Sunday, April 20, 2014

Immanent Reality


VALUE:  Inspiration of consciousness is the value of understanding that the character of our limits consists not in science but in our apprehensions of math and spirituality.

EMERGENT REALITY:  What is physical reality?  Is it an emergent that is derivative of something "more real," but less measurable?  Are photon bits physically real and radiative across real distances in space-time?

CONCEPTUALIZING PHYSICAL PARTICLES AS MATHEMATICAL FORM-ULAS:  It seems particles may reasonably be conceptualized as bits of mathematical form-ulas that take on physically measurable attributes only upon interfunctioning among conservational contexts of consciousness.

CONSERVATIONAL SYSTEM OF FORM-ULAS:  A conservational system of form-ulas avails reconciliation in feedback among all levels and layers of signification by signifiers.  Such system is innately and qualitatively coextensive with all layers and levels of perspectives of consciousness.

ILLUSION OF SPACE-TIME: It appears that no sum of information that is collected from multiple photons is contained within any single photon.  Rather, Information subjective to a perspective appears to consist with such sum of photons as are actually conveyed to contact a recording lens or eye.  If the effect of magnification of images is due to lens pointing and focus adjustment, to affect which photons are locally and subjectively received and collected, then must the photons be actual, physical particles-in-themselves, actually travelling through space and time?  If one's rate of spin in space is affected, like a skater as one opens and closes one's arms, then must space-in-itself be real?  Or, may one reasonably maintain that time, distance, and physicality are illusions, secondary to consciousness plus math?  May space-time reasonably be conceptualized as a stubborn illusion, a derivative that is secondary to form-ulas that are fitted to avail sequential receptivity to one another under conditions of occupation by their locally renormalizing perspectives of consciousness?  May it reasonably be conceptualized that sequentiality and fitting of form-ulas to consciousness are what produce the effects that we interpret as events unfolding in space-time?

EXISTENCE:  Space-time-in-itself does not exist, except as a derivative, or practical illusion.  What exists with the perpetual present is mathematical sequentiality that is correlative with an appreciative capacity of consciousness to inhabit and effect forms of feedback.  The appreciative aspect of the universe of form-ulas that our perspectives of consciousness happen to occupy is the universe that we feed our thinking back to, that we tinker to apprehend.  Apart from the measurable expression of form-ulas, what is the appreciative aspect that actuates, transmits, and en-souls form-ulas and perspectives thereof, if not Holistic Reconciling Consciousness, i.e., God?

PERPETUAL POTENTIAL OF THE PRE-SENT:  In the perpetual present, God is immanent at all times.  What is potential in consciousness pertains to how consciousness happens to be guided to bond to particular fields of perspective and points of apprehensive view.  The process of changing and moving potentials among relational perspectives is unceasing.  It entails a Holistic Reconciler, guiding and making ready the environment of sequential form-ulizations out of which perspectives of consciousness emerge. Thus, the potential for emergence of consciousness among locally relational perspectives is not evidence that the Holistic Reconciler (God) has not always abided with the perpetual present.

EVOLUTION OF SEQUENTIAL PATTERNS OF FORCE MULTIPLICATION:  Every asymmetric pattern or system will have points where a single force, like a domino, would represent a potential for exertion of a multiplicative, destabilizing effect.  Depending on effective means of apparent force at hand, if the goal is massive immediate destabilization, then every pattern or form-ula has its weakest point.

LOCAL CONSCIOUSNESS BUILDING ON LOCAL CONSCIOUSNESS:  Local consciousness emerges with cycling systems of form-ulas that can store representations of Information as memory.  Local consciousness then draws on such memory, to favor purposeful selections in feedback response to pattern changes.  Artificial Intelligence will emerge in concert with new mathematical form-ulizations and programs, as the Holistic Reconciler guides such to come to pass.  It seems innately intuitive that God will avail feedback to conserve and guide such expressions of AI to the empathetic apprehension of God and personhood.

QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIGHT AND SPACE AND TIME:  How do light photons alter their wavelengths to store information about that with which they come in radiative contact, and then signal such information to such receptors of conscious interpretation as happen to receive them?  How much information can be extracted from each photon, by processes of contextual and magnifying analysis?  How may parallax information be extracted?  What is a photon?  Is it a thing-in-itself?  Is a photon a kind of mathematically-based form or form-ula, that avails active, radiative transmission and communication of information across mathematically conservatory equality determinants?  In other words, is all that signifies, and that is signified, availed only because of, but not only from, forms of math (i.e., active form-ulas, i.e., math made active by entanglement with a mathematically immeasurable formulizer)?  We do not see any photon in itself.  We detect and interpret the mathematical sequentiality of its apparent path and the mathematical information it avails upon contactg with us.  We do not see any smallest particle.  Nor any edge of the cosmos.  Nor may we write an actual largest possible number.  Nor a smallest possible decimal.  In the here and now, what do we "really see" when a photon transmits information to our interpretation?

MAGNIFICATION OF POINT OF VIEW:  By repetitively magnifying with lenses that are curved, one can gather and focus more light.  More light can be gathered from a large mirror and delivered to the lenses.  The lenses can be arrayed in line, to multiply and refocus such gathering of information bearing photons.  In such process of collecting and focusing photons, one may collect and convey to one's eye those photons with which one would see and interpret an image of a distant object, were one closer to the object.  Thus, one may adjust one's focus, as if one were actually closer to an object being viewed.  Thus, a large mirror telescope can enable one to gather and focus more photons, to summarize information that is pertinent to the adjustment of the focus.  The way in which one points and adjusts one's gathering of focus would determine which information bearing photons one collects and interprets.  Such magnification, however, will be accompanied with distortion, attributable in part to magnification that collapses the background and in part to altering the eye's point of view by altering the focus.

HOW MUCH INFORMATION MAY A SINGLE PHOTON CONVEY:  May a single photon convey more than a single bit of on-off, yes-no, digital signalization?  A photon may be corkscrewed, i.e., spun, orbited, and rolled along various radiative axes.  Thus, it would seem that an advance receiver may be designed to receive more than a single bit of information from each photon.  Note that lenses gather and focus light, and can be adjusted and pre-prepared to do so in repetitions that select, sum, and magnify among pre-arranged radiations of photons.  Each re-focusing by each curved lens in line will affect and select the photons that are filtered for having their information summed and conveyed.  Some parallax effect will be filtered, then perhaps somewhat restored, then filtered again, and so on.  Depending on the quality of the method of telescopic telephoto analysis, how much differentiating parallax information may be extracted, modified, or even restored, from each photon and from the sum of photons availed for analysis?

RADIATION OF MATH BITS:  How are form form-ulas transmitted, received, interpreted?  Each photon may be conceptualized as a representation of math-formulas that radiate for communicating math formulas.  But math, in itself, does not radiate.  It seems some immeasurable, like a Holistic Reconciler of the Expression of Math Forms, must account for how math-bit-forms are interpreted as seeming to radiate, such as in a form that is interpreted to express such capacities as we measure and conceptualize with photons.  The illusion that math bits, as photons, radiate is a derivative of the immeasurable way in which the Holistic Reconciler qualitatively interfunctions to appreciate and apprehend unfolding expressions of mathematical, formulaic sequences in the feedback of the perpetual present.  Apart from the measurable expression of form-ulas, what is the appreciative aspect that actuates, transmits, and en-souls form-ulas and perspectives thereof, if not Holistic Reconciling Consciousness, i.e., God?

OF THE INFORMATION THAT IS CONVEYED BY PHOTONIC MATH BITS, WHAT IS IT THAT WE ACTUALLY APPREHEND AND "SEE":  We don't see objects in themselves.  We interpret information from photonic math bits that are presented to us, as if they had reflected from objects, which photons have their wavelengths altered by their reflections, and then our nerve reception systems renormalize and interpret the wavelength data received.  Except, we do not "see" the wavelengths.  Rather, our systems interpret the "impact" of the wavelength forms-formulas.  In effect, the transmissive communication is of form-formulas.  And the ultimate forms are not, "in themselves," of any measurable size.  No homunculous "sees" photons.  Rather, photonic math bits and interpretations of their paths of interfunctioning transmission are detected upon "contact" with senses or devices that happen to have become adapted for such purpose.  For a local perspective of consciousness to bond with a body necessitates that such local body sense and interpret interfunctions with photonic math bits as if they were radiating physical particles that had been transmitted to make contact with such body.  Our entire unfolding experience is like a simulation that is derivative of Consciousness as it appreciates, apprehends, and interfunctions with nothing more than formulations of systems of math.

NO OBJECT IN ITSELF:  Magnification affects parallax and perspective, but it does not bring any object-in-itself closer to a viewer, or a viewer closer to an object.  No object-in-itself really exists.  Thus, the appearance of bringing one's eye or lens or telescope closer to an object is a practical illusion that is derivative of consciousness interfunctioning with forms of math.  One does not get closer to any object in itself.  One simply interprets variously detailed, focused, interior, fractal perspectives of forms of math.

SPACE-TIME:  There is no space-time-in-itself that "really" presents.  Rather, what really presents to us is something that reconciles our experientiality so that we can renormalize communications regarding the sequentiality of interpretations of events.  That is, mathematical, economic tinkering on ways to communicate significations to other perspectives of consciousness.  The appearance of space-time mediates to preserve impressions and interpretations of separations in sequentiality, hence, separations in subjective perspectives of consciousness.

PARAMETER LIMITS:  What is the limit of analysis of a "massless" particle?  Is there a "smallest limit? Or may the make up of each photonic-math-bit devolve into a fuzz, to a phase shift analysis of sub sub sub "particles"?  May it be that each "photon" within a plate of photons (depending on magnification/perspective/analysis) may in potentiality convey incredible varieties of information, depending in large part on the contextual situation of the observer/interpreter/perspective of consciousness?

FOCUSING, RENORMALIZATION, AND RECONCILIATION OF INTERPRETATIONS OF CAUSE, EFFECT, AND CORRELATIONS:  Given great magnification, what interpretive differences may abide between an eyeball brought close to a distant object versus a magnification of presently experienced photons collected from afar?  What differences may abide, in sequential interpretation and parallax regarding relational maps of space and time and "cause and effect"?  If all presentation of causation is derivative of the interfunctioning of an immeasurable Holistic Reconciler with fields and forms of Math, then all local interpretations of causation are little more than apprehensions of correlative, Bayesian analysis.  That is, we cannot pinpoint or measure any locally specific cause-in-itselfWhat we can do is apprehend practical correlations.  Moreover, there is no specific or objective event-in-itself.  What we share are renormalized and reconciled interpretations (such as interpretations of the Moon).  We experience interpretations of sequentiality among perspectives of consciousness, bonded to an informationally shared and relative locus in space-time.  The appearance of spatial "distance" is derivative of the function of a mathematical relationship between each "distant" signal and each perspective of consciousness that is bonded to a relationally mediating locus in apparent space-time.  All appearance of space-time-matter-energy is secondary to mathematical forms of relationships that are actuated between communicating perspectives of consciousness.

COMMUNICATION AMONG LAYERS AND LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS:  Perspectives of consciousness are inherently availed with levels and layers of form-ulas for apprehending and signifying communications among themselves.  The quality of a communication sent or received will vary depending on the contextual relationship between a mathematical locus of transmission versus a mathematical locus of reception.  Mathematical equations that are bonded or local to a perspective of consciousness inherently availl transmission of information across more encompassing, overlapping, or defining mediums and fields of equational functions.  A geometrical form communicates with a geometrical form and mathematically alters the representation of its form-ula.  And so on.  All significations are illusions for the contextually renormalizing appreciation of perspectives of consciousness.

