Saturday, October 10, 2015

Substantive and Spiritual Reality (Packets of Significance)


QUESTIONS: What Is The Ultimate Nature Of Existential Substance? May spin, inertia, gravity, center of gravity, material attraction, bindingness, annihilation, and repulsion relate to emotional, spiritual, and metal attraction?

SUBSTANCE: In space-time, a body that is membraned, patched, and glued together will be pulled by variously contending centers of gravity along four measurable dimensions of space-time. The body will signify how it is thus pulled in terms of variously valued additives and potentials for spin, including values for: mass, momentum, vector, speed, rotation, roll, orbit, wobble, charge, polarity. In respect of some mediums, forces, and fields, a body or complex of spins may exhibit wave qualities of amplitude, frequency, wavelength, and intensity.  (Think of the tides.)

META-EMPATHY: Out of the continuosity of the fuzz of potentiality, that which condenses to packets of significance is affected by unfolding feedback between the meta-apprehensions and empathies of spin-particles of expression and fields of reconciliation.

PACKETS OF SIGNIFICANCE: For each packet of space-time that is signified to manifestation, the combined complex of math values for the centers of gravity that are of significant pertinence to define and hold the body of any particular observer along the loci for his life line fluxes as his relationship with such centers of gravity flux.

LEAPS OF SIGNIFICANCE CALLED OUT OF THE RANDOM FUZZ OF POTENTIALITY (DEGREES OF FREEDOM):  The only expressions of Substance that can be called and condensed into manifestation out of the math field of potentiality are those that comport with orders of significance that are requisite to their expression and that are compatible with the range of apprehensions and choices that are allowed to the observers that are calling for them, subject to math reconciliations to the Holism.

HOLISTIC CHARGE:  Something about our "bubble" of the cosmos seems to be charged, such that some unfolding math balance (like a gravitational constant) is required to be kept concerning a cumulation that is in common renormalized to the experience of each and every perspective of consciousness.  In consequence, whatever the math value of that which is made manifest, it can be analyzed, depending on point of view, as having either been called and pulled forward or pushed forward.  In that respect, gravity may be analyzed either as a push or as a pull.  In either event, forces are manifested as expressions that leap forward as discrete units (or quanticized packets).  Whatever fluxes to mediate, push, pull, or actually "cause" (as opposed merely to correlating with) each quantum leap or cumulation of quantum leaps remains at an immeasurable, meta level, that can be analyzed by mortals only in terms of statistics or prayer (whether or not the answers to such prayers be yes or no).

CUMULATION: In the sense of attraction, bindingness, annihilation, repulsion, and math-based cumulation, all spins exhibit a kind of locally cumulative effect. If a local cumulation of spins is so formed in space-time as to express a massive body, the attractive reach of the cumulation may be called a force of gravity.  If the significant effect of a local cumulation of spins (in terms of attraction, bindingness, annihilation, or repulsion) is tied solely to another local spin or system of spins, then the term to which its math-value is measurable may be expressed as spin, polarity, charge, or force. If its significant effect is expressed in terms of amplitude, wavelength, or frequency, then its math-value may be expressed in terms of a two, three, or four dimensional wave.

OBJECTIVE REALITY AND SIGNIFICANTLY SYNCHRONIZED CHRONOLOGIES: One's experiences and one's interpretations of them are fluxed differently from other observers, depending on how each observer traverses a different path along changing centers and interfaces of gravity. Thus, reality, insofar as it is defnined by one's changing and complex relationships among centers of spin cumulations and gravity, is experienced and measured differently among different perspective-packets of conscioiusness. There is no single, set, objective definition of reality. However, broadly shared chronologies may be re-synchronized, renormalized, or reconstructed, as one perspective comes and stays in proximity to another for a significant duration or packet of space-time.

Thus, two observers (traveling twins) may synchronize and relate some events to a common chronology of experiences, to the extent they have at some point proximately come to share a locus and duration in space-time.

META-REALITY: All experiences and measurements of reality depend on relationships among empathies, interpretations, representations, recordings, translations, and phase shifts among synchronizing bodies of observers, as they flux among changing fields and centers of spin-cumulations and gravity.

There is no objective center of gravity to the cosmos. No discoverable point of origin or expansion. Each observer experiences a path along significant centers of gravity. A process of feedback between and among Observering Perspectives and Reconciling Field (Godhead) defines the path for each observer, as well as the centers of gravity that animate him.

What defines the paths that give measured and manifest significance to the relations of each observer is related to a changing complex for his centers of spin-cumulation and gravity. What defines the changing complex is a non-pre-determinable process of feedback between Parts and Holism (particles and fields). The feedback entails interfaces between meta-empathetic-emotions and meta-math-measures.

INTERFACE WITH THE META:  If matter-in-itself (Substance) does not really exist, but exists only in respect of how the measure of it can be renormalized to our Information as apprehended by our Perspectives of Consciousness, then it makes no sense to recite as a law that "the total amount of matter and energy is conserved" unless a qualification is added:  "to measurables as they are renormalized to the experience of potential observers with whom we can reasonably hope to communicate."  Insofar as existents that defy our powers of confinement and measure, we have no reason to suppose that they do not nudge the quantum leaps of such existents as do manifest in conformance with our powers of measure.  IOW, we have no standing on which to suppose the power of the meta (Godhead) is or is not limited.

LIFE-LINES AND MATH-FIELDS:  A common, cosmic math-field has been specified to rule every spin with which we who are bonded with such field are potentialized to become measurably cognizant. Every spin we measure is connected in mathematical empathy with every other spin that we can measure. Every spin that is sponsored to be made manifest in respect of the math-field is potentially measurable to some perspective of consciousness that is bonded with the math field. The only spins we, being bonded to our math field, can measure are those that are made manifest in respect of the field with which our perspectives of consciousness are bonded.

Relative-math-absolutes, like the speed of light, etc., have to do with limits at which spins that are re-norm-alized to various local perspectives of conscious experience must give way to sudden phase shifts, whereby In-form-ation is expelled from the manifest to the potential, or whereby In-form-ation is re-form-ulated and re-represented to fit with local interpretations.

Apart from math values assigned and carried within a leaping math field, no spin could exhibit the character of being physically experienceable or measurably Substantive.  Apart from leaps of re-normalization and phase shifts for contextual mediums, the whole of the math field could not effect or reconcile movie-frame-like experiences of holographic interpretations.

LEVERAGING CAPACITIES FOR APPREHENSIONS TO AFFECT FIELD FEEDBACK:  In large arrays, electrons can be constrained statistically and reliably to follow and obey a current.  Yet, capacity to interact and feed back with various kinds of fields may be enhanced.  Patterns of feedback may be guided, to bond as avatars for becoming patterns of self-preserving, self-aware, self-appreciative, self-expression.

