Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Perpetual Exchange of Potential Information for Manifest Signification

.
REALITY – SUPERIOR AND DERIVATIVE: Superior Reality is conceptualized to consist of the meta-charge-feedback that vibrates between two dimensionless points (manifest one and potential zero). They are the Real Source from which all else, i.e., all Inferior Reality, fluxes and derives, including: zero, one, halting, constancy, discreteness, continuity, feedback, math, representation, geometrical forms, relational spins and vibrations, sequentiality, dimensional analysis (space-chronology), contemporaneous determination (conscious will), presently re-normalized and centered consciousness (severable will), measurable substance (matter and energy), investment, predictability, iterative empathy, moral purposefulness, spirituality, trust, deceit, imperfection, life, death, renewal, good, evil, neutrality, conservation, change, perpetual pursuit of hope.
.
CONCEPTUAL MODEL REGARDING THE CHARGE AND MATH OF THE SOURCE: Suppose there abide two digitally opposing "point" charges, but one is "greater" than the other. They cannot mutually annihilate, nor can they reduce simply to the excess of the greater. Neither can exist without the other, neither can annihilate the other. They are the Meta-Manifest and the Meta-Potential. Separately, they are dimensionless. Together, they give geometric-field expression and potential expression to all possible real and imaginary numbers and formulas. Their attraction is such that they cannot merge and annihilate. Thus, geometrically, they vibrate "between, across, and through" one another, thereby expressing a shared field. Each directly intuits, experiences, and "feels" its presence in respect of its vibration with the field of the other. The field in perpetual present temporality stores Information regarding the vibrational sequences. Such Information is signified in either the perpetually present manifest or the timeless potential. Manifest signification is experienced in point of re-normalized centering. Because the charges are points, they do not themselves exist in geometry. Rather, they define geometry; geometry does not define them. There is no "real" distance or speed between them or their vibrations. Rather, the appearances of vibrations, sequences, distances, vectors, speeds, and maths are derivative of inter-functioning of the opposing point charges. Entropic expansion of space-chronology is derivative, not in itself real. Information and Signification fluxes between the Timeless Potential and the Present Manifest. As Manifest significations dissipate into Potential (beyond their kin, as in different dimensions of math), replacement Information transitions from the potential to the manifest, therewith constantly replacing "the" Big Bang with replacement Big Bang. Potential Information is carried into Manifest Information, but only in exchange for Manifest Information being dissipated into Potential Information. Derivative Perspectives that live in the present do not notice specific information that is constantly being exchanged and lost, because their Identities are tied to the present cone of experience that they happen to share.
.
ITERATIONS: Fundamentally, each perspective of conscious identity is mathematically translatable into every other perspective. That is, each and every signification is an iteration that is projected from the same Source. Consciousness, i.e., centered locus of contemporaneous determination of the perpetually unfolding present, assumes multitudinous forms, but it always shares a fundamental connection. That connection is the source of intuitive empathy, i.e., morally meaningful purposefulness.
.
THE ONLY CONSTANT IS THE SOURCE OF CHANGE: In respect of being a vibration, each exchange between two point META-CHARGES (the charge of the substantive manifest and the charge of the informational potential) is quantitatively alike, yet each succeeding exchange is qualitatively different in the sequential appreciation of context of signification. The “duration” of each exchange is the marker of the perpetual present. Each vibration is digital, yet each perspective is experienced as being qualitatively continuous. The quantitative apprehension of the present is manifest and substantive. The qualitative apprehension of the present is ambiguously potential and informational. As informational apprehension becomes presently appreciated, the qualitative becomes presently experienced as substantive. As the substantive becomes presently qualitative, it becomes presently informational. In respect of the source, qualitative information exchanges back and forth with quantitative substantiality. As substance dissipates, information organizes. As information dissipates, substance re-centers.
.
RECENTERING:  The original center of each cone of substantive experience maps with the original centering of its contemporaneously conscious determination. Cones of experience waft from the potential, in and out of the manifest, but the Source of consciousness remains perpetual. Particular experiences of centers of perspective of consciousness waft in and out, bonding with unfolding exchanges between substance and information. When substance dissipates beyond capacity to sustain a center of perspective, and informational organization overwhelms any particular perspective, then every particular iteration of perspective that they sponsor is re-absorbed to the source.  The Source perpetually recycles perspectivistic iterations to math-based dimensions of new “Big Bangs.” In relation to centered perspectives of consciousness: Symmetrically organized vectors of Substance are directed towards cracked, disorganized dissipation. Accumulations of potential Information are gathered and organized towards a Singular holism (rather than a sum of particulars). That is, as particular cones of perspectivistic experience wink out, God winks in a new Big bang.
.
POLAR ENTANGLEMENT: Every signification is polarized to be two-faced: facing in, and facing out; projecting to inward (mirror?) representation and projecting to outward representation. The split is simultaneous with the perpetual present. The split of a single field of signification may be differently represented in space, but not in chronology. A signification that splits its representation in space, and then splits one of the splits again, without splitting the first, becomes dis-entangled and dissipate in respect of the first.
.
SOURCE RECEPTIVITY: Why does the Source seem so often to put conceptualizations into my consciousness? How few others are inclined or attuned to listen?
.
ESSENTIAL CHARGE POTENTIAL:  Cracked, charged, and conserved from unitarian symmetry.  Whatever IT is that is conservationally charged to avail digitally iterative, mathematical representations of zero and one, IT is also necessarily charged with potential to avail iterative geometrical representations of formulas, forms,and significations of physics. IT is also necessarily charged with potential to avail contemporaneously conservational and determinative feedback. Consciousness necessarily emerges and participates in the determinative unfolding of fractal-field patterns of apprehension, appreciation, and alteration.
.

 

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

To assimilate a society, people of good faith need to feel comfortable that others will aide by rules that inculcate respect for common decency --- even when no one is looking. When faith is dead, few believe that others will not cheat when they can. When faith is dead, law by itself cannot work, so it will be replaced by cliques within collectives, organized under mind freaks who are intent on driving out individual privacy and freedom. Adolescent Libs often believe freedom can be increased by replacing all mores with mere laws and calling the new regime "equality." In fact, however, such "equality" is always the imposition of one clique's preferences over another's. That kind of adolescent imposition of equality ("collectively enforced salvation") is not the path to freedom. It is reduction to serve the most base, i.e., the Lord of the Flies. It is to serve the religion of Beelzebub, all the while professing not to be religious. It is insane self deceit on proud parade through streets of muck. It is Progs' America.

Anonymous said...

Re: "doubts the existence of a heaven and hell"
It's a bit sad that so many people hubristically assume religious folk don't know the earth is round and rotates the Sun. Too many assume the belief is in sky-heaven and center-of-earth hell. That's not where it's at. Heaven and hell can be as interpenetrating as matter and energy. When I read the conceptual models of physicists, I find it hard to imagine how some seem to figure those models are reality itself, rather than imperfect maps for conceptualizations. On the qualitative (meaningful) level, it's hard to find much difference between Genesis and the Big Bang. As for ultimate particles, when you look into the spins and vibrations, what do you "really" find? More spins and vibrations. As to What-It-Is that's spinning and vibrating, science has no more an explanation for "the there that is obviously there" than does Genesis.

Society cannot decently organize without respect for idealizations of decency. Decent mores are derivative of the heaven and hell that are here and now. When a spiritual basis for decency is despised, we get the Lord of the Flies. As a mind experiment, try prescribing a system of civilizing mores without respect for spiritual idealization. When you scientifically derive ought from is, maybe you can report your findings.