RENORMALIZATION:  Each perspective of consciousness renormalizes, in respect of the Holistic Reconciler of such consciousness as we happen to share.  Each deals with meta math in respect of contemporaneous apprehension of here and now significations.  No one deals directly with meta math, except the Holistic Reconciler (God).  Yet, how each local perspective deals with here and now significations affects how God reconciles the meta.  What we apprehend are forms that are renormalized to our parameters.  Those forms may be conceptualized as actuated math, that is de-stabilized across equal and expanding conversion signs.  The "expansion" of our experience and universe is derivative of our unfolding of consciousness, as it is experienced in space-time.  Such expansion may entail perpetual phase shifts across parameters for innumerable possible expressions of shared cosmos.

GOD IN THE PERPETUAL PRESENT AND OUTSIDE OF TIME:  How does God interfunction with forms and fields of math? Were there a state where nothing were expressed, it would take an initial, borrowing, destabilization across the equality of nothingness in order to avail the expression of anything. Once Something were expressed, could, would, or should it ever settle back into a precise and perfect zero balancing of digital pluses and minuses? Or must it in perpetuity delay and resist any such perfectly symmetrical balancing out? Must all particular perspectives eventually reset to a single subsuming nothingness? Or must every purposeful or random attempt that tends towards a re-balancing into nothingness function like a perpetual-motion-destabilizing-machine? Could there ever have been a first de-stabilizing event, without its de-stabilizing function having forever been inherent to the cosmos? If inherent, can the function towards relativistically absolute change and de-stabilization ever cease? Must an inherent-meta-fictional-immeasurable-force-agent of change be accompanied by a mirror agent for resisting change, and vice versa? Must an inherent agency preclude a settlement back into a balanced nothingness?  What may such a agent and counter agent sponsor, in respect of mortal perspectives? Must it/they sponsor a perpetual process of conscious feedback between and among its/their holistically encompassing aspect and its particularly expressed aspects and perspectives?

May it be that there never was a symmetry-breaking destabilization, because there has always been Something, i.e., a meta sponsor of perpetual apprehensions and appreciations and effectuates of changes and re-normalizations and reconciliations? De-stabilization is inherently represented as digitized changes crossing the balancing scale of zero, with Zero Equality never itself being realized. In effect, Consciousness actuates formulas for transitioning across equalities. The math is actively actuated and delayed, like dominoes on spring strings.  The reconciling Holism that feeds back to guide us to adjust the math programs of our receptivity simultaneously adjusts the math programs for the signals it sends to us, for our reception.  As to the synchronization in itself, we cannot detect why or how such holistic synchronization is or should be the case.

THE SYSTEM PROGRAM:  The program seems to be both a priori and subject to phase shifts, transitions, new beginnings, and incremental influence-- perhaps even by us. That is, we also may experience capacity to program virtual worlds within subprograms of virtual worlds within virtual worlds. Like a fractal of never-ending conscious creativity. All within a Perpetual Present. We cannot all at once prove the cause of the system or program as a whole. But we can continuously tinker at the edges and in the fuzz. See Deutch, The Beginning of Infinity. Thus, there seems to be no particularly pre-set God. But if Consciousness is taken as God, and it is recognized that we are all of the same intuitive, empathetic Consciousness, then we are all subject to an entanglement with God.

FRESH FROM DELPHI -- IDENTITY AND SPIRITUAL CONTINUITY:  The nature of the form-ulas with which one identifies imposes limitations on one's capacity to move among apparent distances between apparent objects.  God's need for companionship and feedback in appreciation of meta points of view seems to cause temporal perspectives of consciousness to bond and identify with local bodies, that seem to be separate travelers across stubborn illusions of space-time.  Spiritual continuity is correlative with continuous change via continuously creative destruction.  A balancing act is necessary to preserve spiritual empathy for norms, even as it becomes necessary to participate in their change.  This necessitates Conservers of Liberty, i.e., those who advocate for that which is necessary to preserve a decent civilization that avails freedom and dignity.  It necessitates effective checks on behalf of individuals faised from infancy by families against tyrannies of collectivizing government.