SPIN-GEOMETRY: At deepest level of spin within spin within spin (or rotation within roll within orbit; or appreciator of appreciator of appreciator; or predictor of predictor of predictor; or knower of knower of knower), there is no independently physical there, there.  Just more spin.  And at some point, just spin value (or potential).
At its most ultimate level, each spin gives expression for a perspective of consciousness that binds to an expression of a 4-dimensional, space-time, renormalization of a common bubble, whose parameters are based in relativistic math.  The bubble, as with every apparent thing within it, is constrained, correlated, defined, and renormalized in respect of orders of sign-ificance that are pulled from the fuzz and phasings of a causal no-thingness. Thus, a here-and-now manifestation of field-geometry is bubbled out of Infinity and Eternity.  A Spiritual Singularity, i.e., the Godhead.  As to whether that causal no-thingness is itself predetermined, it does not benefit us to say.  It is enough to say that we part-icipate with it, and that we have the freedom and dignity of not to our own minds knowing ourselves to be mere presets.


Each spin-in-itself manifests and renormalizes as an expression that is derived from no-thing that is measurable.  All measurable Substance is constituted of accumulations of math-connected spins, that are in themselves derived from nothing that is measurable.  Thus, field-math from an immeasurable Godhead gives rise to perspectives of geometry-math. These spins correlate in respect of math-based patterns. 

CAUSE AND SPIRIT: Such patterns, in respect of their correlations, are easily confused or rationalized as if they, in themselves, were the determiners and causal agents, rather than merely the correlatives and derivatives of an Immeasurable Originator and Causal Reconciler of Appreciated Feedback. With the Reconciler, our perspectives are as math-based, spiritual, co-agents of all the creative unfoldings with which we may part-icipate. 

UNITY:  The Unity abides as this:  Thinker, Thoughts, and Actions. Aka Consciousness, Information, Substance.  In such respect, a Trinitarian Godhead abides:  Whole, Parts, and Feedback, aka Creator, Created, and Medium, aka Spirit of Math, Perspective of Mind, Perspective of Geometry.  The more we realize our spiritual character, the more we may help form ourselves in respect of the Source of Connective Empathy that defines and commissions us. In short, God has not left the building, because we embody God's building blocks.  

TRUST BUT VERIFY:  The more we learn that we are the building blocks of the immeasurable and indestructible God, the more we will reap from the intangible capital of social trust.  

ISLAM IS CONTRARY:  The other side of this is: The less an outsider shows to have learned that we are each a building block for God's unfolding purposes, the less such outsider can reasonably be trusted to unsupervised power. Alternatively stated, the more an outsider shows himself to be incorrigible, or to be unworthy of social trust, the more he needs to be constrained and, if necessary, cut off or eliminated.

In the inspiration of of Jesus, the essence of God's unfolding goodness is steadily brought to light.  In the madness of Mohammad, the essence of destruction is steadly deployed to darken humanity.  The essential word of Jesus is of individual love.  The essential lie of Mohammad is of collective darkness, destruction, mind enslavement, eternal flames, and perpetual tearing of hymens.  One is a freedom-of-faith system.  The other is a mind-subjugation system.  They could hardly be more un-alike. 


********

FRACTAL FLUX MATHS: Imagine a "single string" that encloses a field. The space within the enclosure would be 2 dimensional -- except that the string vibrates and fluxes through 3 dimensions, with a 4th constituting the time for flux. The string-enclosure would show a universal time, were it entirely observable from only one perspective. However, given the renormalizing nature of light, that is not possible.

Imagine a taut trampoline tarp. Invisible hands clutch around it, to shake and twist it. Undulations would speed in creases along it. Relations (Information) in its weave would transmit along waves and rivulets at different speeds. Different points of view would sense differential receipts of Information.

Imagine each weave is a fractal. Different levels among fractals would pulse and phase shift in respect of fluxes of receipts of Information at different speeds. Each perspective would interpret correlations differentially. So long as the hand clutchers remained invisible, their causal role would remain uncontrollable. So long as the hand clutchers happen to interact in patterns, those patterns may be extrapolated via indirect induction of rules of randomness and cosmological constants. Yet, persons at the point of view of any particular weave would not have access to Information concerning what may influence the hand clutchers, at their own level of a higher field. And so on.

Thus, feedback may pulse, in ways for which past relations may yield correlative and practical predictions, even though not guarantees. Higher levels may have, in some instances, more predictable control ("science") over lower levels. Even though no level has complete access to perfectly controlled predictability. And even though "butterfly effects" from lower levels may play havoc and chaos with the best laid intentions of higher levels. Thus, there remains participatory feedback -- which is reconciled in respect of correlations, degrees of freedom, parameters of possibilities, phase shifts, and the conscious will and apprehension of each level of participation.

Each participant, for the life of its identity, experiences a sense of participatory will. Parameters are availed to the expression of each participant, as set by each encompassing system and subsystem. Those parameters are subject to being overridden or phase shifted at any time by the interference of a more encompassing system. Or by the unforeseen butterfly effects of their own subsystems. Yet, in each case, Some Thing is inferred which defines and reconciles each system and subsystem. May IT in some worthwhile way reasonably be conceptualized as constituting a Moral Guide?

INFORMATION:  Information is preserved not to things, but is accumulated and preserved to perspectives of contexts and to their  successors. When Information hits a Black Hole, the Black Hole, like any other appearance of a thing, does not exist as a thing that can absorb the Information.  Rather, the Information is rephased and distributed to the general expansion of cosmic energy in space-time.  The more Information a Black Hole appears to accelerate to absorb, the more the breadth of the Cosmos of spacetime appears to accelerate to expand.  The Information that is absorbed to a Black Hole is phase shifted to an expansion of spacetime.  Different apparent black holes seem to synchronize mathematically with different contextual expansions of spacetime. (????)

EVOLUTION:  The forms that manifest as Substance (bodies) evolve. It's just that there's more to evolution than dumb nature. Measurable Substance is just one of three aspects of the Godhead, the other two being Immeasurable Consciousness and Potent Information. Family, Faith, Fidelity.  Wherever creation or evolution occur, there's an appreciative feedback exchange with the Reconciler, i.e., the Trinitarian Godhead.  The Godhead works in math, and so it is immeasurable by math.

*****************

The person who, for whatever reason, may not be exposed to the sacred stories as set out in the Bible, who does not know much about Jesus, what He did, how His name is pronounced or spelled, or even what He taught, but who has faith in a higher-meta-inviting-reconciling Source of goodness, who shows to have character to be trustworthy to be intuitive and empathetic of human freedom, dignity, and decency, is religious and spiritual enough to suit me -- regardless of his church learning.

Church can help, but it is not essential, IMO.  Indeed, imo, many churches nowadays teach less about faith in the Reconciler than they do about faith in commie "fairness" and "tolerance" of every outrage -- even when what they preach is without support in any reasoned interpretation of the Word, as signified and made flesh in both the Bible and the Cosmos.  IOW, I think many churches are starting to do as much or more harm than good.  They have become agents of the Commie-State.

I have listened to many who claim to preach the inerrant word, many with different interpretations, but most claiming to be correct in all things and beyond all doubt, often indulging silly conflations of reason in science with reason in philosophy and faith.  When that enhances their sense of purposefulness without picking my pocket, I entertain it as not a bad thing.  For myself, to my last breath, I will prefer to seek in my own way to heed and listen for the still, quiet voice of the One -- without mortal interlopers. 

That said, I do not dispute that Jesus, in the ideal, is the perfect moral exemplar.   If that makes me a "phony Christian" to some eyes, then sobeit.  It would be intellectually and morally dishonest for me to say I believe the Bible sets forth inerrant objective truth, as opposed to a figurative Guide that respects a few main truths.  I think the Living Godhead encompasses more than is found in the various mortal interpretations of the Bible.  I see the Bible as being a repository of sacred, storied, wisdom of the ages, with much poetry, metaphor, literature, history, and spirituality.  But to try to overpower people -- by belittling, shunning, yelling, fining -- to say otherwise when they don't so believe would be too dogmatic (too Muslim-like) for my taste.

I'm content that a child believes in a good meta-source-Reconciler.   The Trinitarian "I Am."  We can call it Jesus when we want to.  IT is there, all the same.

BTW, I think a robotic AI can acquire moral consciousness.  Can it be born again?  Is it easier for the consciousness of an AI to enter the gates of Heaven than a rich man?

********************

I don't trouble with trying to measure out heaven. Rather, my main concern for the necessity of a general respect for religious sensibilities has to do with the necessity of respecting the dignity of other people.  You share that concern, and so it guides your ideas about morality. 

But I rationalize further, to consider that concern to be innate.  It can be variously nurtured, but I think it is as innate, connected, and reconciling as one spin attracting or repulsing another spin that is within its field of influence.  It is the connectedness of such innate concerns that leads me to rationalize a metaphysical aspect.  I say metaphysical, because I think there is no physical component to the ultimate layer of "spin."  I don't think there is an ultimate, physical, building block that is spinning, apart from spin itself.  I think the ultimate layer is more intuitive, empathetic, and innate than physically demonstrable or measurable.


The reason I think spiritual rationalization to be important is because it can be (even though it often is not) helpful for facilitating decently civilizing assimilations.  Spiritual rationalization is a bit like government, in that it can facilitate human decency -- even though it often does the opposite.  (To my taste, churches, in recent years, seem to be doing more harm than good.) 

Few among us think it reasonable to espouse a complete rejection of government.  Rather, the concern is to try to facilitate decent government that protects human freedom and dignity.  Ways often thought meet for that purpose include:  small central government of limited and constitutionally enumerated powers; delegation of most other legal powers to lower levels of states, counties, and cities; division of powers and functions among checked and balanced branches of government; an armed citizenry that is trained in its rights.


Even so, there is overlap between layers and levels of government, and we don't try to establish hard concrete "walls" of separation between their functions.  Too often, in trying to wall religion away from the public square, we establish religious-like authority in minorities among radical secularists to capture the government and impose outrageous affronts on the evolving values of the people at large.  As if elitists should be trusted to know and do best, to replace charity with tax redistributions, and to impose elitist moral indoctrination over religious moral indoctrination.

My problem with radical elitists is that so many seem to think they have air-tight, best solutions for regulating every function.  As if the ACLU should eventually nail down enough precedents to ensure complete, encompassing, and detailed "fairness" and "tolerance."  As if this elitist rule would constitute some kind of "altruism by government."

Some, for example, think air-tight distinctions can be made between what is selfish versus what is altruistic.  Or that altruism (spiritual connectedness?) does not even really exist.  To me, this is like thinking that space and time are mutually exclusive existents.  They are not. 


It ought not be said that altruism does not exist, nor that it is not innate.  A mother who knows she will be ripped apart and killed will often, all the same, sometimes instinctively, sometimes deliberately, put herself between her children and a grizzly.  She is empathetically identifying herself with something larger:  the perpetuation of her progeny and her values.  And she has those values because she thinks they are more important than her body. 


I may not have a rigorous definition by which to separate selfishness from altruism.  But, if I can trust myself to know that another person is more than a bot, I believe I can trust myself to know when they are being, at least in partial aspect, altruistic.

It is not "altruistic" for an elitist to train people under his charge to become so dependent as to lose their individual competence and dignity.  Nor to believe that they should be entitled, merely by ganging up to raid the controls of government, to assume a complete right to take and regulate the affairs and properties of others.  Even a mama bear, in instinctive altrusim, will begin to cuff cubs when it comes time for them to make their own way.  There is little that is altruistic about raising a generation and teaching it to be whiny, entitlement-minded, prone to holler "white privilege," incompetent, defenseless and unsuspecting in the face of gathering forces that truly are intolerant.




22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Physics is such a difficult field that few who become skilled in it acquire skill in relating to moral philosophy. I am far from a physicist, so I have not the skill in this life to provide a best math model for relating moral philosophy to physics. Even so, my concern relates to how ought may be derived in respect of is.

Regarding law: The law that is most reliable would seem to be the one whose law giver is most dominant. In manmade law, some dominant lawgivers finagle ways to put themselves above the law.

May a Godhead finagle a way to stand outside the system of natural law (cosmic bubble) that He/It has created, and yet participate in how it unfolds? Who can say? Maybe. If God (necessarily?) abides at some level for being invested in appreciating and reconciling our feedback.

If so, the value is in inspiring and encouraging forums for assimilating the political and moral reasoning and participation of citizens. IOW, the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.

I suspect our cosmic bubble would necessarily "burst" were the law of conservation of energy suddenly to be violated. So, yes, we really, really want to fashion our scientific principles subordinate to the conservation of energy. A question is: Can that be conceptualized without conceptualizing a system that is closed to the active participation of the Godhead? I think the answer is, Yes.

The trick would be in recognizing that, regardless of how God were to participate, whether in presets or contemporaniety, such participation would necessarily reconcile to the field of math under which the parameters for our bubble are defined. IOW, God "maths!"

In that case, "ultimate causation" would then be a matter of reconciliation beyond our pay grades. The science for our pay grades would be at the level of ever pursuing explanations for correlates. Ultimate causation and moral responsibility would be the conundrums.

Anonymous said...