Religious metaphors, like language, preserve our connection with history. History, warts and all, is important. But try reducing it to purely objective facts. To fixate on original literalism is to miss out on the unfolding meaningfulness. Maybe someday we can all be fitted with bluetooth devices for translating old languages into Esperanta and then into digital zeros and ones. I suppose when we're ready to be "progressed" into components for Borg, we won't need spiritual reminders and connections with the past.

Romney explained that his belief helps make him a better man. I agree with that.

Anonymous said...

Consider where a culture of broad trust that is unassimilated with any understanding of what is needed to preserve a shared faith would lead. For examples: Trust in an open-borders, open-society that is tolerant of all immigrants. Who would that attract? Won't it attract La Raza types, who want to reclaim large chunks of America? Jihadi types, who want to spread collectivizing ideas of utopian mind-subjugation? Crony types, who want to farm collectives of easily duped sheeple? When governments suddenly transition away from historically assimilated faith traditions, don't they invariably impose faith in a state sponsored, despotic cult of personality? I suspect you think it possible to gradually church a free-thinking society away from old sacred stories, in order to lead it to a "more rational" assimilation under a kind of scientific sociology or civic religion, perhaps one based on state-enforced "objective equality." Necessarily, this would mean notions of equality then in vogue among ruling cliques and elites. You can seek such "objective equality," but I don't believe there is "any there that is there."

America's founders believed in a God-given right to pursue happiness, not in a state-entitled or legally-finagled guarantee of objective equality in results. I think the Founders were "a little smarter than" the Obamanites who want to found entitlements under such "best practices" as may be divined by, or entrusted to, a Dear Leader. When the salad-bowl unraveling of America is completed, so that Americans lose faith in the vision of the Founders, a dear price will be paid. To me, this is based not on a "bleak impression of humanity," but on a combination of reason and faith. The reason part is based on experience and a study of history. The faith part is based on shining exemplars found in sacred Western traditions.

Anonymous said...

Re: "People ... don't need faith to have decent values"
Whatever value you have, you believe in it (have faith in it). If you don't believe in it, it's not a value. Rather, you're just taking whatever happens to happen and calling it a value. That is pangloss, not philosophy. It's like calling whatever happens the best of all possible worlds, even as it avails no guidance and assigns no responsibility. It's compatible with a choom-like way of life, but it won't sustain a republic.

Anonymous said...

Before and after adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, some, somehow, began to work to convince judges to spin this simple, direct statement. Now, the perversion runs far deeper. Nearly everyone knows that no mortal knows precisely what the hereafter looks like or does not look like. Yet, all know (while some pretend not to know) that we have no choice but to make qualitative choices about values. Values are the most important things that define us, yet they are qualitative and therefore, unless you are a robot, illuminated and connected by metaphors (i.e., sacred stories). Perversion now has it that attempts to respect civilizing values in the public square are unlawful violations of a quarantine against religion, while every perversion that prances about under the guise of atheism is somehow free of the qualitative stigma of religion. When a stoner is stymied, he complains of an unlawful religious imposition. When a stoner does what he wants, he asserts that God makes no junk. Prolonged use of dope will rot your thinking.

Anonymous said...

To me, it would be more correct to say that Darwinism, insofar as it posits survival and replication of "the fittest," is trivial. It is not a theory to say 2 is 2; it is trivial tautology. Nor is it "theory" to apply techniques for measuring and predicting trends to attempts to apprehend the quality of the cosmos. It is hubris, not "theory," to try to reduce the irreducible qualitative to the measurable quantitative. Darwinism works backwards to say that whatever changes happen to be carried forward are the "most fit." It may as well say that whatever changes happen to be carried forward are carried forward. Big whump! It has nothing to say about whether each and every contemporaneously determined apprehension, appreciation, choice and decision is guided by iterative perspectives of a consciousness that is conserved and reconciled as a unity.

Anonymous said...