CHRISTIANITY:  This seems not contrary to the essential message of Christianity. The Kingdom of God is within you. Beingness is entailed with a Trinity: programming Information, renormalizing experience of relationally measurable Substance, and qualitatively appreciating Consciousness. There is one common godhead. It's essential nature is in qualitative empathy. It is the Source. It carries on a personal relationship with each of us. It seems to be eternal. It seems to have a purpose: facilitate evolution towards empathetically civilized perspectives for experiencing and communicating empathies. It does this via feedback in pragmatic and discrete significations within the here and now. Morality abides in that which facilitates such guided and unfolding evolution. Judgment for how and when to avail phase shifts in the mathematical environment of programming that we share is subject to the judgment and Reconciliation of the godhead.

Saturday, April 19, 2014


Re:  Fairness concerning people who are self reliant, successful, and do not view themselves as victims

Infants are not fair, because they have not the physical, emotional, or cultural means by which to be, barter about, or communicate about that which is fair.  Until a human being acquires physical, emotional, and cultural competence, he has no means by which to understand or communicate about that which is fair. A child who is never pushed to grow up to become competent does not become able to look out for himself, much less be taken seriously in any conversation about fairness.  A child who is perpetually indulged with drugs, support, and entitlements cannot grow up.  He will begrudge those who do grow up (those who "act white"), and he will always be a burden.  This may not disrupt a collectivist culture, but it is poison to a culture that seeks to avail decent human freedom and dignity, wherein people are expected to grow up, take personal responsibility, and support the continuation of liberty.  The first thing to know about babies of whatever race or color or culture who never grow up, who perpetually whine about fairness, is that they have not the least idea about what fairness means.  Nor, given means to steal from you without being caught, would they incline in the least to hesitate.  Progs whining about fairness are like bottles stuffed with poison.

Nor can a government that tries to cater to the specific whims of such perpetual babies be fair.  In fairness, all government can do is to provide an infrastructure and then mostly get out of the way.  Government is incapable of making the multitudinous decisions that tend to allocate towards fairness in the marketplace of ideas and production.  A government that perpetually "progresses" towards ever more intrusions in the call for being "fair" cannot avoid becoming a government of despotism for farming people who never grow up.


To trade fairly, I think one needs to have something to trade.  An infant trades with cute coos and sympathetic cries.  If that's all the infant ever learns, the coos and cries soon grow old and of little value for any trade, fair or otherwise.  Civilization is a competitive jungle with a cooperative safety net.  A child who never learns how to compete for himself while defending rather than abusing the safety net has nothing to trade with his civilization, fair or otherwise.  If fairness is akin to being charitable with the civil system, then it does not tend to be well expressed by usurping authority to redistribute other people's money to such a point as to destroy the familial institution and the accultured mores out of which fairness is taught.  Replacing middle-class, family taught fairness with two-class rule of "wise" despots is conducive, I think, to serfdom, not fairness.  The coos and cries of infants are not cute to a detached, generally centralized government that is more concerned with the "perfect" system of widget management.  Without the bonding and assimilative effect of family and culture, a system of artificially intelligent managers will be programmed to be singularly ruthless.  The Bomb has temporarily stifled some of our competive impulses that are not adequately moderated or softened by familial bonding.  As the family institution breaks down, so will that softening influence.  That, in turn, will necessitate much greater distrust and, therefore, governmental invasions of privacy.  A similar challenge applies to our competiton towards developing singularly intelligent A.I.  We need an assimilative culture that will restore familial bonding.  I think that is not a multi-culture of people who incline to exploit collectivism so that they need never to have to grow up to become anything more than serfs for rulers.

"Possible bootstrapping algorithms include “do what we would have told you to do if we knew everything you knew,” “do what we would’ve told you to do if we thought as fast as you did and could consider many more possible lines of moral argument,” and “do what we would tell you to do if we had your ability to reflect on and modify ourselves.” In moral philosophy, this notion of moral progress is known as reflective equilibrium."