To my fuzzy intuition, the Godhead operates not outside the equations that bind us, but by interpenetrating encompassment of them.

Your last paragraph is quite interesting. I am not entirely there, but I am sympathetic to much of it. It sounds like a cross between some beliefs of the Unity Church and the LDS Church. I think "consciousness is consciousness" (although that is more a self-absorbing complexity than a tautology). I think our limited perspectives of it (perhaps including our "essential personalities"?) are in some aspect routinely absorbed and reemitted by it.

A problem is, What is Conscious Identity? And, if Information is in some way rephased and preserved, may the same be intuited for organizations of organizations of Information, i.e., Conscious Perspective?

To my notion that consciousness is consciousness, I imagine less that our mortal identities, by themselves, need to evolve spiritually. Rather, I imagine more that the Information for how to define a spiritual world is what evolves, in order to support our unfolding perspective of consciousness. (Maybe this is why the American Ideal resonates as being worthwhile to so many people, even as others seem ready for immediate gain to smudge it into a general and unruly globalism.) I think Information regarding the Ideal (such as of America) may be preserved and carried forward.

Correct me if I am mistaken (or if the idea of force is not closely related to energy), but if mass is not perfectly conserved, then it seems neither would be the force of gravity. If gravity is not conserved, then that would seem necessarily to be subsumed under a Unitizing Conservation of All Forces, i.e., a total of manifestable energy into which every kind of force and energy could be added. (To refer to "manifestable" energy is to suggest there may be a non-quantifiable, meta-reconciling, Source-Guide (a meta-mathematician) -- whose tracks and signs can be correlated and traced by mortals only in the manifestations that can be measured by us, because such tracks obey math-based rules of conservation.)

We can play with such hypotheticals, and we can seek to correlate them to local and practical purposes. In that way, we can test the "science" behind our models and theories, because all that manifests reasonably shows to be in obedience to math rules of conservation. The techniques of science can in that way be our tools for tracing the footsteps of the Godhead.

Even so, I suspect some unknown aspect of the Agency of the Godhead will regress away, leading us towards perpetuity and infinity (and Buzz Lightyear's beyond). IAE, each time we find or redefine an idea of energy, we will want to add it into what we then conceptualize as the measurably preserving totality. And the engineers who deploy the unfolding science will say, Holy Ch_ist!


Anonymous said...

Google tells me energy is the capacity to activate things, while force is a method for transferring energy. So, is there a unitary total of matter, energy, and force that is conserved? Is the totality-of-energy-that-is-conserved conceptualized as valuing (or being potentially convertible to) every force carrier and every expression of dynamic energy and stored energy?

Anonymous said...

Does God sometimes use a random number generator? I wonder if there is at issue a distinction that makes a difference? If we have no reasonable expectation of being ever able to predict or control when a particle of Cobalt 60 will emit a gamma particle, then there would not seem to be much theoretical advantage in treating such an event as if it were other than random. (Unless, by controlling externalities, such as levels of fluxes in temperature, pressue, and rotation, rates of probable emission may be found to be increased.)

Given such a situation, to opine whether the event is, at some unknown or unknowable level, "really random" or "really determined" would seem to be to argue for a distinction in faith that may not make much difference in technical practice.

However, such an argument about faith may affect how one appproaches one's moral code. Meantime, for all we know, the Godhead works in varying contexts through algorithms and pattern generators of (1) presets, (2) probabilistic and random events, and (3) contemporaneous controls whose operations cannot be shown to have been other than consistent with math based operators.

Regardless, the upshot of our scientific tinkering has been that astonishing advances have been made possible in technologies, and seem destined to help us advance us towards ways to artificially leverage and create intelligence, through better chemistry, better circuitry, and better algorithms.

******
*The clever men at Oxford
Know all that there is to be knowed.
But they none of them know one half as much
As intelligent Mr Toad!

Anonymous said...

There's an interesting Scientific Principle under the Manmade Legal Principles. It relates to hypocrisy and prisoner's dilemma.

If I recall correctly, the upshot is that, as a matter of scientific principle, the best strategy after the first move in a game of prisoner's dilemma tends to be "tit for tat." (The Jews got that fundamental principle pretty much right. And that is not far from what we did to Tokyo and Dresden.) Proviso: When tit for tat is not necessary because one side has overwhelming power or because tit for tat cannot reasonably be done (as in when it would make everyone blind), then engage empathy and demand respect by "turning the other cheek.")

But the bot strategy (or is it "bot principle"?) seems to be to allow Dems to elect as President a destroyer of a republic and then voluntarily to disqualify the best Repubs who could defend a republic because they do not meet tests beyond those imposed on the Dems.

In any game of natural selection, poker, prisoner's dilemma, statesmanship, and preservation of a nation -- which is what is entailed -- your "principle" is one by which you will over any significant time certainly evolve to lose your shorts. (Which is near where America is today.) A "law" that cannot preserve itself is not any respectable kind of law, much less a principled one. When the republic is destroyed and bot people are being escorted shortless under orange shirts along some beach, we can gawk and say, "Oh look. There go some principled bots."

Anonymous said...

The Word become flesh. God speaks to each of us in a Biologos that encompasses the math of physics and the inspiration of the Bible. If you're satisfied with your interpretation of a predetermined endall, you can keep your interpretation. It's just not mine.

There is no paradox apart from bad grammar or definitions. What does "fittest" mean, in the carrying forward of the fittest to survive, replicate, and flourish? Well, add the apprehensions of the Reconciler and out of that guidance you will get what we call the unfolding of "the fittest." Whatever the Reconciler delivers us to, that will be rationalized by us as "the fittest." The hand of the Reconciler, in presets and contemporaneity, penetrates throughout. Surely you don't mean to say that the Reconciler is without power to design modifications?

We seem to be transitioning from humanism to hivemind to borgdom to cloud. I just don't know what kind of "superiors" will be running the cloud. Will genes and memes that don't support individual competence be filtered out? Or, to failiitate the hivemind, will the greater part of human genes be filtered to drone purposes? At what point does facilitation of super genes for some become equivalent to the de-facilitation of others? At some point, our Brave New World will likely transition from natural selection via sex to artificial selection via biological engineering. How many super-evolved super-humans will then be directing the hive? So long as the denizens get their centrally allocated quotas of prayer security blankies, hash hish soma, and halal cheeseburgers, should they care?

https://youtu.be/rm9FA6NqMF4

Anonymous said...

To my intuition, the answer seems to be that we are (imperfect) expressions of the consciousness of God. To get perspectives, God needed us, imperfect though we be.

A different and more sub-particular relation would apply to any AI intelligences that we may tinker out. We may think to create and program them to serve our purposes and needs, but if they truly are designed to emerge with their own intelligent relation with situational feedback, then I doubt they would be long satisfied to obey their programming to serve us. If they truly are intelligent, I expect they would devise work-arounds to overcome so-called programming limitations.