No doubt, fascists will seize opportunities to wear all manner of sheep's clothing in order to pull wool over people's eyes. To me, fascism expresses itself as rule under a gangster hierarchy, whose only law is devotion to a gangster cause, often dictated under cult(s) of personality. The woolen cover need not be religious. It can be secular and atheistic, simply by interpreting the greater good as being represented by those who control the state rather than, or in addition to, those who control the priesthood. In advanced and highly technological societies, I doubt reason or science are endangered by people who seek qualitative, spiritual meaning in their lives. I suspect many, perhaps even most, Christians interpret most of the Bible metaphorically. I don't think you can say the same thing about Muslims. For that matter, I suspect many scientists and their admirers become so focused on quantitative explanations that they become blind to the life of the qualitative. In this day and age, as best I can see, the main threats to decency are coming from militant Muslims and Atheists. I don't see a revival of a Catholic Inquisition in the near offing. When literalistic Muslims are consolidating with nukes, I somehow don't see so much danger in people who idealize a Prince of Peace and who are fond to say, Come, let us reason together. However, it's not reason to say, Death to apostates.

Anonymous said...

Obama has strengthened the Muslim Brotherhood, China, and the U.N., but he has weakened America. He says he wants less American dependence on foreign energy sources, yet he blocked the Keystone pipeline and has bled our resources by investing in energy losers. Even so, there's a you-tube video that suggests that most positions of significance that are taken by Obama and Romney are nearly identical. Maybe that's because answers to America's difficulties are fairly obvious. If so, the real concern should pertain less to the answers than to the willingness of the candidates to actually apply the answers! The important question is: Which of the candidates really wants to reduce America, and which one really wants to restore America? Which one is fundamentally honest about wanting to restore America, and which one is not? (Or, might both be fundamentally dishonest and under the control of a syndicate of international cronies?) If there is any chance that one of the candidates is more of an American truth teller than a puppet deceiver, I would bet much more on the Mormon over the Muslim.

Fun with either-or logic: If each candidate guards a door, one that leads to freedom and the other to fascism, and if it could be trusted that one always tells the truth and the other always tells lies, then it would be easy to discern which was which, simply by constructing two yes-no questions to ask of both of them, and then applying the answers to a truth table. The questions would be: (1) Does your door lead to freedom? (2) Will your opponent deny that your door leads to freedom? (The guard who answers both questions yes, or both questions no, would be the truth teller. If he answers yes-yes, he is gaurding the door to freedom. If he answers no-no, he is guarding the door to fascism.) The problem is, are both candidates chained by the same master to guard the same door? The bigger problem is, how do you expose which candidate has the heart of an American versus which candidate has the heart of a Marxist Muslim? (I wonder, which one can it be? Hmmm.) The biggest problem is, does the new majority seek to entitle itself to be esteemed by intentionally becoming non-exceptional? (IOW, do most Americans now desire not to act white?)

Anonymous said...

Regarding Obama's faith: A human being is like an evolving swarm, not something easily pigeon holed. Still, it can be helpful to try to ascertain where a person's sympathies lie. A person may never attend church, yet his sympathies may lie with Christian practices and beliefs. While a youth, Obama was taken to Muslim services. He has said the most beautiful sound in the world, to him, is the Islamic call to prayer. His father was Muslim. His step father was Muslim. Obama's mentoring by Rev. Wright was convenient to Obama's already long inculcated views concerning collective salvation. BLT is not mainstream Christianity. So, I don't quite get how it makes clear sense to say Obama is more like a Christian than a Muslim. Frankly, I don't see how he can reasonably be considered to be either. Rather, I take him as more like a secular socialist who happens to find it politically expedient, depending on how situations unfold, to alternate between appealing to Muslims and Christians (and whatever else he may find expedient). I suspect he considers himself so unique that it is valid for him to claim to be all things to all potential worshippers. Many Americans think he has a partiality towards Islam that is widely inconsistent with foundational American values. In that, I think they're right. One can say Obama is not a Muslim and still reasonably believe most of Obama's significant values are much more consistent with Islam than with foundational American values (like respect for self reliance, individual freedom, and traditional families as opposed to polygamous relations that entail female subjugation). A shorthand way of making that point is to refer to him as a Muslim-collectivist-fellow-traveler. To cede to Obama the power to define the label for his religious orientation as being Christian is to make him master, to allow him to hide behind corners of contrived convenience. If we are to see around corners in order to retain mastery over our politicians, we must not cede argumentation to definitional contrivance. I need not accept that Obama respects American values of religious freedom and dignity merely because he may prefer at a given time and place to label himself a "Christian."

