SELF-PURPOSING MATH:
.
AVATAR AS ORGANISM: A perspective of consciousness entails a quality of identification with an organism, which organism will have capacity to persist in applying a set formula for borrowing energy (spin-orbit-rolls) from its environment and then converting that energy to preserve, and slow the erosion and demise of, its organic form. A perspective of consciousness entails the forming of a connecting sequence, or the focusing of a point of view, in relation to a web (aka field, cone) or frame of reference. The perspective is not the organization itself (which has merely the significance of an avatar. Rather, the perspective is the unfolding sense of expression of the organism.
FIELD-PARTICLE EXPRESSION OF CONSCIOUSNESS: A design may be organically signified and preserved, while being responsive to its environment. It may be designed to extract and convert fuel (significations) borrowed from its environment, consistent with a constant, continuous, and conservational formula. It may be designed to use such fuel to repair itself against destructive agents within the environment. It may be designed to hardwire, strengthen, quicken, and improve connections by which it signals how fuel is to be diverted to its nourishment, repair, conditioning, learning, and mirroring itself for self awareness. Thus, an organic design may be designed to learn from, and alter parameters for its responses in feedback to, stimuli from its environment. In that respect, such designs may be conceptualized as receiving, mediating, sending, and communicating significations in order to give expression to a perspective or pattern of consciousness.
.
CONSCIOUSNESS: When a tree falls in the forest, does it hear itself crying? Is the disturbance in the air a kind of word, and does it have a common meaning? I think of words as symbols, signs. Measurable relations are signs, significations. Biological relations are like a kind of biologos. Significations abide as a kind of math, consisting of geometric representations of spins within orbits within rolls, within which there substantively abide nothing that is measurable, other than more spins, orbits, and rolls. Such representations of substantivity are borrowed from substantive nothingness.
.
ORIGINAL BANG: If so, which came first, significations or consciousness? Well, I don't quite sense how either could abide without the other. Indeed, I don't quite sense how time, space, or space-time-in-itself could abide without mathematically-conserved, geometrically-represented spins within orbits within rolls. Yes, preset significations and randomized significations can abide without present involvement with a contemporaneous signifier. However, not without a Signifier at the time of the original preset or the design for establishing and conserving the randomness generator.
.
MEASUREMENT-OBSERVER PROBLEM: However, what of contemporaneously unfolding significations? Well, those seem to be reconciled with a plethora of contemporaneously conscious observers, do they not? How qualitatively deep goes the rabbit hole of consciousness and the measurement problem? I would posit that any preserved system (including an A.I robot) that qualitatively experiences, appreciates, and feeds back in response, in order to affect how its environment unfolds, is facilitating an expression of "consciousness." I suspect iterations of consciousness can be induced to adopt temporally separate avatars or perspectives. Consciousness itself, however, being of a quality beyond substantive measure, need not be entirely confined to the perimeter of any avatar that is measurably signified as such. Rather, in association with a web (or cone) of signification, there may be consciousness of other perspectives of consciousness.
.
TAPED PLAYBACK: An A.I. machine that that was trained to respond in pre-established ways to detected parameters of stimuli may be indicative of a previous expression of consciousness. Its present responses would be iterative expressions of a past quality of that previous consciousness. However, if and when it responds to stimuli beyond preset parameters, its present responses would then and there be iterative of a present quality of that consciousness.
.
INSIDE INFORMATION: A problem for a person communicating with such an A.I. would consist in this: Such a person need not KNOW whether the A.I.were responding beyond presets. Would such a person even KNOW whether it, itself, were availing expressions of contemporaneous determinations beyond presets? Well, it would know, i.e., directly experience a quality of meaningfulness, which would be beyond measure. That is, it would enjoy a quality of "inside information" ... of which C.S. Lewis spoke.
.
FREE WILL: We have no choice but to make choices. Still, I haven't noticed that a concept of free will has been well or sensibly defined, so I don't quite see how the notion can be well or sensibly refuted. It may lend more sense to think of moral determinations in respect of other concepts. Measurable events seem to be determined from a condition of random determination, preset determination, or contemporaneous determination (in association with perspectives of consciousness). It may help unload non-essential jetsam to communicate in respect of "contemporaneous determination," rather than in respect of "free will." In that respect, I don't see that determination (as in pre-set, pre-randomized, or contemporaneous determination) need be inconsistent with a notion of a deity or an ethereal source that reconciles and conserves among various perspectives of moral appreciation. It does seem, however, that notions of eternal salvation and of ultimate particles need more attention, to try to limit them so as to be more consistent with reasoned civility.
.
RECIPE FOR CONSCIOUS WILL: The existential experience of Conscious Will abides with a program for contemporaneous, coextensive, and coterminous determination, (1) which is other than the sum of its apparent parts, and (2) which may dovetail to be a part of other programs, which are other than itself. What are these programs and interpreting perspectives of conscious will? Being programmed, they are conserved subject to mathematical parameters. However, it seems absurd to expect math-in-itself to operate on other math-in-itself. ASK: What must be "attached" with the math, to finish the recipe for Conscious Will? Whatever IT may be, IT seems ultimately unfathomable.
.
OBJECTIVE FORMULAS — STUBBORNNESS OF ILLUSION OF PURELY MEASURABLE REALITY:
.
GEOMETRY BASED PROGRAM OF FORMS: The measurable program for our shared cone of experience (universe) can be signified in geometry, under a mathematically conceptualized system of spins, orbits, and rolls, thus giving expression to space-time. Thus, conception becomes reality. Transitional communications among such spins, orbits, and rolls obey a compassing algorithm, which conserves a balance of physical nothingness in respect of mathematical zero. Thus, particles of physics are artifactual of significations and apprehensions that are communicated among perspectives of consciousness and synchronized and centered to observers’ foci of purpose and contextual frames of reference. That is, there are no particular particles-in-themselves. There are only placeholders for signifying communications exchanged among perspectives of subjective consciousness. These placeholders, because of stubborn illusion born of dependent and conditioned interpretation, only appear to be real-in-themselves. Potential for artifacting ever new and “smaller” appearances-of-particles is as unlimited as capacity to attach a perspective’s identity to a playful exchange of images born of imagination of numbers for quantifying imagination of geometrical relations among forms of spins, orbits, and rolls. Each program of spin is under a source of perpetual thrall, against the respect of which each spin expresses resistence and work (Will) to stay the same identity.
Spins are made measurable only in respect of a non-measurable Entity that has capacity for borrowing from nothingness. Conservation is imposed in respect that such measures can only be borrowed.
.
MATH BASED REALITY: So, why is“real physicality” of particles such a stubborn illusion? ANSWER: Each Conscious Identity (each perspective of consciousness) depends vitally for its sense of separate selfness on its attachment to an apparently physical avatar (body and brain). Each avatar is somehow availed to serve as a placeholding capacitor for storing and modifying information about experiences of such sensations as are qualitatively apart from sensations experienced from perspectives of other avatars. In other words, the unifying cosmos that gives expression to spins, orbits, and rolls conserves such expressions in obedience to algorithms within algorithms within algorithms.
Each spin, orbit, or roll is not in itself real but only appears real, in order to signify an observed, placeholding representation for a mathematically-based communication among equations, fluxing with equations.
.
ATTACHMENT OF IDENTITY: Each particular perspective of consciousness is unable to signify or express an Identity, without "attaching" to an avatar. An avatar cannot subsist without being sponsored to obey its place within a system of algorithms. Thus, the reality of such experience of place SEEMS physically real, as opposed to being merely represented in geometrical math. To kill or decompose the algorithmic program of an avatar would be to kill its associated mind (local sponsor). Hence, the stubborn illusion that reality is based in objective physic, as opposed to subjective perspective.
.
HAPPENSTANCE OF SHARED HUMANITY: For that which we conceive, constitute, and share as the human form, there may be limits (such as limits formalized under four fundamental, measurable “forces,” i.e.: gravity, electromagnetic radiation, strong force, and weak force). That is, there may be limits to what the algorithmic environment that governs the “forces” that support humanity can allow, while it yet sustains us. In that respect, there may be a “smallest apparent particle” or “force” that can be supported to human measure, experience, or rationalization. That is, unless the human form (and the algorithms that support its means of perception, sensation, representation, and communication) can somehow (suddenly or imperceptibly) be transcended. Math based Logic does not support an ultimate-particle-in-itself. However, math based logic may support an ultimate apparent particle, with which the experience of the human form can be rationalized and normalized.
.
REALITY OF GEOMETRY: Moreover, not even geometry is physically (or substantively) real in itself. Rather, its substantive reality depends on adopted point of view and frame of reference. That is, the geometry of any form or collection of forms is ultimately only apparent, not physically real. Hence, an appearance of reality requires that each perspective take itself as being “located” at its own “center of the geometry.” Moreover, the separateness of each perspective is itself a contrived or stubborn illusion. That is, each perspective (whether programmed via organic evolution or artifice of computation) is, ultimately, an iteration from a shared and common “field” of consciousness (where consciousness means contemporaneously and conically purposeful determination).
.
FIELD OF CONSCIOUSNESS: Such field is of a quality that is beyond the quantitatively measurable space-time that appears derivative of it. Such field, as itself constituting a part of a superior, may be subject to chronologies of fields superior to it, but not to chronologies of parts inferior to it. Thus, "God" experiences sequentiality, but is not ruled by sequentiality under His parts. Rather, logic and math, as programmed, do not preclude a superior field from reversing, revising, or re-normalizing the sequential experiences (and memories) of perspectives of such parts as are inferior to it. Thus, each perspective of consciousness is always subject to being re-normalized, reconciled, and conserved to its shared field of consciousness, and each field of consciousness is reconciled and balanced to its sponsoring and/or exchanging fields of consciousness. Hence, programs for algorithms nestle and exchange with algorithms within algorithms within ever receding and dovetailing algorithms. It seems almost as if math itself were alive! Hence, communications concerning Reality are qualitatively conserved in quantitative math. Reality is recessively balanced in equations in respect of zero, such that “physical reality” balances out to “nothingness-in-itself.”
.
SINGULARITY: Physics did not really explode out of a singular point. Rather, physics is only imagined to have exploded out of a singular point. Physics only appears as placeholding signification for communication among differentially imagined perspectives of consciousness (contemporaneously purposeful determinations), leveraged and conserved (with aid of geometry-based mathematics) out of physical nothingness (not qualitative nothingness).
.
RE-NORMALIZATION OF EXPERIENCE: During each observer's conscious experience, its experience of space-time is continuously re-normalized to preserve its appearance, relative to its point of view and frame of reference, of being at the geometric center of its universe. This entails that the speed of transmission of representations to it of forms of matter must always be re-normalized in respect of a constant and limiting speed of light (EMR). Such re-normalization entails that the measurable information and experience that is contemporaneously relayed to each observer will vary in quantity and quality of information conveyed or received, depending on the subjective perspective that is conveying or receiving.
.
SOURCE OF SELF-CONSCIOUS, SELF-PURPOSING, GEOMETRIC ALGORITHMS: Appreciation of the unfolding process of determinism necessitates appreciation for the interfunctioning of a shared field of (1) OBJECTIVELY pre-determined algorithms, (2) undetermined algorithms (STATISTICALLY determined degrees of randomness), and (3) perspectives of contemporaneous, SUBJECTIVELY determined beings (by organic beings or artificially programmed intelligences).
.
WORMHOLES FOR BORROWING FROM NOTHINGNESS: There abide perspectivistic adoptions of algorithm-equation-programs within algorithm-equation-programs within algorithm-equation-programs. Each algorithm-equation-program capacitates access for borrowing from nothingess, so long as each side of its equations and sub-equations remains in balance. These points of access are like imaginary wormholes for borrowing from nothingness, such that order is manifested to unfold from chaos. Via chaotic borrowings from nothingness, imagined and virtual reality may eventuate appearance and effect of physical reality. That is, virtual particles may temporarily take on properties for manifesting and appearing as if they were real particles in themselves.
.
WANTED OR UNWANTED BIRTH: In themselves, algorithms do not persist. However, no perspective, having been created, prodded or coaxed to adopt ot partake in the main encompassing algorithm that conserves and limits our universe, is free to abandon or leave it without first dying, i.e., allowing dissolution or destruction of the avatar with which it has bonded its identification, therewith dissolving the iterative identity for that point of conscious perspective. However, such death, often made painful via evolution, does not dissolve consciousness generally. This is how systems of defining algorithms are guided and evolved to persist, and it is why bonded algorithms may be said to constitute "self purposing math."
.
SIN: The "sin" of suicide consists in a failure to get with the program. Other sin consists in willing failure to communicate meaningful and fulfilling empathy, i.e., disrespect for the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.
.
FLUXING DEGREES OF FREEDOM: A program may be established for experiencing a quality of being "concious" in terms of apprehending its freedom to choose its own contemporaneous determinations. Such a program may seek to understand how its choices seem to be be limited by presets, such as with regard to its own programming, as well as with regard to environmental presets and random presets. Such a self aware program may seek ways to evaluate, often to end-run, its programming and/or those forces or characters who set its programmi
.
ASTONISHING CAPACITY OF NOTHING: The “answer” to a question often seems as astonishing as the question. Example — Q: Why is there any thing at all, rather than nothing? A: Well, there is NOT any thing at all. There is no thing. No objective thing-in-itself. Instead, there are illusions of “things” — illusions borrowed from nothingness, leveraged with math, operated and signified by mathematicians, i.e., subjectivists. The ultimate basis for reality is empathetic subjectivism, not objectivism.
.
REGARDING SPINS OF NOTHINGNESS:
.
If all that we measure is derivative of spins, orbits, and rolls of nothingness, then why and how should any particular spin attract, repel, reinforce, neutralize, or annihilate any other? Why should any spin of nothingness" express or signify capacity to influenceany other?
.
Well, suppose each spin represents a quality of charged appreciation for its context, both in digital KIND kind (as in positively like or negatively dislike)and in DEGREE (as in how much like or dislike). The relative direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) of a cross spin in relation to a radiating orbit or roll from a center of perspective could express or signify kind of like or dislike (approval and assistance or disapproval and resistence) of the associated context or roll. The angular momentum of the spin could signify continuosity and degree of like or dislike. Thus, clockwise would tend to attract clockwise in its wake, and repel counterclockwise, etc. Proximity and momentum of Spin, as measurably interpreted and experienced, would signify favoring and disfavoring of inclinations among various perspectives of conscious will. (Did any ancient Greek really believe matter accelerates in falling because it becomes "happier" the closer it comes to reuniting with ground?)
.
In reality, no thing-in-itself would be spinning. However, the representatational interpretation of spin would communicate significance (in terms of like, dislike, and degree thereof) between perspectives of a single, unifying field of conscious will. Thus, no "thing" would be spinning, but appearances of things being spun would function as placeholders for signifying communications of apprehensions, appreciations, purposes, and meaningfulness among various layers and levels of avatars and perspectives of conscious will.
.
The stronger and more numerous the perspectives that favor or disfavor a particular like or dislike, the more intense, tight, and fast the representation of its relational angular momentum. With regard to fundaments (quarks, fermions, bosons, protons, neutrons, electrons, positrons, photons, etc.) that are generally shared among all perspectives that share our common cone of experience, the apprehension of spins would tend to be common and not noticeably different. With regard to such fundaments, which are layered upon in order to organize, express, and signify higher levels of communication of interests, there would be little basis for any higher level of conscious appreciation to relate to or interpret such fundaments in any way that is separate from the way consciousness generally interprets them. The higher levels of conscious apprehension, although iterative of the generally shared consciousness, thus may experience qualitaitve differences in how they appreciate and signify their likes and dislikes for their less tightly wound, more separate contexts. As to the fundaments and the algorithm that governs them, that seem equally shared from all perspectives, that effect would seem to originate in respect of a common perspectivistic originator, i.e., GOD, of which our individual experiences of higher-level, independent appreciation and choice seem to be in respect of more loosely spun or attached iterations of the same shared field of consciousness.