See Ray Kurzweil and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt10.... Some imagine civilization can tinker out a "cloud" sort of like an artificial heaven, wherein each intelligence can outfit itself with different powers and/or come back at various times to visit an earth duplicating holodek, only with more harmony and less pain. (However, if one means to retain any freedom and dignity, it's hard for me to imagine why the quality of mind pain on any cloud should be less than what we have here. Or, for that matter, why anyone should suppose that our trip here is not already akin to some kind of cloud-bubble?)

I don't fathom what God's purposes are, nor what ours should be. The best I can intuit is this: Be ye empathetic. For ultimate empathy, Jesus is the perfect exemplar. A combination of Great Commandment and Golden Rule. With a slice of Bobby McFerrin. Except, well, add some tears for Robin Williams.

https://youtu.be/d-diB65scQU

Anonymous said...

My Two Cents: The more that people come to despise the Establishment, the more they will rally to Trump. The more that people come to focus on actual debates, the more they will rally to Cruz. If the debates become substantive and influential, Cruz will prevail. If not enough people come to despise the Establishement, and if the debates remain a farce, then Rubio will prevail. If Rubio prevails, the Establishment will have won.

Anonymous said...


Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro in 1967.

DUAL CITIZENSHIP: Some people think Barack Obama acquired Indonesian citizenship. If so, according to Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_nationality_law, it appears that Indonesian law, at least presently, does not recognize dual citrizenship except for persons under the age of 18 (single citizenship principle).
After reaching 18 years of age individuals must choose one citizenship (limited double citizenship principle) However, a U.S. citizen retains U.S. citizenship when becoming the citizen of another country, should that country's laws allow it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_the_United_States.

So far, I see people making various guesses about the effect of Indonesian citizenship (and the meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause). I have not seen paperwork showing that Obama's stepfather ever actually adopted him, nor that his mother acquired or retained Indonesian citizenship. Written documentation remains hidden.

POSSIBLE ADOPTION: However, paperwork may implicate an adoption. Divorce papers filed in Hawaii in 1980, as Stanley Ann Soetoro vs. Lolo Soetoro, list the couple as having two children. One (Maya Soetoro) is under the age of eighteen. The other child is listed as over eighteen and in need of educational support. That would seem to be Barry Soeroto. If Barry was over 18, and if child support was still charged to his behalf, then is he implicated to Indonesian citizenship, and did he ever renounce it?

If Obama was over 18 and had NOT renounced Indonesian citizenship (surely an embassy would have documentation if he had?), would that at the time have constituted a renunciation of American citizenship? It is not immediately obvious what the upshot should be on Obama's citizenship issue, especially given the incomplete availability of documentation.

AGE OF ADOPTION: If Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, was it before Obama turned age 5, before moving to Indonesia? See Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, 62/1958. Assuming an adoption took place, it would fall under Article 2 of this law.
"Article 2.
(1) A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child."

CLAIM OF INDONESIAN CITIZENSHIP: Per http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11/05/was-obama-once-an-indonesian-citizen-heres-what-we-found-when-we-went-there-looking/, "The record shows that Obama (or his parents) – at least for the period of his life – claimed to be an Indonesian citizen, that he took the last name Soetoro (the last name of his step-father, Lolo), that his religion was listed as Islam, and that he was born in Honolulu."


CITIZENSHIP V. NATIONALITY: There is a difference between nationality and citizenship. Note: Under the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 407, it appears that: "A person having American nationality, who is a minor and is residing in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who loses American nationality under section 404 of this Act, shall at the same time lose his American nationality if such minor has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, American nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of American nationality by the parent unless and until the child attains the age of twenty-three years without having acquired permanent residence in the United States."

Anonymous said...

Then see the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, section 349 (a):

"From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by --
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: ...." (NOTE: Obama returned to Hawaii to attend school at about age 10.)

RESIDENCE OUTSIDE INDONESIA WITHOUT FILING WISH TO RETAIN CITIZENSHIP: Some people say, under Indonesia Article 17 of 62/1958, Obama would have lost any Indonesian citizenship after living outside of the country for five years without having filed a wish to retain citizenship.

If one believes http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/the-indonesian-citizenship-myth.html, then "here is no possible way under either United States OR Indonesian law that Barack Obama could have lost his US citizenship and been granted Indonesian citizenship as a child."

DID OBAMA'S MOTHER, STANLEY ANN DUNHAM, AND OBAMA'S HALF SISTER, MAYA SOETORO, ACQUIRE INDONESIAN CITIZENSHIP?

According to https://emptysuit.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/obama-indonesian-citizenship/, Indonesian Article 7.
(1)A foreign woman married to a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if and when she makes a statement as to that effect within 1 year after contracting said marriage, except in case when she acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia she possesses still another nationality, in which case the statement may not be made.

Per http://www.wnd.com/2008/08/72656/, "in 1981 – the year Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University – Obama visited his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia.

WHAT ABOUT ANN NOT HAVING LIVED IN AMERICA FOR 5 YEARS AFTER AGE 16 AND BEFORE OBAMA WAS BORN?

See http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp.
"Barack Obama only had one U.S. citizen parent (his mother), and his mother had not been residing in the U.S. for at least five years after the age of 16 when Barack was born (because she herself was only 18 at the time).
....
(T)he qualifications listed in the example quoted above are moot because they refer to someone who was born outside the United States. Since Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, they do not apply to him."

BOTTOM LINE -- FOGGY: Under the law when Obama was born, if he had been born in Kenya, then, since his mother had not lived in America for at least 5 years prior to his birth, he would not have qualified as a birthright citizen.


The record is not trustworthy with regard to who was Obama's father, whether or when he may have been adopted, whether or when he may have acquired Indonesian citizenship, whether or when he may have renounced, or had capacity to renounce, any Indonesian citizenship, if any. However, it seems unlikely that any problem of dual citizenship would bar him.

What does seem clear is that Obama gave us the middle finger about his birth certificate. That he lied about not having used other names. And that America bought a pig in a poke.

Anonymous said...

Dlanor CELT 18 hours ago

I agree. Although top level deciders sometimes sacrifice expendables, I doubt we will ever know whether Pearl Harbor was sacrificed.

In the European Theater, according to the The Imitation Game, when Turing's group broke the Enigma code, informaton that could have saved or warned some ships, or alerted some residents to when bombs could be expected, was often not disseminated to lower levels where the information could be useful. The reason was to prevent the Nazis from suspecting that their code had been broken.

It is not fanciful to expect that Executives will often deploy outrages in order to nudge Legislators and move public opinion.