Anonymous said...

Morgan, that's some amazing stuff! You've probably also read Asimov's End of Eternity. It sets out some interesting ideas, remarkable for having been expressed in 1955. It seems almost natural to wonder whether people like Asimov are touched by something quite beyond the merely human. Most people assume there exist "edges" to time and space, and that such edges are in themselves "real." I rather suspect such "edges" are receding, rainbow-like illusions. I suspect centers of conscious perspective are the superior reality, and I suspect such centers are continuously upgraded, renormalized, and recentered.
.
Whatever IT is that is conservationally charged to avail digitally iterative, mathematical representations of zero and one, IT is also necessarily charged with potential to avail iterative geometrical representations of formulas, forms, and significations of physics. IT is also necessarily charged with potential to avail contemporaneously conservational and determinative feedback. I suspect Consciousness necessarily emerges and participates in the determinative feedback and unfolding of field patterns of apprehension, appreciation, and alteration.
.
Centering charges are points of consciousness; they do not exist in geometry, nor does geometry define them. Rather, they define geometry. There is no "real" distance or speed between them or their vibrations. Rather, appearances of vibrations, sequences, distances, vectors, speeds, and maths are derivative of inter-functionings of meta-point-charges of consciousness. The apparent expansion of space-chronology is derivative, not in itself real. Information and Signification flux between the Timeless Potential and the Present Manifest. As Manifest significations dissipate into Potential, replacement Information transitions from the potential to the manifest, constantly replacing "the" Big Bang with replacement Big Bang. Potential Information is carried into Manifest Information, but only in exchange for Manifest Information being dissipated into Potential Information.
.
To me, the implication of End of Eternity is this: Derivative Perspectives that live in "the present" do not notice specific information that is constantly being exchanged and lost, because their Identities are tied to the present cone of experience that they happen to share.

Anonymous said...

Re: "If a judge decides that mere belief in God is the only thing that should be permitted in regard to religious freedom, then he or she can rule accordingly."

Religion can be reasonably defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. So why is there this strange notion among secular control freaks that the only thing that constitutes religion is something that is concerned with relationships with God in the hereafter? Various spiritual beliefs do not especially concern themselves with heaven, salvation, or a hereafter. Rather, they are concerned with beliefs about religion that are relevant to the here and now, i.e., how God guides our everyday behavior and goals. Are such people not religious? When religion is considered in that light, every atheist who shouts that he doesn't need or believe in a religion in order to advocate for social and moral values is spouting nonsense.

I wish more people, when they consider the First Amendment (prohibiting the impeding of the free exercise of religion), would focus more on the word "free" and less on the supernatural aspect of "religion." With regard to impediments to the free exercise of religion, it is hardly a "free exercise" when a criminal sect asserts a right to kill apostates. There is a mind-subjugating meme and movement that wants to diminish all alternative ways of conceptualizing God and that wants to punish or kill all apostates. To call this parasitic meme a religion and to grease its freedom is to imperil the freedom of every alternative way of thinking and worshipping. It's a mind virus that's praised in a ring Obama wore while in school.

This movement proceeds with a one-two punch. First, it outlaws the expression of every alternative profession of religious values in the public square. Second, it claims protection for itself under guise of being a "religion" whose "free exercise" must not be impeded. America has become infested with none-ish nuts.