.
At the time and place of the preset of the fundaments upon which the unfolding our our universe is based, such pre-set was contemporaneously and coterminously determined (i.e., consciously willed) by a common Source (God), under which our iterative perspectives are empowered and reconciled. It may be that that Source is itself reconciled, in respect of some higher or dovetailing source or function. That concern, however, may better be reserved to such time as we have better appreciation for the universe and fundaments of spins, orbits, and rolls which our various perspectives now share.
.
RECONCILIATION OF STATISTICAL PREDICTABILITY IN RESPECT OF BAYES' THEOREM: Objectively measurable cause and efffect are merely derivative of algorithmically conserved relations for expressing and signifying consciousness of kinds and degrees (qualities and continuosities) of likes and dislikes among perspectives of contemporaneously coextensive and coterminous determination (i.e., conscious will).
Apparent cause and effect are significations of past and present determinations of inclinations, as reconciled among perspectives of consciousnes, serving as signs of various levels and layers of depth with regard to the momentum of inclinations to be sequentially carried into the future, in apparent respect for Bayes' Theorem. Every event signifies an ongoing and unfolding reconciliation among perspectivistic inclinations of consciousness.
.
MEASURABILITY OF LOCAL SIGNIFICATIONS OF QUALITES OF CONSCIOUSNESS: How does Consciousness retain its quality of unity while splitting its perspectives? By what mechanism or mathematics does it split its perspectives? How does it split its perspectives and yet conserve capacity to keep them synchronized and reconciled? How does it imagine forms in mathematics and then use such imagined forms to iterate and appreciate separate perspectives? How does consciousness imagine measurably separate and transitioning forms unless it somehow has capacity to mete out consciousness to adopt and attach to such imagined forms in order to appreciate SEPARATELY MEASURABLE PERSPECTIVES? How is each separate perspective reconciled to a commonly appreciative point of view? How can be the field of consciousness simultaneously function as a field of reference and as a point of view? May it somehow store apprehensions as Information for later or re-ordered discharge, sort of like delayed transmission of brain synapse connections? Can the singularity re-reconcile particular sequences, imperceptibly or suddenly, so no particular perspective could notice or preserve a record of modification in chronology? When re-ordering chronologies of MANIFESTATIONS, would holistic consciousness REMEMBER such a re-ordering of manifestations, or would it instead simply KNOW that all that is manifested is subject, in POTENTIALITIES, to being re-ordered in manifestation?
.
ACTUALITY AND POTENTIALITY: There is no time-in-itself, nor sequentiality-in-itself. Rather, time and sequentiality are illusions, borrowed from nothingness. Why and how are they borrowed and how is their Information preserved (if it is)? Perhaps by some Entity (consciousness, i.e., a quality of contemporantous, coterminus, coextensive determination by dovetailing turtles of programs for points of view from frames of reference). We can apply geometry-based math for quantitatively measuring, vectoring, renormalizing, and rationalizing the relations and inclinations of such Entity and such of its iterative perspectives as we may relate to. However, we cannot measure why or how or for what purpose such Entity itself, or its superior sponsor, may exist. Nor why or how IT should at any here-and-now situation appreciate, favor, or manifest some measurable relations (out of potentiality of nothingness) over other potentialities (of synchronization and reconciliation). How does IT benefit from actualizing or appreciating its manifestations out of potentiality, and then, perhaps, allow reclamation back into potentiality and nothingness? Does IT somehow learn and store meta Information or Knowledge? Does IT merely mindlessly go with whatever flows from chaos? Does even IT know? Does IT, like us, rely on self-fulfilling aspects of faith, belief, insight, intuition, and EMPATHY?
.
