaths justify enserfment of majorities comprised of the most naive, ignorant, and corrupt. Why should any decent, thinking person choose door number 2? Why should any decent, thinking person devote his life to trying to force the world to pretend it believes any single, maddeningly detailed, contrived history or psychology of God to be measurably factual? As a civilizing conceptualization, should "God" be a corrupt dispenser of goodies to favored minorities, or should God simply establish and preserve a system of rules that opportune every citizen’s pursuits of meaningful freedom and dignity?
.
CORRUPTION: The crony money that owns Big Media is not interested in a search for God, truth, or justice. It does not believe in such things. It seeks to leverage and preserve power and privilege. ( To understand the human heart of greed, look to the Opium Wars of the 18th and 19th centuries.) How do our crony elitists rule us? By hedging, wedging, slicing, dicing, dividing, swamping, and ruling. Our efforts to carve out enclaves of decency, freedom, and dignity mean nearly nothing to it.
.
ENTRENCHMENT: The fact that a man as unqualified and shallow as Obama is President is far less dismaying than the fact that nearly every institution of sigificance supported him. This system of rent-seeking cronyism has become so entrenched that talk of merit-based, scientific, free enterprise and free trade have become the stuff of fairy tales. Merit, decency, freedom, and dignity will not be revived without effective confrontation of cronies. They own all serious candidates. They will allow none to be replaced except by other hollow puppets. The political spectacle is mainly about bread and circuses — part of the game of divide and rule, the better to swamp enclaves of decency and replace them with fiefdoms of power and privilege.

Anonymous said...

Re: "Therefore anything that is possible within these laws, does exist and is currently in action."
.
I have heard that. The only way I have been able to make sense of it is to believe all possible things "exist" in mathematical potentiality. However, I don't believe that all possible things must necessarily exist in some locally measurable manifestation (AT LEAST, NOT IN SIMULTANEOUS NOWNESS OF MANIFESTATION.)
.
I probably should not say "avatar," as in the sense of a vehicle for God. I need a better word --- a personal, shorthand way to refer to an idea of derivative reality. I don't believe in first causes or a single big bang. I am looking for a word by which to convey that I believe in measurable substance, but I think its measurability is entirely derivative. That is, I don't think any "real substance" or particle is actually spinning or vibrating. Behind the spins and vibrations there are only more spins and vibrations. There is no other "there" that is "there." I don't think any thing-in-itself is actually spinning. So what we have are signs, significations, measurable relations. Those are substantive in that respect, but they are not real in themselves. I think their measurable substantivity depends on an immeasurable, reconciling field.
.
In that respect, I consider all measurable significations to be signs (avatars) of a field of which their reality is derivative and iterative. I think there abides with that field a universal nowness of synchronization and conservation of feedback between locally sequenced events and universally sequenced events.
.
Some people seem to leap from the idea that there is no favored frame of reference to an idea that there is no universal nowness. I tend to think there is universal nowness. I suspect that may be a necessary implication if it is possible for travel to be warped through local sequences of space-time.
.
If there is a universal nowness, I suspect there is universal synchronization and conservation. That is, a universal field which, in itself, is immeasurable (i.e., qualitative).

Anonymous said...

When you talk to anyone who reads regularly about gay marriage in the social liberal or libertarian blogosphere, you soon learn there is much "wanna" working without a net. Indeed, 50 percent of the electorate is of below average intellect, and more than 50 percent is easily led to trump thoughts with feelings, to rationalize wannas instead of to think rationally. First, the position of rationalization is that gays only want such rights as are enjoyed by everyone else, not polygamy. Then, you are told that polygamous relations need neither be encouraged nor discouraged, because they do not threaten the institution of marriage. Later still, you are instructed that marriage and families are not necessary foundations for decent civilization anyway. So then, ask: Is ANY foundation necessary for decent civilization? If so, what are the choices for founding it? Brute force? Enlightened governance under callow libertines? State assumption of the responsibility for the licensing, designing, and rearing of children (and the eliminating of the excess)? I can sense the feelings and crock of wannas. What I don't sense are the objective thinking and principles. Duplicity falls upon duplicity.

Anonymous said...

Our electorate now consists of a majority of morons. This is no time for majority-imposed comprehensive solutions. This is a time for the inspired few to make themselves relevant over the frothed up dopers. That's a never-ending process, and a convention would not put it to rest. What may be more relevant would be more conventions for coordinating efforts among those who are committed to preserving a decent culture of human dignity and liberty. Something like focus or action groups among American Thinkers.

Anonymous said...

The Internet has all the information a competent person needs to get a quality education, but the equation for success requires more than that. It also requires desire, instilled with assimilated values, supported by a decent social structure (family values). Monetary stimulus from the government adds very little value. Indeed, government stimulus often diminishes value. Why else would academia be so overstacked with loser profs and philosophies?

Anonymous said...

I have to agree that some fields, such as those that require competence with state of the art technology, do require advanced clinical mentoring and practice. But most people lack capacity to achieve competence in fields that push the state of the art. Our rather simple minded President, for example, is stuck on believing that most problems should be resolved by forcing redistribution under the rule of collectivizing elitists. For the kinds of jobs most people will be doing and the kinds of interests they tend to have and be capable of mastering, I suspect classroom instruction is overrated. Unless you're advanced enough to be pushing the envelope of knowledge, I suspect apprenticeship would satisfy most needs for education (after one has passed a basic knowledge test). And even if you are advanced, classroom instruction is often not very helpful once basic skills have been acquired. People like Bill Gates benefit more from give and take with select, superior thinkers than from being held back by "no child left behind" classroom instruction. Innovators, however, suffer when people like Obama and Bush hold everyone back while redistributions are made so that no child is left behind. When innovators suffer, the entire nation becomes relatively weaker. Of course, that is what Obama wants. He wants America to be nothing special. Even people whose thoughts are stunted at the community organizing level look for mentors, so they can learn and practice how to inspire and manipulate followers. Obama-like agitators (including his media hand maidens) hand out instruction and pamphlets to the masses, but they are also looking for something else. They are looking for the audacious, fellow-traveling agitators who are worth mentoring to the cause (even when the cause is the evil subjugation of the simple minded).