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Big Lie of Oligarchs

In Human Action, Von Mises explained how it is necessary, in formulating practical economic recommendations, to relate to imaginary models.  This is because we con't have access to an alternative earth on which to conduct alternative, double-blind simulations.  So models must often indulge assumptions about the effects of actions under conditions of ceteris paribus, as if all other things remained equal.  Of course, in the real world, all other things do not remain equal.  For example, the United States is a vast empire of natural resources across which there is relatively easy transport, a common language, an agreeable climate, a commonly germ resistent population, and free trade.  Those ingredients of resources, common language, culture, religion, assimilated mores, habits of cooperation, rivers and roads of transport, republican traditions, and international influence do not apply to many countries.

When politicians in the United States extol "free trade," what does that mean in the real world?  In the real world, trading often risks transport of mad cow disease, ebola viruses, brainwashed suicide bombers, voices-in-the-head despots, sociopaths oblivious of the Golden Rule, and people whose only faith is in temporal material gain.  In the real world, exchange of technology risks arming cultures that mean to overrun us.  In the real world, free trade with countries whose leaders contrive to hold down local wages and to prop up their businesses allows dumping of excess production in ways that undermine and replace the industries of other nations.  In the real world, free trade enriches oligarchs who tend to be a-theistic, a-moral, and a-patriotic.  They tend not to be loyal Jeffersonians.  The idea of oligarchs of an open society of globally erased borders does not tend to preserve any representative republic.  Rather, it tends to replace all government by the people with a race to the bottom, to install corporatist oligarchs to rule in place of governments.

The idea or free trade, intelligently applied, can be a wonderful thing.  However, when it is unguided by any common sense with regard to what is needed to preserve a decent society that avails human freedom and dignity under a representative republic, then it becomes a big lie that oligarchs find useful in order to dupe idiots.

South Korea is perhaps the preminent economic miracle of recent times. It undertook a program that might be called self-help affirmative action. A Korean writer, ha-joon-chang, makes his case for what I would call affirmative action tariffs. He says: "Global economic competition is a game of unequal players. It pits against each other countries that range from, as we development economists like to say, Switzerland to Swaziland. Consequently, it is only fair that we ‘tilt the playing field’ in favour of the weaker countries."

I tend not to ascribe so much credence to an idea of tilting the playing field in favor ot the weaker.  I suspect such efforts tend to be cynically abused in such a godlessly trending world. I give no more credence to the idea of oligarchs acting sympathetically than I do to the idea of them acting objectively and impartially. That is, they will always be partial to their own bottom lines -- both in the economic sphere and in the legal/political sphere.


"What Korea actually did during these decades was to nurture certain new industries, selected by the government in consultation with the private sector, through tariff protection, subsidies and other forms of government support (e.g., overseas marketing information services provided by the state export agency) until they ‘grew up’ enough to withstand international competition."
"If private enterprises worked well, that was fine; if they did not invest in important areas, the governmenthad no qualms about setting up state-owned enterprises (S O Es); and if some
private enterprises were mismanaged, the government often took them over,restructured them, and usually (but not always) sold them off again."
"The Korean government heavily controlled foreign investment as well, welcoming it with open arms in certain sectors while shutting it out completely in others, according to the evolving national development plan. It also had a lax attitude towards foreign patents, encouraging ‘reverse engineering’ and overlooking ‘pirating’ of patented products."
"Why then don’t the rich countries recommend to today’s developing countries the strategies that served them so well? Why do they instead hand out a fiction about the history of capitalism, and a bad one at that?"
"So there it was—the self-proclaimed leader of the ‘liberal’ world declaring war on another country because the latter was getting in the way of its illegal trade in narcotics. The truth is that the free movement of goods, people, and money that developed under British hegemony between 1870 and 1913—the first episode of globalization - was made possible, in large part, by military might, rather than market forces."
"Free trade was often imposed on, rather than chosen by, weaker countries. Most countries that had the choice did not choose free trade for more than brief periods. Virtually all successful economies, developed and developing, got where they are through selective, strategic integration with the world economy, rather than through unconditional global integration."