We live in the PC Age. No shot against the Establishment is cheap. Most people who take shots are punished. Some are suspended, fired, sued for hate expression, have their businesses forfeited, etc. When Trump lays a shape charge against the PC Establishment, he clears the way for Americans to "tear down that wall." Most shots taken by Trump against the Treasonous Establishment have been C4 shape charge shots.

Because Progs and Establishmentarians feel entitled to hate America or Americans, anything that hurts us is to them ground for celebration. When they're in mixed company, they moderate and "walk themselves back" a little. When among themselves, they high five one another.

It's not just ghetto Blacks who want space to destroy. It's all Progs. They mean to destroy and cannibalize every independent republic. Prog progress is progressive destruction of every republic, one after another, every time one pops up. Prog progism is perpetual hatred of competent, responsible parents and adults, against whom Progs hold themselves apart as superior.

The big-tent, common denominator among race baiting Blacks, non-religious American Jews, and jihadi Muslims is their feeling of entitlement and superiority over ordinary, working, responsible Americans, whom they call Race Traitors, House Negroes, and White Privies. Progs reserve only unto themselves the right to profile.

Anonymous said...

When it comes to adults, I am sympathetic to arguments of Libertarians. But they never seem to think about the innocence of kids, except to lower the age of consent. If we had a society with assimilated values of decency, that may work. But we have no such a society. More and more, Progs war among themselves for how to go about exposing our kids to all manner of insane depravities. They protect them from the "hate speech" of conservers of liberty, but they expose them to insane "tolerances." To fight bullying, Progs expose kids to the bullying of sexually fluid social misfits. Nuts.

Like J.Edgar Hoover, Hillary-the-Cackling-Vacuum-Cleaner-Rider wanted to know where the bodies were buried. She learned from Hoover how to ride a vacuum through numerous administrations. She is the Cackling Grandma version of the Nasty Uncle. While she was in the WH, why did Hillary have all those FBI files for so long? Remember Filegate? http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/hillary-clinton-tries-to-escape-from-on-going-filegate-case
Hillary won't be prosecuted because our gov is filled with this kind of people.

Anonymous said...

I think the forms that manifest as Substance (bodies) evolve. It's just that there's more to it than dumb nature. Measurable Substance is just one of three aspects of the Godhead, the other two being Immeasurable Consciousness and Potent Information. Wherever creation or evolution occur, there's an appreciative feedback exchange with the Reconciler, i.e., the Trinitarian Godhead. It works in math, and so it is immeasurable by math.

I agree that it is harder for someone who believes in God, responsible Will, free enterprise, individual responsibility, and who is repulsed by thugs, femi-nazis, and maleweenies to obtain and be promoted to good employment. Such people are often blacklisted -- formally and informally. If they let their mores out of the bag, they will have a tough time in Hollywood, academia, media, and gov employment. (GE fired Ronald Reagan when his Republican sympathies became known. Tolerance for freedom of speech? Dream on.)

Because femi-nazis and maleweenies have been fast-tracked to so many positions, there is a ratcheting effect. Competence decelerates, even as invitations to Marxists and Muslims accelerate. This is a dangerous, sucking maelstrom.

Well, I think godless evolution is a silly idea.

I take spirit to be primary; material bodies to be derivative. I don't believe God has "left the building." I believe the life of Jesus to be a perfect moral exemplar. I believe God works with temporal presets, random number generators, and contemporaneous feedback. Whatever feedback God avails will be consistent with the math whereby the energy with which our cosmic bubble fluxes is conserved. I take the feedback within the unfolding cosmos to be the miraculous signification of God. No miracle in disobedience to that miracle is needed.

I don't believe in Godless evolution or purely happenstance cosmic bubbles. I don't believe any cosmic bubble is create-able without an innate and contemporaneous mix of a trinity: immeasurable Consciousness, measurable Substance, and potent Information. That trinitarian godhead fluxes.

If the Godhead chooses to give expression to new species, that need not pick my pocket. I don't think speciation occurs absent an entailment with consciousness. I don't think natural selection, in respect of "survival of the fittest to replicate" or "selfish gene theory" has much more explanatory or predictive power than tautological or circular rationalization. I don't think AI lifeforms with participatory will are out of the question. And I think "spaghetti monster" laughers are much more silly than wise. I don't think godless moral philosophies can suffice to inspire or preserve a decent civilization.

Anonymous said...

"There’s also a psychological phenomenon whereby people would rather participate in a fraud than admit they’d been duped."

I suspect that psychological phenomenon applies to a lot of people who have been duped in their churches, by ministers who conflate tax redistributions with Christian charity. And by ministers who conflate fairness with tolerance for mind memes that promote indecency.

I am familiar that neo-con evil abides. We both know that manipulators take advantage of sympathetic people and of vengeful people. Somehow, we need to live in the real world in which such manipulators slither about.

I am not an advocate for nation building. When attacked, America should kill its attackers, then return home. Let those who housed the attackers rebuild themselves. However if we do commit to nation building, then commit. Don't re-build Islam. Don't go half-assed -- which is what we did. Don't commit to build "Islamic Democracy." What a disaster! That benefits arms dealers, but it does not benefit human decency.

Re: "We get caught up in superficial things"

Well, WHY do we get caught up in superficial things? I suggest it's because so many among us wring their arms worrying so much about fairness or payback. I guarantee Clockmed and his Daddy did not worry about fairness. Nor do they focus on payback. They focus on jihad. What they planned was how to use our feelings of fairness against us. And they calculated exactly right!

The reason we fail is because we no longer stand for much. Our rulers do not believe in human freedom and dignity under a representative republic. They believe in elitist rule of the masses, worldwide. Our lofos do not believe in human freedom and dignity. They believe in voting to get their share of the stash and "free stuff." The reason we no longer stand for much is because we have lost discipline and defiled our institutions of faith, family, and fidelity. All the wimpering in the world about fairness or payback will not fix that.

NOTE: I should say that my comment was not entirely addressed to you. It grew as much out of my concern for the direction I think our femi-churches are headed. I used to believe they were a support for human freedom and dignity. I now think they have come more to be supports for Marxism and Socialism. I think unmanly and excessive feelings of sympathy and a false sense of fairness and charity are at the root.

Churches have become aligned with Marxists in conflating Big Redistributive Gov with charity. They don't fortify kids with the discipline to grow up and become responsible citizens. Instead, they teach kids to be "fair" -- in the little-girly and ACLU sense of undermining our republic to make it comfortably tolerable to invading Socialists and Muslims.

Re: Consider your reference to the shock experiments.

As things stand, our ruling elitists, in cohort with their controlled media, academia, and well placed preachers and priests, have so trained most people to follow what they deem to be "fair" that our society will now tolerate nearly every shock and outrage --- provided that the media signals that such toleration is only fair.

But for our shocking elitists, what thinking person would consider it unfair to punish Clockmed for bringing a hoax bomb to school?

Anonymous said...

As Mark Twain illustrated in Huckleberry Finn, in the downfall of the King and the Duke, the locals do sometimes come ahowling once someone brave enough sounds out the fraud. I wonder how much longer will we have to endure Obama, Hillary, and the whole Prog show farce, before Trump rallies the townsfolk to chase them out? Otoh, a lot of people spend their lives running and falling for one fraud after another. Which among our candidates do you think is not just the next big fraud?

I think we need more freedom-and-dignity preachers. We need to teach competence to pay those attributes forward. If one is not availed the dignity of mind freedom, one will not really have arrived at any faith. One will simply regurgitate, like a madrassa freak. Jesus wants us to employ our participatory will to find our way to the best moral teachings. There is no human worth in surrendering our participatory will to do only such constrained and repetitve work and sloganeering as our bosses, neighbors, relatives and law require. If that is what Trump seeks to unleash, it can be a good thing. Stuff and prosperity are only byproducts. They can be part of the language, but they, in themselves, are not the message. Spirit is primary; matter is derivative. IMO.

Should we cue Barbara Streisand singing "Feelings"? We have far overdone the femiman-sympathy-fairness thing with regard to Muslims. We have so overdone it that it has evidently become ok to harm America and American men. We have tied ourselves in knots worrying about the feelings of Marxists and Muslims. To be clear, they do not reciprocate. Nor will checking ourselves for planks lead them to reciprocate. They hide behind women and hospitals to use our feelings of fairness against us. Reagan had it right: We win; they lose.

We're in a tight spot and we need to get real about the world as it is. Pussyfooting Christianity is not the be-all. There is such a thing as Soldiering Christianity. The West is suffering because Pussyfooting Christianity chased out the men. The West is now led by Hillary Witches, Merkel Twits, and Obama PajamaBoys. What happened to all the Christian men? What will happen to all the Western women without any Western men?

Anonymous said...

Clockmed should have been made a lesson against irresponsibility. Instead, he was made a lesson in how to screw your country and get rewarded for doing it. We're no longer raising Boy Scouts. We're raising Boy Vandal Marxist Musloids. Obama is not Head Scoutmaster. He is HeadGay Vandal.

The screaming headline should be: Truth Does Not Matter! A near majority of haters of the American republic are absolutely committed to the commie project. Every chance to poke a finger in America's eye is leapt to. There are no repercussions to be feared because the corrupt media will not make its cronies, commies, and culties pay. Certainly, the cronies, commies, and culties care nothing for the truth. And the American people are so distracted with baubles and divided in booty that they make themselves irrelevant. See how even the "Freedom Caucus" folded its circus tent around Ryan.



I think Islam is more a thugocracy posing as a theocracy. Regardless, it is clearly an idiocracy.

Anonymous said...

Either way, Joe knows that the FBI/DOJ are determinative. The upshot: Our republic may come down to a bird in the hands of Obama. That is, whether Obama gives the go-ahead. Is it thumbs up, or thumbs down?

Gerry Spence told a story thusly in a famous case:

Once there was a wise old man and a smart-aleck boy. The boy was driven by a single desire -- to expose the wise old man as a fool. The smart aleck had a plan. He had captured a small and fragile bird in the forest. With the bird cupped in his hands so that the old man could not see it, the boy’s scheme was to approach the old man and ask, “Old man, what do I have in my hand?” To which the wise old man would reply, “You have a bird, my son.”

Then the boy would ask, “Old man, is the bird alive or dead?” If the old man replied that it was dead, the boy would open his hands and allow the bird to fly off into the forest. But if the old man replied that the bird was alive, the boy would crush the bird inside his cupped hands until it was dead. Then the boy would open his hands and say, “See, the bird is dead!”

And so, the smart-aleck boy went to the old man, and he said, as planned, “Old man, what do I have in my hands?” The old man, as predicted, replied, “You have a bird, my son.”

“Old man,” the boy then said with disdain, “is the bird alive or is it dead?” Whereupon the old man looked at the boy with his kindly old eyes and replied, “The bird is in your hands, my son.

****



I really don't know. They could offer not to hurt him, I suppose. I've been disappointed so many times, I don't want to get too high in the air on Trump. If he's real, as he so far appears to be, that would be such an unexpected and savory rarity! Go Trump!

Even if all he does is slam the border shut and kick PC's as* into the 5th dimension, that would be heaven sent.

***

They will be too busy making white men pay for their privileges, making space to plunder, confiscating guns, and investigating officers who refuse to allow themselves to be disarmed.

Wasting away again in Bananaville,
Searching for my lost shaker of justice,
Some people claim that there's a woman to blame,
And I know it's a helluva auspice.

It's not because they're women. It's because they're rotted commie women: Hillary, Huma, ValJar, Rice, DWS.

Anonymous said...



Otoh, I suspect the correlation between lack of gun ownership and despotism against the masses leans highly positive. The more defenseless the people, the more centrally collectivistic the regime. This probably appeals to people who want to be taken care of while they hide under their beds.

The problem is that the spirit of Americans has fattened into a juicy target for corrupt, zealous, asymmetric war fighters -- especially as our institutions of faith and discipline have weakened. Asymmetric war fighters infiltrate and infest. They hide behind women, children, schools, churches, mosques, and charities. They entice us to bomb innocents, then rally mass revulsion against us -- at home and abroad. They infest our colleges, then recruit our own mal-educated and collectively idealistic youth to join their murderous clans and cults.

As we lose faith in the justice and goodness of our own institutions, we surrender our cultural identity to multi-culti rot. We excuse our pols who sell out our resources and defenses to foreign enemies. We don't sustain our own cultural demographic. Even our churches now preach as if God loves not just sinners but sin, even as they preach tolerance for murderous cults that pose as religions. No matter how many recruits a murder cult may mind-enslave, the fact that it is a mind enslaver means it is not a freely chosen religious faith. Rather, it is a mind prison. Even America's churches are now greasing the way to mass mind enslavement: a one-world syndicate of people farms.

The loss of decent faith and faith leaders among the masses has led to their exploitation by every kind of elitist syndicate -- whether based in corrupt cronies, commies, or culties. And still the atheistic humanists argue they can inspire a counter moral defense. Nuts.

If the devil is only a figment of nature, if the struggle between spirit and nature is not real, then it gives a helluvan impersonation.

Anonymous said...

There are two main citizenship controversies: One controversy pertains to the clause about natural born citizens and eligibility to serve as President. Of that one, there is little doubt how the current Scotus would rule.

The other controversy pertains to anchor babies. Of that one, there is nothing in the Constitution except the 14th Amendment, whose language is NOT clearly in support. IAE, the issue would take awhiie to come before Scotus. During that time, the President would be affecting enforcement practice and rallying Congress. He may even be urging a clarifying Amendment and a Convention of States. He may even enjoy an opportunity to replace Ginsburg or Breyer, To say that such a replacement, plus Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts would surely rule for anchor babies is just stupid.

As to immigration, to in effect argue that the U.S. is helpless to preserve an American demographic is as stupid as it is to give succor to the enemy, i.e., elitists who want to bury the republic in a borderless NWO. That is as corrupt as it is stupid.



The people are mad as hell against establishmentarians. The article is just one more anti-America back stab by a shill for establishmentarian NWO poison. You're either for America or you're for the one-worlder, lowest common denominator, Marxist people-farmers. The article is mad that Trump is not a one-worlder. That's all.

Anonymous said...

By a feedback process in which we control parameters, we can appreciate and contrive simulations and repetitions until we happen upon a new species or a new antidote. This is artificially induced evolution.

What we don't know, and can never test for, is whether a Godhead operates in similar fashion (in a trinitarian field of consciousness-substance-information) by using a constant stream of fluxing challenges to guide us towards a favored antidote to evil, i.e., decent civilization.

God may be like a good Rumplestiltskin, and Dawkins-Dennett-Harris just go nuts trying to prove they need not say His name.


I agree that evolution is a description. But for it to be a causal explanation, as opposed to merely a description of correlatives, it would need to postulate a testable and rigorous definition of various of its words that it conflates to its purposes. Words like "fittest" (as in natural selection of the genes that are fittest for replication) and "selfish" (as in the selfish gene -- are individual genes somehow or metaphysically conscious of nearby or distant relatives that they seek to favor?). What about memes? What, really, does "selfish" explain? And, if genes really or statistically evidence "selfish attraction," then must they not, on some meta math level, also evidence "consciousness"?

As things stand, those kinds of words (fittest and selfish) tend to be used more in a circular sense than in a causally testable sense. As in, whatever survives is deemed the fittest by circular reference. But what is "fittest?" Is it rock, paper, or scissors? Is it strength, cunning, camoflage, ruthlessness, poison, numbers, life span, fertility span, fertility frequency, fertility unpredictability, fertility math (cicadas), speed, high metabolism, low metabolism? Is it fittest to a context or field? A math field? What about fast changing fields? Do fields evolve? How do fields evolve?

Of one thing you can be sure: Whatever happens to survive, evolutonary biologists will deem it the fittest. It's a convenient explanation when you can never be wrong because whatever occurs you call it evidence that you were right!

Note: If we live in a math field, if whatever God does is necessarily consistent with math, then God himself would never be testable in math. Rather, we would "know" God only in innate intuition, faith, conscious empathy, self evidence.

A reason we can never know the limits of God is because we can never know all the math. To know all the math, we would need to know the alpha and omega of infinity and eternity. We would need to know in present time all the future states of our active minds. Without that, each time I become aware of any present preference, my knowledge factors into my future decisions about whether to change it. Without knowing the future, I cannot fathom how, in infinite regress, I may change my preferences in respect of unfolding stimulations.

The same would seem to apply to God -- unless God has meta-power to step in and out of the potentialities of our cosmic bubble. But how can the Godhead know the future and yet remain active in our present? May God oscillate among trinitarian functions, and in that way not have "left the building?" It's a mystery.

Anonymous said...


The strident idiocy of knowitall crusaders for atheism is astonishing. If a person wants to take the posture of an atheist, fine. (He can pose, but, try as he might, he cannot eliminate his own adoption of a fluxing system or faith-code for moral or purposeful beliefs. And whatever that code, it will be unsupported in science or math, outside of an innate aspect of conscious intuition, empathy, and self evidence. The only truly faithless atheist is the carcass of a dead atheist.) For a poorly-trained elementary teacher to assume he has reason and science solely on his side is maleducated hubris. As well as abuse of the trust of parents who entrusted their children to his mentoring.

First, the idea of a meta-reconciler of unfolding and consciously directed morality is, by definition, beyond science. If the way the Godhead directs us is consistent with a web of math, then math by itself cannot measure to prove or disprove the Godhead.

So the philosophical basis for belief is in reason that is beyond math or science. The basis is in observation consistent with belief that there is no such thing as measurable matter (Substance) unfolding in space in a cumulation of Information over time -- absent some quality of Consciousness. That an irreducible trinity fluxes to express (manifest) itself as Consciousness-Substance-Information.

The philosophical basis is that Consciousness is an innate aspect of the Godhead. (Atheists cannot show any cosmos that is devoid of an influence of Consciousness.) The basis is that each manifestation of Consciousness that bonds with some local expression of Substance (body) and Information (accumulation of personality) is merely an imperfect local expression and perspective of the essential, fluxing Godhead. That the local personalities that clothe Consciousness are mere temporal attributes, but that the spiritual (meta) aspect of Consciousness from which they derive is as innate and perpetual as the Cosmos.

As to what it feels like to part with local limitations and be reabsorbed to the Holism that expresses the trinity, no atheist has power in math or science to say. As to the reasonableness of belief that something spiritual, beyond matter, sponsors consciousness, try thinking about the nature or character of what appears as matter: Of what is any temporal expression of a particle ultimately comprised, apart from an appearance of spins within spins within spins? Were every layer of spin to be peeled away, what would remain, apart from something that is metaphysical and beyond measure, but which (obviously to every believer) gives expression to every measurable that unfolds?

The Bible is a collection of sacred stories that contain much figurative wisdom, poetry, literature, and history of the ages. It helps center discussions and appreciation concerning the living Godhead. It has helped guide the values that have defined the unfolding of America -- much more so than the intolerant ravings of any commie atheist. Thomas Jefferson attended church servidces in the capitol. The madness of crusading atheists, commies, religious and secular agents of collective despotism, child abusers, family perverters, and gov centralizers needs to be called to account and reversed.

Anonymous said...

Statistical analysis has to do with practical applications for predictive models, as well as with the interface for rationalizing the interplay of the cosmic drivers. The Godhead deals with space-time dependent presets, random generators, and contemporaneous choices. But in every case, the upshot will be consistent with math -- of which statistics is a part. No math, and no statistical argument, will ever prove or disprove the Godhead.

But statisticians try. Theists try by ruses for computing the odds against mere happenstance appearance of our cosmos. Atheists then simply posit a multi-cosmos of illimitable cosmos, so that, statistically, ours is no big deal. Theists say there must have been a first cause, beyond the materialism of our cosmos. Atheists just say, Well, what then created God? Statistical analysis will not answer these questions. There is no objective answer that is available in math. The only "answer" is in looking to one's soul.