Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Reasonableness of the Godhead

META CONSCIOUSNESS AND MATH:  Regardless of the character or nature of any 5th dimensionality of the Meta Consciousness of the Godhead, its subjection of its extensionality to any possible sub-web of any web of math would seem necessarily to implicate Substance and Information.  This is because its extensional functionality in math would implicate renormalizing fluxes in sequences (time) and transference (space).  This is because math implicates sequences and transferences among and across cascading equations, form-ulas, and fractals.  Math necessarily balances and renormalizes to satisfy every possible perspective.

Re:  Will God know if you are good or bad and why?

Tough question.  I don't have a clear way to conceptualize on the subject question.   I have some disjointed musings that would need to be connected, if connection is reasonably possible.  My preliminary attempt to find a way to appreciate the question has so far led me to muse as follows (admittedly, what follows is disjointed):

Meta Consciousness may be conceptualized as consciousness from a superior dimension (5-D?) that encompasses ours, but that is not directly accessible to us.  Somehow, our observational capacities have been confined to a 4-D condition to which we have been adapted.

Such Meta Consciousness may exist, subject to "nothing" more than flux with a web of Math.  The Godhead may consist of a trinitarian aspect:  Consciousness, Substance (Flux of Math), and Information (cumulation of mathematical transformations of patterns).

Whatever patterns such Godhead facilitates for being locally expressed, such patterns would be less than Its holistic self.  Yet, insofar as any 4-D local perspective measurably observes patterns, they will be observed to obey the rules of math that pertain to its 4-D condition.  Whatever the patterns that are locally measurable, they may be considered to be
Substantive.  Such patterns, to be patterns, must conform to whatever the rules of conservation that pertain to those local perspectives that experience and observe them.

Not all such patterns, in themselves, are directly associated with consciousness.  But their fluxing extensionality in a renormalizing medium (space-time) seems to implicate a Web of Consciousness, with which their expression must always be in derivative association.

When a pattern within a pattern becomes generally aware of itself and its context, it appreciates itself as a co-dependent organism, dependent on contextual patterns that nurture it.  The encompassment would seem to be dependent on a Meta-Consciousness that is experiencing itself, subject to its Web of Math.

Not every local pattern expresses appreciation of a kind of consciousness (that is inferior to and derivative of the Meta Consciousness).  Rocks don't appear to think. But every local pattern that does associate with conscious awareness must experience measures of patterns that define its context in ways that are automatically renormalized to be consistent with its perspective.

No thing is locally measurable unless and until a locality is meaningfully amenable of being experienced and appreciated.  No thing is presently communicable unless and until different perspectives to some extent share a same nurturing frame of contextual reference.

At the same time that a local pattern is measurably expressed, an imperfect and derivative perspective of consciousness must, at least to some potential extent, be contextually associated with it.  (Gravity influences me, even if its influence falls under my subconscious appreciation.  Otoh, in what meaningful way could gravity be conceptualized to exist, if no conscious perspective could ever experience or measure it?  It would not do to argue that conscious awareness may belatedly evolve within some such parallel system of gravity, since such an argument, by admitting to the potentiality of such awareness, would defeat its argument that no such awareness was potentially possible.  Once the potentiality of awareness is admitted, so also would be the potentiality for awareness generally to trace back through the cumulation of Information to measure and experience at least its renormalized interpretation of the original effect, however remotely in space-time.)

It would seem that our local perspectives are words (biologos), with which the Godhead "thinks" and makes its thinking manifest.  If so,the Godhead would know what we think and do because the only things we can think and do relate to our imperfect and sub-conscious perspectives and thoughts of the Godhead.


God in the Quad -- Ronald Knox

There was a young man who said, "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."

Dear Sir:
Your astonishment's odd:
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,


Nothing, as some people apparently conceive it, is not really nothing.  Whatever it is, if it is, then it IS something. 

I think what contributes to confusion is a tendency among some to believe that a thing cannot exist unless it can be measured in respect of a system of physics.  Such people may believe qualitatives (God, spirit, soul, Will, meta-consciousness, purposefulness, morality, the past, etc.), do not "really" or "presently" exist because they cannot be fitted to a quantifying construct.

What "is" "the present"?  Is it a real "thing" that is here and now the same for every perspective and context?

If Substance is conceptualized as that which is measurable, and that which is measurable depends for its measurability on contextual perspective (observer effect), then the existentiality of Substance entails at least the contemporaneous existence of Consciousness of perspective. And transference of Substance across space-time entails a contemporaneous communication (representation, cumulation, interpretation, and feedback) of Information.

Thus, a unifying trinity of Substance, Consciousness, and Information appears to be necessarily co-existential.  One fluxing, unfolding, reconciling Godhead.  For which the Reconciling Consciousness is, always was, and always will be.

It is how we intuit and empathize with the Godhead, whether or not we conceptualize it as above, that influences much about the way our civilization unfolds.  We participate in determining whether we are to have a decent, humane, free thinking, dignified society or a society of amoral, orgiastic, wussy, gang-banging, rationalizers for fascists.


How is it that any-thing can flux from no-thing to relate in any meaningful or balancing way to other things? Unless, that is, "meta-consciousness" has always been coordinate with existentiality.
If consciousness was never not a factor, then its functioning in any conservational way would seem to implicate an unending stream of fractal like evolvements. Perhaps more like an essential, reconciling, self-evident Guider than a self-creator.
Yes, math based parameters appear to define limits for our mortal experiences and shared cosmos, but they seem not to dictate our specific choices. Rather, those seem to be guided as part of an unfolding feedback relationship with a Reconciler, that balances both that which is measurable in math and that which is appreciable in consciousness.
However, neither empiricism nor logic (nor statistics or probabiities) can likely "prove" such a faith. (Every contrived analysis of probabilities simply begs reference to a recedingly wider frame of reference, until that which first seemed a miracle is sensed merely to be a happenstance.)
Rather, such faith seems for its "reasonableness" to depend more on self intuition, fleshed out by communications and apprehensions in the language of metaphors. At best, it seems such faith ("intuitive self evidence"?) can strive for consistency, coherence, maybe meaningful poetry -- but seemingly not completeness or mathematical proof (whether in logic, arithmetic, geometry, calculus, or statistics).

Nothing, as some people apparently conceive it, is not really nothing. Whatever it is, if it is, then it IS something.
I think what contributes to confusion is a tendency among some to believe that a thing cannot exist unless it can be measured in respect of a system of physics. Such people may believe qualitatives (God, spirit, soul, Will, meta-consciousness, purposefulness, morality, the past, etc.), do not "really" or "presently" exist because they cannot be fitted to a quantifying construct.
What "is" "the present"? Is it a real "thing" that is here and now the same for every perspective and context?


What "is" a "condition of no-thingness"?  Can we even intelligently conceptualize it?  Or is it more like a condition that never existed?

That's my point.  So consider the ramifications. 

Same with the potentiality of the wider cosmos.  Our particular bubble-universe was not always existent (at least not under its present math based constraints).  But perhaps its potentiality was (and is) ALWAYS PRESENT.  (Is the Past, if it ever "really" existed, ever "really" gone?)

A trinitarian way to conceptualize this flux would be to consider (1) Measurable (to a point of view within a [finitely?] shared but open and unfolding [unbounded?] framework) Substance (Math), (2) Cumulating Information (Communication), and (3) Qualitative Conscious Apprehension (Reconciling Feedback). 

Trinitarian Flux:  Substance, Information, Consciousness.  Each implicates the other two.  None is in itself independent.

God (Reconciler) has not left the building (Potentiality).  Rather, it is not unreasonable to intuit that God and Potentiality have always been present, and always will be present.  We don't have pure free will because we function within constrained parameters (even as those parameters flux, open, and "unfold").  Rather, we avail expression of Participatory Will, which is reconciled within an unfolding, open system of substantive potentiality (finite but unbounded? --- confined by attachment to a Web of Math, but for which positive accretions and mirror negative accretions are unlimited in Potentiality?).

Heaven may be more a journey than a place.  Along the way, Pilgrims for the Reconciler have good faith (Great Commandment) and good will (Golden Rule) to help sustain and inspire them. 

Scientismists (rationalizers of closed-system, non-provable, amoral hypotheses), Pagans (servants of constructs that fail to appreciate good faith or good will), and Muslims (depraved head cutters for forcing dogma) have howling moral insanity.



I am not sure what the author means by "life."  However, as to Conscious Perspective(s) (participating to preserve or express measurable and meaningful patterns with respect to ever wider systems of Reconciliation), I don't see how the same could fail  to exist in at least some capacity at some layer or level -- now, before, and always.



- Meta Consciousness is the immeasurable stuff whose idealizations interfunction with an innate field of math to project that which its inferior perspectives observe to abide as measurables of Substance.
- Substance consists of those locally renormalized measurables that are signified to and experienced by perspectives adapted to their unfolding localities.
- Information consists of past cumulations of Substance now availed as sequentialized records and representations.

Consciousness functions in the present based on cumulations of Information from the past to transition presentations of Substance that flow from potentiality to manifestation to recorded history.  C,S, I are interdependents, each abiding as a fluxing face of the Godhead.

Substance is the placeholding signification of present Consciousness.
Information is the sequential storehouse of the knowledge of Consciousness.
Consciousness is that without which there would abide no meaningful Substance or Information.

Substance itself would not exist without means for signifying it and then storing it.  It itself is not Conscious, but it is the signification of Consciousness.
Consciousness itself is not measurable, but is the innate companion of all that is measurable.
Information itself is not the rule of math, but is the aura of the innate field of Math.
The Godhead is that through which, as companion to field of Math, all that is potential is subject to idealization or manifestation.

No comments: