Saturday, December 30, 2017

WIP



If spiritual and mental health relate to a decent regard for the dignity of other free thinkers, then much of our institutions for law, academia, business, media, entertainment, and church are thoroughly corrupt --- whether by stupid incompetence or trained and malignant ignorance. The people taking payment to help corrupt oligarchs kill the representative republic are so reprehensible that to call them spiritually un-sane and evil is a fair characterization.

****

Like the Movie, Bonnie and Clyde, Dicky is selling radical chic. He is virtue signaling as the way of the times for making himself rich. In reality, he cares for the little people about as much as Bonnie and Clyde or Jessie James cared. If Dicky-People ever actually resolved any social problem, they would no longer be able to milk it.

See https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269018/movie-made-moral-idiocy-chic-bruce-thornton:

"Truth doesn’t matter, as long as you’re in fashion. Politics isn’t about coherent principle and the possible, it’s about stylistic display, sensibility, and politically correct sentiment, a way for the privileged to show how much better they are than everybody else. Worse, this attitude has legitimized a complete disconnect between word and deed, between what one says and how one lives. Privilege and power can now be enjoyed and indulged, as long as one mouths the proper progressive pieties: conspicuous consumption is OK if one agonizes over income inequality, and King Kong-sized carbon footprints accepted if one rails against global warming.
In short, “Bonnie and Clyde” is a milestone in the transformation of American culture from one that reflects the mentality of adults, to one that enshrines the mentality of teenagers; one that celebrated moral intelligence to one that revels in moral idiocy. Unfortunately, an adolescent disregard for reality and an obsession with fashion and feeling are dangerous indulgences in a world filled with ruthless enemies who see our cultural immaturity as the sign of our moral exhaustion and deserved extinction."

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

Conning stupid (and young, gullible, well-meaning) people has always been an easy path to riches. Now, it has been made a near science. So what does a person do, when he wakes up to find he has been conned? (1) He can take his lumps and resolve to become a better and wiser person. (2) He can confront the Con, demand satisfaction, and perhaps get his nose busted or get hired to play the Con downstream. (3) He can observe PC trends, when other people realize they have been conned, to decide whether to start his own offshoot from the Con.

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

The socialist-entitlement-free stuff-race Con has become so pervasive, the far easier path is not to fight it but to mouth its PC --- in order to manipulate others for payment and profit. Like so much of Oligopoly, Hollywood, Congress, Media, Church, Academia, and Fake Moral Science do.

Standing up to the pervasive infestation of the Big Lie Big Con is very hard. It tends to get you shushed, shunned, suspended, striped, sacked, or slaughtered.

Still, to advance it is cowardly and depraved. So, when one is too weak to call the Con for what it is, how does one relieve the painful cognitive dissonance? Easy. One convinces oneself that the Con is actually a good thing. That Ignorance is Strength. As one then goes about tooling and fooling his children, friends, and country. One can even embrace the Con and make it a kind of religion. Or pipe dream for Dreamers.

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

The 1965 Immigration Act is a case study lesson. Appearance-diversity is fine. Political-diversity and liberty-illiteracy, not so much. When an immigrant's status is indicative of his political conditioning, then a nation that wants to preserve and defend its laws and traditions for assimilating a representative republic needs to be wary. Especially as fascist moochers learn how to launder and corrupt the nation's monetary, tax, and regulatory systems in order to acquire and expand total control and indoctrination over the masses. Review Orwell's 1984 (Theory and Practice of Oligarchic Collectivism).

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

I notice that Hollywood and TV media promote non-repulsive privilege. They do not put many people in front of cameras who are visually repulsive. This promotes non-diversity for repulsives (or looks-challenged). It is very prejudicial, hypocritical, and downright bad. Also, every person who marries a good looking spouse is practicing and promoting non-repulsive privilege. Since people did not build their genes before they were born, this is extremely unfair.

The only way an Open Society can make this kind of invidious unfairness equal is to require everyone who wants a child to submit dna to build an embryo, and then to draw randomly from an embryo pool.

Same with TV and movie jobs. Instead of auditions (which are inherently discriminatory and therefore unfair), everyone interested should be allowed to put their name in for a random drawing.

Same with publications and films. Everyone should put their desired publication or film in for random drawing. Likewise for movie attendance. All theater-goers should buy their tickets first and then be randomly assigned to view different films. And so on. Fairness, Equality, and Human Progress demand it!

Alternatively, we should just fund Nihilists so they can blow the world up as quickly, painlessly, fairly, and equally as possible. Sean Penn, Jamie Lee Curtis, Stephen Colbert, Meryl Streep, and all the usual best and brightest should be hired to promote this asap.

**********

They are all oligarchs who want an Open Society where the masses can be farmed by scientific and moral experts. The masses are hoodwinked to believe they would be getting "fair socialism," while what they are really being delivered to is a system of cheap labor for fascist rulers. Read Orwell's 1984 concerning Emmanuel Goldstein and the Theory and Practice of Oligarchic Collectivism. This is why Dinos and Rinos are in an unholy alliance. Calling the fascist rulers of such a system right wingers and their victims left wingers makes no sense so long as they are part of an unholy alliance for oligarchic collectivists. Go do some better thinking. It is the very fact that 7 corporations run the media that is so indicative that we are being sold out to oligarchic collectivism.

Problem is, what these deep thinkers really mean is lowest-common-denominatorísm. Or what we will have when we put Sharia Law, Oligarchic Collectivism, and Fascist Holes on a par with National Law.

Of course the Lib media fawns over Obama! They are owned by the people who want to run a new world sheeple farm. With cheap labor, open borders, no personal responsibility, and elites ruling everyone under the new Moral Science.

I would have been prouder of Neville Chamberlain. Or maybe the Grasshopper that fooled around all day and then wanted the Ant to help him when Winter came.

******************
Durbin doesn't want to build a wall, because he wants the borders to remain porous. IOW, he works not for the republic, but for those who want to undermine the U.S. His calculation is that it is better to prevent the wall, even if it causes DACA people to be deported --- especially if Dems can use Mindless Media to make political hay against Trump and Republicans as a result. Total dishonest POS. He does not care about either the little people or the republic. He cares about his fascist funders and hoodwinked base.

Per http://www.freedompost.org/traitor/richard-durbin-self-serving-immoral-sob.html: "On September 18, 2008, Durbin participated in a closed-door meeting with then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who briefed Durbin and other congressional leaders on the gravity of the financial crisis that was beginning to hit the American economy. The next day, Durbin sold off $42,696 in mutual-fund shares; before the end of the month, he had sold off another $73,000 in shares. Then the stock market collapsed. By October 17, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had plunged by 22%."

Per https://www.salon.com/2009/04/30/ownership/: "Sen. Dick Durbin, on a local Chicago radio station this week, blurted out an obvious truth about Congress that, despite being blindingly obvious, is rarely spoken: "And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place." The blunt acknowledgment that the same banks that caused the financial crisis "own" the U.S. Congress -- according to one of that institution's most powerful members -- demonstrates just how extreme this institutional corruption is."

"One might think it would be a big news story for the second most-powerful member of the U.S. Senate to baldly state that the Congress is "owned" by the bankers who spawned the financial crisis and continue to dictate the government's actions. But it won't be. The leading members of the media work for the very corporations that benefit most from this process. Establishment journalists are integral and well-rewarded members of the same system and thus cannot and will not see it as inherently corrupt (instead, as Newsweek's Evan Thomas said, their role, as "members of the ruling class," is to "prop up the existing order," "protect traditional institutions" and "safeguard the status quo")."


***************
You keep missing the point. Conservatives live in the real world. It's Libs that play in lalaland. Libs use the term racist as I indicated, basically to call names against anyone who is not willing to nurse them forever. You need to ask yourself; Why do libs insist on calling every white person who believes in limited gov under a representative republic a racist? Why do you do that and then pretend to follow dictionary standard definitions?

I think Lib b.s. blinds them to responsible adult reality. Especially when they acquire and use power to pull blinders over their eyes and mufflers over their ears, as they ban, shush, suspend, fire, and punish everyone who disagrees with them. Google is becoming a travesty. As are some of the Disqus forums. Lately, Libs take to citing the poem on the Statue of Liberty, as if it were any part of the Constitution or any legislation. And even if it were, it talks about "your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" -- not about your gangsta whiners yearning to suck the blood of producers, forever.

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

More people are waking up to the fact that the common usage for the word racist has changed. What racist used to apply to was race baiters. Now, a racist is anyone who has woken up to the fact that race baiters tend to be the most execrable, fraudulent, wussieflake, moochers imaginable. IOW, a racist now means anyone who sees race baiters for what they really are. What formerly were racists should now be called race baiters. Racist should be reserved as a term to honor every person who stands against sub-humanizing, evil, groupthink.

Likewise regarding misogynist and supremacist. They should become terms for persons who pride themselves for being willing to learn to think for themselves, against codependent femi-baiters, herd-baiters, and other incorrigible wussieflakes.

People are waking up to realize we do not need to import, indoctrinate, tolerate, or specially fund or favor any more wussieflake baiters. We are a nation of immigrants yearning to breathe free. Not a nation of wussieflakes yearning to become perpetual, class-superficial, parasites.

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

S**thole: A place that has become overrun with socialists, communists, jihadists, antifa, Dems, BLM, CAIR, ACLU, or ADL.

Racist: Anyone who is inspired by the American Bill of Rights and the ideal of a decent republic of free-thinking and productive citizens. Same definition applies to: Misogynist, Chauvinist, Supremacist, Bigot. All those words are interchangeable now with Racist.

A s**thole is also anyplace where such persons are silenced and denounced. Shunned by anti-republicans. Also, any room inhabited by Durbin, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, Schumer, de Blasio, Soros or their ilk.

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

Why do wannabe people farmers and people farmees think DJT is terrible for wanting to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. as an independent representative republic? What is wrong with these fascist weenies of goose-stepping femimen and femi women? If there is such a thing as goodness, then there is such a thing as ungoodness. A person who wants to reduce independent, competent, free-thinking human beings to sheeple is un-good. And there are way too many of these ilk now infested within our borders.

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

Children have a right to act like children. But moral responsibility will still reside with individuals. The world requires that people grow up or pay the consequences. The historically discredited idea of class consciousness is what tends to keep us divided and farmed. Competent individuals would do better to celebrate and work on opportunities. The kind of immigrants a sustainable society should desire are the kind that will become responsible producers, not the kind that want to mooch and blame others for their situations. That way lies Venezuela and the ash heap. No class can help any other class whose individual members are incorrigibly conditioned to feel themselves more entitled than responsible. No child or class of children ever became competent adults while under the spell of that kind of reasoning. Nor can any successful nation long sustain itself while under the spell of that kind of childish and shameful reasoning. People have a right to protest the National Anthem. But veterans also have a right to find that kind of protest to be shameful.

******************
Obviously, children and many very young, nurturing mothers are codependent and need to be instructed and controlled. They need to be shielded against predators, dope peddlers, pimps, phony preachers, and abusive paternalists. Problem is, a lot of people never grow up to become competent, free-thinking adults, able to trust in their own abilities or thoughts. Such people tend to WANT to remain slaves. They want to be told what to think, by people who pretend to be looking out for them.

For them, big government can mollify their feelings of inadequacy and provide cover for fascist people farmers. They become dangerous when they are freed from working for slaver businesses, especially if they begin milling around in crowds that are susceptible to being agitated by radicals. After some number of years of being bred and conditioned by dope and entitlement propaganda, such perpetual children and liberty-illiterates become incorrigible. They need either to be kept busy or out of the country. Most simply cannot be fixed or reformed.

It is hard to think of a modern institution that is not now bent towards indoctrinating and producing wannabe farmee sheeple. Many students even incur gross indebtedness for the privilege of being thoroughly sub-humanized.

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

Why do wannabe people farmers and people farmees think DJT is terrible for wanting to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. as an independent representative republic? What is wrong with these fascist weenies of goose-stepping femimen and femi women? If there is such a thing as goodness, then there is such a thing as ungoodness. A person who wants to reduce independent, competent, free-thinking human beings to sheeple is un-good. And there are way too many of these ilk now infested within our borders.

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

To design a devolution towards a depraved society, it is necessary to condition the society to make tolerance of depravity a virtue. Genetic drag is eating our brains. Who most wants this? Answer: Incompetents and those who want to farm Incompetents. Because Dems want perpetual replenishment of a reliably dependent voting base, they can never advocate for solutions that would actually reduce incompetence and dependence.

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

Trump's policies are dangerous to the lifestyles of anti-Americans, illegal aliens, swamp moochers, smug pinkie waggers, child groomers, decadent Hollywoodians, academically certified halfwits, Sharia lovers, and parasites who vote for a living. To the Left, this is very bad.

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

By Oprah-logic, I suppose all whites who are not self-subjugationists must be white supremacists. Many of our Founders had a vision of a society based on character, not color. Unfortunately, most of the immigrants we have imported and the non-whites we have "educated" seem now to respect no such vision. Rather, their vision is resetting the scales based almost exclusively on superficial and irresponsible traits other than character. Such as race, gender, orientation, origination.

So it has come to pass that we have The Covetous preparing for war against The Responsible. Covetousness instead of initiative. Fascists cannibalizing the republic by agitating the most character-less to demonstrate and loot for fake fairness and equality.

If there is such a thing as goodness, then there is also such a thing as un-goodness, or evil. If there is goodness in a person, then it is in the character of the person as a responsible individual. If there is evil in a person, then it is in the character-less-ness of the person, for looting from others under the fakery of seeking fairness.

A war is coming, between responsible individuals versus covetous herd-swine (who seek to marry the gov) and their new godling, Oprah, and her prime fake virtue-signaler, Streep.

*************
The ideal for American citizenship pertains to promoting respect for grown-ups as they participate responsibly in civic affairs. The ideal for anti-American scientisimists pertains to promoting respect for knowitall modelers of moral science.

The anti-Americans see no point in promoting ideals such as faith in higher mindedness, participatory freedom, or freedom of association. Rather, since they have been thoroughly indoctrinated to believe they and their compatriots know best in all concerns, and that what is best should be determined not by free-thinking adults but by trained moral or Marxist scientists, they want to destroy and replace all vestiges and remnants of participatory freedom.

Anti-Americans see no need for human freedom if human security, well being, fairness and equality are to be secured by elite scientisimists, funded by gov-fiat money and controlled by select masters. Anti-Americans are mal-informed about history. If history evidences anything, it evidences that to trade freedom for security tends to be to trade human purposefulness for human serfdom.

Indeed, anti-Americans are often so bedazzled by their phony vision that they become blind to the illogic of their conceptualizations. Their forte is to try to convince any person who disagrees with them that he has a burden or proof instead of a burden of persuasion. Indeed, they slide around in their ambiguous usages of "proof" and "evidence" to such an extent that it often becomes hopeless to try to reason with them.

Regardless, this much is clear: If Americans do not defeat the confused and perverse union of anti-Americans, then it is their common, infantile, and race-gender-orientation based purpose to flood our electorate with so many liberty-illiterates that it will become impossible for human freedom and dignity to survive on this earth.

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

The things that seem to be free yet to have value are things that were secured by the sweat, blood and tears of our forebears. For example, freedom is not free. Parental love is not free. A soldier's devotion to his country is not free. And education most certainly is not free.

**********************
More nonsense. I would just as well suggest igsimulation, to indicate the idea that, until simulation is adequately defined, the question of the existence of a simulation of the universe we appear to inhabit has no unambiguous meaning.

Also, igatheist, because the term atheist does not appear to convey any unambiguous meaning (apart from dramatic stance). It conveys bias, but not knowledge or probability. Moreover, it does not convey any unambiguous idea of the god or gods in which its users believe does not exist.

Now, if god is thought of as being fully defined by an idea of a giant spaghetti monster, then I am an atheist concerning such an idea of god. But if the idea of a godhead encompasses a capacity beyond our measure but not beyond our intuition, that helps guide our conceptualizations, then it would make no sense to believe or disbelieve such a concept simply because it relates to an immeasurable. (Is the origin or the limits or center to our cosmos measurable?)

**********

EDIT: My "explanation" is not that Goddidit. My explanation is that Consciousness, including that of our own, participates with the unfoldment of a math-field to avail "it." My explanation is that we have no choice but to seek purposefulness as we live with a continuous and reconciling unfolding. And that no particular Explainer or TOE-scientism can or should dictate all. Even if imagined to be in the service of aesthetic parsimony. Alternatively stated, live free or die.

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

I agree with much of what you say except for this: You say we probably live in a simulation, yet you believe no one designed the simulation. That seems incoherent.

I do not see a need to posit a simulation, since, being unprovable, like string theory, it adds nothing.

What I do see in common with other members of our society is consciousness. I see that as a ground for inspiring, encouraging, and assimilating civilizing empathy. Pertaining to what we should be doing.

If you have a postulate to take the place of shared consciousness, It is not apparent. Seems barren. Or maybe you see the determination of what everyone should be doing as a matter only for science and scientists? If so, my empathetic response would be: Piz off.

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

You say: If it is possible to build a simulator, then if is almost certain that we live in a simulation.

I say: That does not convey much meaning unless you provide some more rigorous definition for a simulation. For example, if simulator were taken to mean mousetrap, it would not mean much to say we almost certainly live in a mousetrap.

You say a simulation could almost certainly evolve without a design and definitely without a designer.

I personally do not take issue with that, because I do not look upon the Godhead as an original designer. I do not see much point in such speculation. Our cosmos abides. I think it more reasonable to consider that our existentiality (and previous existentiality) simply abides. Maybe in sometimes sudden and/or evolving phase shifts, but, still, abiding.

Still, math-based rules (algorithms) apply. I don't analogize the Godhead as an omniscient designer. More as a participatory mathematician. If simulation means math-field, I think that is a useful way of thinking. But I do not think the math-field "self-maths." I think a "mathematician" is entailed, to activate/actuate the math. The "design" for the math-field entails feedback. An idea of a limiting system that avails flux and feedback among parts is consistent with an idea of a law of conservation of matter and energy and unfolding entropy, is it not?

I don't believe the idea of a scientific TOE for specifying moral interactions among people, beings, civilizations makes sense. I think it is not just silly, but evil.  One cannot very well believe or function as if goodness tend to abide unless one also believes or functions as if in-goodness is also possible.

I suspect you are so blinded by scientific greed that a great deal of common sense no longer makes sense to you. Are you conscious? Are you a thinking identity? Do you think you are the only one who experiences that? Do you think other beings experience that? That they "share" in experiencing that? Is this really hard for you?

What do you mean by progress? Do you believe in social progress? Evolutionary progress? Nihilistic progress? Displacement of humanity progress? What does your idea of science say about progress?

I do not imagine any idea can be represented or conveyed from one perspective to another without resort to what can be signified and measured. But I also do not believe that any non-trivial idea can be conveyed, whether rigorously or not, without a back and forth in good faith between perspectives of consciousness. I think whatever the Godhead signifies is in math-based measurables. But it's the purpose-driven, back and forth, interpretations of those significations that go beyond complete measure in science. Context, experience, interpretation, and memory (stored information) are part of the mix. Present measurable manifestation is not the end-all be-all. Play will mean different things to different dogs, often depending on the histories of their relationships and experiences. Sorting out the meaning necessitates skills more than those for making "rigorous" definitions.

I suspect your idea of aesthetics as an additional ground is stunted to something like elegance or parsimony. My idea of aesthetics would encompass respect for adults to be generally entrusted to live their own lives, not bound by despots pretending to be "progressive scientists of TOE morality."

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





I tend to agree with some of what you say. But I find your formula ("an honest effort to follow the evidence as far as possible, and no further") to be not a particularly helpful formula. (J.S. Mill deployed a similar formula regarding the limits of liberty. Such as, to the limit of another person's nose. But he and his followers soon expanded to the limits of another's sense of smell, then to his sense of danger, then to his sense of utility-pleasure-well beingness, etc., until the so-called formula became essentially worthless --- unless as a homily based on conscious good faith.)

People are confronted by complex and significant concerns, such as: How should I prioritize my time, what should I sacrifice, what should I study, with whom should I spend time, should I marry and have kids, to what purposes should I devote my life, who should I help, what do I owe my country, what politicians and policies should I support or oppose, what scientific and technological activities should I support or hinder, how should I raise my children, should I support welfare addicts, should I undermine my nation's borders, should I be tolerant of refugees who want to impose domination over females, should I engage in activities that entail danger, should I help deport illegal aliens, what kinds of stories and parables should I familiarize my children with, etc.

So, how does your formula (or scientism) provide objective help for people facing such issues?

I think your notion that m-theory "can model everything we see in our universe (and precludes that which we do not)" is a "fact" is, well, silly.

First, you say science does not do proof, but then you cite m-theory as being fact grounded. Are you suggesting m-theory is factually true? If not, what are you suggesting? Perhaps you have not thought your notions through?

It appears you want to assume a theory can lead to objective answers for every concern, but then circle back to take your theory as proven ... because of your assumption. That is over-greedy scientism.

Is it possible that your ideational faith concerning m-theory has become so based in non-provable metaphysics that you use it to replace the metaphysics of string theory?

Is it possible for any scientifically testable model to deal with issues of original or pre-bang creation or subsequent or abiding unfolding? Can science lead to objective answers for testing or finding the limits or edge of our universe, or even its center?

May models shed light regarding the nature or character of limits concerning possibilities under usages of science? Would those models for any purposes be philosophical, scientific, testable, falsifiable, or useful?

Is science part of natural philosophy? Has natural philosophy "expired"?

Do you "really" (sincerely?) believe core m-theory "captures" everything any perspective (whether human, trans-human, or alien) has or will ever experience?

What do you mean by a simulator? Must a simulation be built by a designing (conscious) simulator, or may a simulation just "randomly" fall out of nothingness or chaos? When it appears that a simulation previous to our own may have been entailed, but beyond information within ours, who are you to say whether that simulation may or must have entailed or not entailed a kind of consciousness?

Regarding the consciousness of such sponsor, when you say it does, does not, or cannot be known (or appreciated), then aren't you engaging in speculative metaphysical faith? Or, perhaps you simply intend to define consciousness in a way to ensure your point prevails, trivially, by the way you define your terminology?

Because why? Because you hate the idea of God? Or that any other adult may claim a superior right over knowitall scientismists to decide for himself what is best for himself? How can the root (or non-root?) for the existence of anything-at-all be other than beyond the kin of methods of science? Apart from assumptive faith, can your m-theory objectively prove how existentiality abides or came to abide?

The problem with knowitall scientism is this: it often leads to knowitall despots trying to run every one else's life. Because, after all, "science knows." s/


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

Proof of objective substances may be beyond us. After all, if science pertains only to pursuits based on theories that are falsifiable, then can science "prove" anything that is not tautological? Must not every person who is individually competent or functional believe (in the sense of act on) scientific theories, even when they are only evidentiary or reasonably useful, but not provable? Is not every functioning person reliant on beliefs, conceptualizations, models, insofar as they seem most reasonably suited to serve his purposes, whether they be technological (science based) or sociological (morality based)?

Among some powerful mathematicians, suspicion is growing that our cosmos really may be comprised of not much more than an algorithmic design for a field of math. That the physical appearances and properties expressed with it are derivative of a capacity in innate Consciousness (God?) to spin (vibrate?) and organize into different perspectives that are only temporally separate. This would seem not necessarily to discredit God, but to enhance a way of thinking about God.

String Theory was perhaps an attempt to frame a Theory of Everything that might take the metaphysical out of what is non-measurable. As I have been led to believe, String Theory is based on an idea of unprovable tiny loops of two dimensional strings, whose vibrations function to produce all of physically measurable substance. These unprovable strings are postulated (believed on faith) by some to constitute the ultimate "physical" things from which all other physical things are derived. However, these strings are innately so far beyond physical measurement that to call them physical rather than metaphysical is too far a stretch for any purely logic-based conceptualization.

So string theory seems to have waned in popularity as a basis for a Theory of Everything (Holy Grail for so-called Non-Believers).

If a consistent, coherent, complete theory of everything is impossible for mortals to achieve, then perhaps the best that can be done is to try to approach such a theory as closely as possible and in a way that does not unduly damage civilizing good faith and good will.

Although not complete, the idea underlying String Theory seems to avail a kind of math-based consistency. No one knows (or can know?) the ultimate nature or character of such postulated, but unprovable, strings. In that sense, conceptualizing them is a stretch to metaphysics. So the math seems to be based on connecting meta vibrations to physically measurable vibrations.

But what could account for those meta strings and the math-based system they obey? Must such strings (or whatever the idea of them is meant to represent) be of a purely inanimate and unconscious nature, or may they be indicative of a correlative conscious character? No human can know or prove.

Yet, we can intuit and experience. We have more than five senses. We also have a sense of math, of balance and of being. We can note how conscious observations seem to be fundamental to the way the cosmos finds expression. Something about the unfoldment seems to require consciousness, as if a system of consciousness were innate. That is interesting, even though its nature may be beyond math or science-based proof.

The apparent innateness of Consciousness, is, I think, a reasonable basis for moral belief systems that can help guide civilizing good faith and good will. More so than just trusting to elitist, priestly, scientismic, or expert diktat to rule the mass of sheeple and fill their snowflaky heads with phony ideas about equality, fairness, free stuff, safe spaces, and "science of morality."

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

What is a student whose profs lead him to believe in Non-Personage on Fridays the 13th, Jesus on Mondays, Allah on Tuesdays, Satan on Wednesdays, Kim Jung Un and Ancient Aliens on Thursdays, Selfish Genes on Fridays, Great Spirit on Saturdays, and Football on Sundays --- except between 1 and 2 a.m., when he believes in Pythagoras --- except in Leap Years, when he believes in Utilitarian Scientism and Well Beingness and A.I. Transhuman Nihilism? Is "He" a believing Non-Believer, a Non-believing Believer, a walking Contrarian, trained Bot, a Minor Deity, a Reconstructed Cloud Identity In Progress, or ....

Is there some kind of litmus test to nail him down to what he is? Are these categories "real" or are they just metaphysically fluxing contrivances?

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

Among some powerful mathematicians, suspicion is growing that our cosmos really may be comprised of not much more than an algorithmic design for a field of math. That the physical appearances and properties expressed with it are derivative of a capacity in innate Consciousness (God?) to spin (vibrate?) and organize into different perspectives that are only temporally separate. This would seem not necessarily to discredit God, but to enhance a way of thinking about God.

Not sure I can parse your meaning. Regardless, as I have been led to believe, String Theory is based on an idea of unprovable tiny loops of two dimensional strings, whose vibrations function to produce all of physically measurable substance. These unprovable strings are thought by some to constitute the ultimate "physical" things from which all other physical things are derived. However, these strings are so far beyond physical measurement that to call them physical rather than metaphysical is a stretch in logic-based conceptualization. So string theory seems to have waned in popularity as a basis for a Theory of Everything. If a consistent, coherent, complete theory of everything is impossible for mortals to achieve, then perhaps the best that can be done is to try to approach such a theory as closely as possible and in a way that does not unduly damage civilizing good faith and good will.

Although not complete, the idea underlying String Theory seems to avail a kind of math-based consistency. No one knows (or can know?) the ultimate nature or character of such postulated, but unprovable, strings. In that sense, conceptualizing them is a stretch to metaphysics. So the math seems to be based on connecting meta vibrations to physically measurable vibrations.

But what could account for those meta strings and the math-based system they obey? Must such strings (or whatever the idea of them is meant to represent) be of a purely inanimate and unconscious nature, or may they be indicative of a correlative conscious character? No human can know or prove.

Yet, we can intuit and experience. We have more than five senses. We also have a sense of math, of balance and of being. We can note how conscious observations seem to be fundamental to the way the cosmos finds expression. Something about the unfoldment seems to require consciousness, as if a system of consciousness were innate. That is interesting, even though its nature may be beyond math or science-based proof. The apparent innateness of Consciousness, is, I think, a reasonable basis for moral belief systems that can help guide civilizing good faith and good will. More so than just trusting to elitist, priestly, or expert diktat to rule the mass of sheeple and fill their snowflaky heads with phony ideas about equality, fairness, free stuff, safe spaces, and "science of morality."

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

They are conceptualize-ably real categories for persons, if ego-identities with conceptualizations are included within one's working definition for what is existentially real. But some people may consider themselves to be nothing more than fleeting epiphenomena, being neither responsible nor "really real."

Next, someone will be constructing a test for belief sincerity. Linus "really" and SINCERELY believed in the Great Pumpkin. If enough people sincerely believe, the Great Pumpkin will come. Or Scientific Socialism will finally really work. S/

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

Under your terms, the agnostic atheist, alternatively stated, conceptualizes his belief that no god exists. He may conceptualize his belief based on (1) lack of physical evidence, and (2) lack of a non-physically evidentiary way for conceptualizing a god that could satisfy demands in logic based on consistency, coherence, and completeness.

For a concept of god that pertains to something that is beyond physics (metaphysics), the lack of physical evidence as a basis to disbelieve seems incoherent.

But what about a god for which non-belief is based on lack of a conceptualization about metaphysics that is consistent, coherent, and complete?

Such a non-believer would seem to have faith to the extent that his mind has not yet experienced a concept about metaphysics that is consistent, coherent, and complete.

A believer, otoh, would seem to have faith to the extent his mind has experienced a concept about metaphysics that tends towards consistency, coherence, and completeness.

If logical completeness in conceptualization is not possible for a mortal, then both the believer and the non-believer would seem to flux in a state of cognitive dissonance. Each may tend to adopt the position that reduces cognitive discomfit. Depending on mental state, the position of neither would seem necessarily to be irrational.

************
Or, a believer may simply take literal supernatural claims to be valid only as metaphors. That is, as sacred stories, to provide a kind of shared language around which to inspire congregants to assimilate in pursuing values and purposes that are then and there commonly thought to promote decent civilization, as well as to inspire a sense of awe towards whatever may be the Source of our commonly shared cosmos.

************
RE-EXAMINE:  You do not seem really to have questioned your basic assumptions, nor to have considered what I have actually indicated.  I recommend you take a long walk, decompress, and re-examine your base assumptions, unprovable axioms, and cognitive discomfits.  Test your otherwise unsupported beliefs for internal consistency, coherence, and completeness.

CONSCIOUSNESS IS CONSCIOUSNESS:  Were it possible to provide the exact same past background, present context, and local stimuli, I believe every perspective of consciousness thus provided would experience the same next unfolding of qualitatives and quantitatives.  I believe we are DETERMINED by our informational background, our present context of body and environment, and local stimuli.  However, because our conscious perspectives are not omniscient, and because we do not know how subsequent unfoldings may surprise or affect us, we cannot entirely know in advance what we will experience upon each next unfolding. 

CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE OF WILL:  In that sense, we do not have free will, but we do experience PARTICIPATORY WILL.  Qualitatively immeasurable apprehensions, surprises, and appreciations flow through our unfolding experiences of consciousness.  From a person's mortal perspectives, he can tinker, but he will be unable to pre-set all that will unfold for him.  He will become aware of what is to unfold only as he participates with the unfolding.  And his participation will feedback to affect subsequent unfoldings in ways not all of which he could foresee.

EMPATHETIC BASIS FOR MORALITY:  Because consciousness is consciousness, we have innate (not merely emergent or enhance-able) connection to intuit aspects of ourselves in others.  We have innate empathy among ourselves, to apprehend that, there but for fortune, go I.  Respect for the role of Consciousness is what avails good faith and good will.  That is, a common basis for assimilating or tolerating our purposes.  A reconciling with a Trinitarian unity that abides as the Godhead.

PERVERSION:  Why deny a basis for moral connection?  A Perspective that identifies with a local brain will often not seek higher, consistent, coherent, complete truth.  Such a search would trigger cognitive discomfits.  So, it will put such a pursuit aside, to seek, perversely, to justify and perpetuate advantages for its localized pleasures.  The more the deviation, the more skillful the devolution of perverse rationalizations.  Eventually, he may even deny a feedback-causal role for his own participatory, conscious will, and instead conceptualize himself as a slave to his pre-sets and pleasures.  His ultimate perversion may be to rationalize perversity as goodness.  Thus, evil can come to rationalize itself as good.

CONSCIOUSNESS ABIDES AS A NECESSARY PART OF WHAT WE OFTEN CONCEPTUALIZE AS THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION:  Consciousness is that which activates and reconciles among fields of math, to avail math-based relationships among Substance and Information to be interpreted, sensed, signified, and communicated.  Consciousness, when it imagines itself not to be part of the causal chain, tries to avail measurables among math relations to be interpreted AS IF such relations were real things, axiomatically independent of their math fields.  As if math-relations were a derivative of physical relations, rather than vice-versa.  However, none of those "physical things" are "in" math.  Rather, they are "of" math.  In "themselves," they are not things, but interpretations (wave function collapses) dependent upon participatory input from at least one perspective of consciousness.

NECESSITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS:  When a record of Information regarding things, like tree rings, is stored and preserved, it is preserved only because a perspective of consciousness, at some level or layer, availed it to be preserved. 

QUESTIONS:  Interesting and not entirely answerable questions are begged:  What is the ultimate quality of Consciousness?  What is the source/character/nature of Consciousness, such that it has power to actuate and reconcile with cosmic fields and sub-fields of math?  With what kind of math-field has Consciousness for our cosmos become connected and looped (wheels within wheels, spins within spins, layers within layers, fractals within fractals, systems within systems, algorithms within algorithms, delegations within delegations)?


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

Pray to assimilate in respect of the better angels of our nature.

Neither measurably manifest Substance nor cumulative Information could abide, but for a (conscious) Measurer.

Holistic
Sub-levels
Layers and levels
Delegation
Fractals
Potentialities
Systems within systems
Algorithms within algorithms
Wheels within wheels
Spins within spins

***********

Our interpretations of space-time avail us to communicate about relationships among perspectives of consciousness as they transition in chronologies and intensities, from previous to contemporaneous to apprehension of successions.

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

Re: "... if something can't be measured than it might as well not exists because it can't interact with the rest of reality... all interactions in the Universe are based on the exchange of information which is always fundamentally a form of measurement."

You are displaying a bias against metaphysics and being overly greedy with your assumptions about the role of science. You are also confining your implied definitions for existence, things, and information, so that your end re-presentation is little more than a triviality or tautology, in which your conclusions are based on nothing more than your assumptions.

I am using Information in a sense for distinguishing (in-forming) one aspect of a chronological (actually, numerical) sequence from another. If you prefer a different place-holding term, such as cock-a-doodle-do, we can use it instead -- provided such term is taken to relate to the FACT that distinctions in sequences are formed and stored --- even if we remain unable to explain that in terms of physical mechanics.

Most thinkers do not consider inability to measure something as proof that it does not exist. Physicists are unable to show or measure how (or whether) wave function collapse occurs, yet, most infer that it does. The following clip may help you pull off some blinders. See https://youtu.be/qB7d5V71vUE.




Btw, appreciation that the potentiality of a whole is more than just the sum of its parts is hardly controversial. Just think of an A.I. that can be switched on and off. What you choose to measure, think, or appreciate can vastly alter your life path.

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

Perhaps your inquiry relates more to whether a Godhead has designed our cosmos and then "left the building"?

Once you build a house, do you always leave it? Before you do leave, do you install monitors or watch committees?

If a CSI mind-system were to build a sub-CSI system, why suppose such systems should not share interconnecting commonalities? Turtles and fractals, all the way down?

If CSI simply abides, why postulate a "beginning big bang"? Why postulate a beginning or a departure? Why not simply conceptualize an abiding system of evolutions of phase shifts?

If consciousness in one form is innately empathetic with similar consciousness in other forms, then why postulate that one form should entirely abandon another?

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

I have not found it necessary, helpful, or useful for any purpose to conceptualize any thing as entirely independent of a Trinitarian flux of CSI. I am unable to imagine how any thing-in-and-of-itself, free of relationship with any other thing, could avail a continuous experience of unfoldment from past to present to future. I am unable to imagine how a math field, independent of a mathematician, could actuate to avail any evolvement. To me, the singular actuality that avails conceptual sense of past-present-future is Trinitarian. (Name a particle that presently exists, independent of relationship with any other particle or sub-particle.)

Nor do I think conversationalists can signify any communication that is free of re-presentations (conceptualizations). We can conceptualize, infer, and communicate concerning reality, but we cannot convey understanding of reality-in-itself. (Indeed, I question whether any single aspect of even the Trinity could do that.) IAE, I do not see how a Holism (or Godhead) could avail or convey direct understanding of its reality to a mere part (mortal) of itself. I am unable to fathom a math system in which a part could, as a part, step outside a system that defines it in order to determine what that system "really is."

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

If you want to restrict existence to what exists "in the now" (what presently exists), then you will need to come to terms with the following:
That what exists in the present quickly passes out of such existence.
That different perspectives experience "the present" at different rates and in different ways.
That time is not a thing in itself, but an illusion derivative of differently experienced rates for sequences in math-fields.
There exists no universal "nowness."
Space-Time can be conceptualized as an illusion derivative of a mathematician functioning in respect of a math-field. Without a mathematician, a math-field would not sensibly exist. Without a math-field, a mathematician would not sensibly exist.

I don't purport to KNOW "whether God exists." I only purport that a CONCEPTUALIZATION (model) that a Trinitarian Godhead (CSI) abides comports with reason (higher mindedness).
Local Substance, as a derivative of a reconciling mathematician functioning in respect of an evolving math-field, is the presently measurable aspect to a Local Perspective.
Information is the derivatively available cumulation of all previous manifestations of local experiences of Substance.
Consciousness is what functions to avail the existential manifestation of Substance and Information. It is the mathematician functioning in respect of the unfolding math-field.
Mindfulness is the upshot of Consciousness functioning with Substance in respect of Information.

Perhaps your inquiry relates more to whether a Godhead has designed our cosmos and then "left the building"?

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

Existence: Substantively measurable things become manifestly (physically) existent, then pass into the past, as cumulative Information. The past exists only as cumulated and re-fluxed or smudged Information. The future presently exists only as potentiality. Immeasurable things (qualitative things) exist beyond physicality. For example, maths exist. When you use the word exist, it would help to specify whether you are referring to substantive measurables, informational cumulatives, future potentialities, or qualitative states of mind.

Consider: Is Information always stored and preserved within existence? When our cosmos dissipates, will its Information have been preserved? What could preservation mean in such a context? One may hedge and say, well, the Information would be "smudged" to merge with a new cosmos or new "reality." Can the Godhead of Consciousness-Substance-Information ever "forget"?

I think that may depend on what one means by forget or lost information. I think the Trinity fluxes. So an aspect of it, Consciousness, may forget. But the other aspects will ensure Consciousness simply repeats many of the same experiences and plots in differently analogical ways. After all, how many different notes or plots are there, really?

Did Einstein say, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one"?

I notice some of your compatriots seem not fond of either-or reasoning, depending on how it suits them.

As I survey the absurdities being promoted by many scientists/scientisimists and inventors, it seems remarkably perverse, to me, how quickly they promote nonsense when it suits their wannas. Many otherwise smart people seem not especially interested in pursuit of truth or higher mindedness. Rather, they seem as prone as Holllywoodians to seek to justify and rationalize all manner of perversity when it suits their pleasures or biases.

Sam Harris is a brainy guy who thinks (or thought?) he could make moral issues scientifically manageable by weighing them against a vague idea of "well beingness." In that, he is/was a putz. Maybe someone was too harsh in pouring holy water on him?

Then there are the open society crowd and corporatists, who think it "truly better" to replace the U.S. as a representative republic with a borderless NWO to be run by experts on behalf of "benign" central bureaucrats or corporatists. Not to mention the perverse gay crowd that wants to redefine marriage so as to render it meaningless. And they rabidly claim they are "on the right side of history!" S/

I think brainy and gay people often share a commonality: Too much isolation from ordinary people and the opposite sex. Whatever the cause, it is fascinating to watch as they try to rationalize absurdity and perversity in the service of their base pleasures, as if they were "truly" serving higher mindedness. Unfortunately, they give little thought to what is needed to sustain a decent republic of free thinking citizens. I suspect because their pleasures and dopery are more immediately important to their perverse pleasures. Which they then justify because they claim to be smarter (denial of higher mindedness, because, "science") or better educated (twisted).

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

Well, I did not say Consciousness exists independently. I said it exists with Substance and Information. The three exist together, as co-dependent fundamentals. You need to read what I said, not what you wish I had said. No one of the three co-dependent fundamentals can exist apart from the other two. Taken together, the three can flux to produce various worlds or world phase-shifts. But they must be taken together.

The problem with your notion is that it rests on an assumption that what is beyond science must be explicable with science in order to be part of our direct experience. You have merely conjured up some arguments against positions that I did not take. Evidently, you have not processed what I said because it does not comport with what you wish I had said.

Your cut-and-paste entropy argument pertains to measurables, of which the quality of consciousness is not one.

You are confusing Consciousness as a fundamental ingredient with Substance and Information versus ways Consciousness can be leveraged with different forms of Substance and Information in order to produce faster or more complex brains or operating units. Yes, more complex operating units can emerge. But the co-dependent fundaments with which such operating units are built or enhanced do not emerge. They simply abide. Unless, that is, you want to posit and adopt an absurd and unfalsifiable conceptual belief that all of beingness arose from nothingness.

Moreover, you seem to confuse the sum of the parts with the Holism. But save that for another day.

******************
Your point would be tenable only if everything that is worth believing is subject to scientific determination or explanation. However, to assume one should not model any idea unless it is subject to scientific falsifiability is, itself, to assume something that one cannot falsify or prove.

More reasonable people would seek ways to differentiate between models that may be worthwhile but non-falsifiable versus models that may be both worthwhile and falsifiable.

Models that pertain to substantively measurable practicalities and technologies may tend to be scientifically falsifiable. But models that pertain to concerns about what one should devote one's pursuits to, morally, may tend to be non-falsifiable, yet unavoidable. Of those, one may have no choice but to make choices. To take leaps of faith. To identify with mores, values, pursuits --- even if only in deeds rather than in rationalized models. IOW, one may model mores in the language of one's actions, even if below the level of one's consciously rationalized modeling.

Do you reject all moral values, pursuits, devotions, hobbies, merely because you cannot submit their worth to scientific falsification? I don't think a person with a functioning brain can actually do that. If you are advocating that, then I think you are advocating for a nonsensical impossibility.

For concerns that are beyond measure or science, but not beyond appreciation via intuition and modeling based on what is most consistent, coherent, and complete, a person with a functioning brain has no choice but to take some leaps of faith.

For example, many modern so-called Democrats seem to have been hoodwinked to take a leap of faith that the U.S. should, by laws, turn itself into a borderless, open society that tolerates every possible affront to the ideal of a representative republic. And many so-called Republicans take a similar leap of faith that the supply of cheap laboring immigrants should be left open.

Both seem, however unwittingly, in practice to act on a leap of faith that the representative republic should be replaced by a society that is governed by elite moral scientists. They seem to believe government under such moral scientists will be good, benign, not fascistic, and "better" than a government under the present system.

Often, when a person models how he should devote his efforts, he will reach for a basis in higher minded principles --- even if only in how he coordinates his efforts and not in how he consciously rationalizes them. Such a person will conduct himself "religiously," even without consciously stating the tenets or principles of his religion. If pursuits based on higher mindedness are unavoidable, what is the problem with modeling such higher mindedness based on a religion or a belief about the character of the Godhead/Source?

Yes, religion has abusively contributed to suffering and death. But I think less so than militant atheistic communism. Especially when the religion is based on an ideal of an empathetic Godhead, as opposed to an idea of a freaking control monster. Such a religion can avail ways for good people to come together to reason, to seek to assimilate values that can sustain decent civilization. For one who values the evidence or proof of history, alternatives, such as militantly atheistic communism, seem to fare far worse. Even towards Evil.


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

I did not say Substance and Information play no role. I suggested they are insufficient to pre-determine the course of unfoldings within allowable parameters. I said Consciousness is a factor to the extent Substance and Information are insufficient. And I did not say Consciousness determines the events that will unfold. I said it affects them, to the extent Substance and Information are insufficient.

In cases where Consciousness does not much care to affect what unfolds, then whatever does become manifest will seem more like random chance. But even then, some patterns will acquire a kind of momentum, such that they will more likely tend to nourish one another, to replicate, survive, and repeat. (Even Dawkins postulates "selfish" genes.) What people sometimes call chaos does not produce complete randomness. It tends to produce ordered patterns. Consciousness (at some level, even if seemingly minute) is what avails those patterns to collapse into manifest measurables.

I do not think consciousness is God. Rather, I think there abides a Godhead that is Trinitarian with regard to aspects of Consciousness, Substance, and Information.

The Past exists only as a record of Information. The measurable Present exists only as manifest Substance. The possible Future becomes manifest only with co-operative guidance and reconciliation with Consciousness.

The continuous transition through past (previous), present (contemporaneous), and future (subsequent) entails a flux among Information, Substance, and Consciousness.

By itself, Consciousness need not entail a Mind. A mind reads or remembers stored Information, interprets or tests measurable Substance, and trains Consciousness to help put Information and Substance to future use.

The more interesting concern is this: To the extent our cosmos functions as a conserved system, is there a holistic, feedback aspect (Mind?) to the inter-functioning and reconciliation of Consciousness, Substance, and Information? If so, that would be the Godhead. That would be what participated in the design, and the continuing changing of design, for the unfolding of our math-based cosmos.

For that, I would distinguish such a Mind from a physically manifested nerve control system (brain). Do you think your mind is confined to the measurable perimeter of the skin of your body?

If Information and Substance can reasonably be modeled as derivatives of an algorithmic field of math, then Consciousness may be modeled as the mathematician that actuates the field.

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

It is a common postulate that the past (previous) functioning in concert with the present (duration) represents parameters, but not precise determinants for that which unfolds and manifests for the future. Among all sets of possible unfoldments, only one set actually becomes manifest for our cosmos. So, how is that set chosen, if it was not pre-determined?

My model: How it is chosen (how the wave function is collapsed) is affected by consciousness. Of that, every perspective (person) participates, subject to rules of conservation with regard to every physically measurable communication.

So, consciousness is that which is necessary to affect how choices are made from among all possibilities. The more interesting concern relates to how those choices are reconciled. And whether there abides consciousness at a holistic, reconciling level.

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

Are you suggesting he may really believe our cosmos arose out of vomit from a giant flying spaghetti monster? Well, alrighty then.

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

I am not sure it is possible to "remain neutral" for very long without being overtaken by events. Failure to make a choice is a kind of choice. No matter what a person decides to do, he will have done something, even if only to try to hide. A zombie may not make a conscious choice about what to believe. But even a zombie will, by his acts, give effect to choices.

I agree that matters that depend on belief are often not provable as true. I also agree that a person should generally try to modify his belief system when an axiom has been falsified, either by math based proof or, where applicable, by contradicting physical demonstration. To the extent that a belief constitutes a physically testable postulation, then one should be open to renouncing it upon its physical falsification.

But for ideas that may be useful for assimilating cultural values, purposes, and beliefs, that may not be physically falsifiable, such ideas may also not be physically demonstrable. For those, a person may form a belief system based on direct experience of beingness (sense of being, sense of balance, sense of math-based conservation). Iow, intuition, provided such intuitive belief system is generally or rationally supported by internal consistency, coherence, and completeness. And provided such a person has not been otherwise persuaded by a better belief system (that is more consistent, coherent, and complete).

Personally, I do not find the belief systems of moral scientisimists (militant atheists) to be inspiring or persuasive. If anything, based on history, I find them to tend to be horrifying. For example, I believe belief systems that advocate for the replacement of family values with gov-marrying values, the replacement of inspiring faith in an empathetic God with faith in a monstrous god or a fascist gov, and the undermining of fidelity to an otherwise assimilating civilization of free thinking citizens, to be horrific. But that is just my belief.

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

So, you're just claiming nothing? Ok, go act on nothing.

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

My positive claim is that both the god and the no-god positions are positive positions taken by various perspectives of consciousness. My position is that the claim by atheists that they have no burden of proof while theists do is mere wordplay for foolish people. Be gone with your silliness.

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

Your positive claim is that our cosmos arose out of nothingness, and continues to unfold under an original impetus from nothingness. So prove it or be gone with your fly buzz.
*****************

1. I agree, but I don't get the relevance to points under discussion.

2. Is the idea of your own mind, identity, and sense of being too ambiguous, vague, and superfluous for you? Do you not intuit that other people and beings likewise have ideas of their own minds, identities, and senses of being? Is your own identity, mind, and sense of being falsifiable? Do you not comprehend that some aspects of experience or knowledge are directly intuited, as opposed to being "provable" in science? (I can invite you to think, but I can't make you do it.)

3. You can define a term however you like, for whatever purposes you like. But what do you mean by connection to the "real world"? Do you take only what is quantifiable and measurable to be "real"? What about qualities of mental experience, mores, values, and beliefs that pertain to aspects that are beyond quantification or measure? Are they unreal? Do you think all human action should be dictated by science, through the best priests of science (moral scientisimists)?

Hint: The concept of a conscious Observer Effect is not generally controversial. I am not concerned here with consciousness limited to humans. Why are you? Do you not recognize consciousness in other animals, and likely soon, in A.I.? Are you a solipsist? Do you understand set theory and the idea of a set consisting of parts that may be mutually exclusive and exhaustive of the sum of the set?

4. Why are you talking about ideas about physical things that are physically falsifiable? The discussion pertains to qualitatives about mental states, not quantitatives. Do you lack all insight that there may abide a qualitative commonality concerning consciousness that is intuitable but not measurable?

5. Again, I can invite you to think, but I can't make you do it.

6. No, I see no point in "elaborating" about limits of physical science to someone who is unable to comprehend that measureables are not in themselves adequate to appreciate all qualities that value aspects in ways that are beyond measure.

7. Same as 6.

8. Depends on how you understand consciousness and whether you appreciate its application beyond human personalities.

9. Again, I can invite you to think, but I can't make you do it.

10. I have no idea what it is that you think you are saying.

11. I was using proof in the sense of evidence. Absence of evidence that a person within an atmosphere that has produced a rainbow cannot step on the end of that rainbow is not evidence of the lack of an end to such rainbow. And, so what? Do you really think our universe is well conceptualized as a bubble or balloon? Do you really think a grid can be well applied to our position in space-time? I can appreciate how a math based system could support the way our cosmos appears to us. But I cannot appreciate how a "physical"-grid system could. Maybe you can?

12. Yes, energy and matter are different ways to express the same thing: Measurable Substance. That said, the differences in how they are expressed and made manifest to us are the basis for our practical technologies. So what?

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

Interesting points.

Regardless, at some level, every particular perspective of consciousness has something in common with every other such perspective. Our perspectives and bodies flux, change, forget, and remember. But they retain a commonality: They are all perspectives of consciousness. The more interesting concern is how to define consciousness in a meaningful way.

At levels lower than awaken-ness, autonomic and lower, some perspectives of consciousness identify with and adopt means for remembering previously recorded information, such as information about how to repel disease. For example, some immune systems can remember infections they have previously encountered, so that their responses can be more efficient when the body has another encounter with any such invader. Thus, consciousness can enhance its capabilities by shaping and building on substantive forms for encoding, storing, remembering, and calculating information. This is part of the flux of consciousness, substance, and information. It is why Consciousness, Substance, and Information are inter-dependent, not independent of one another. It is why it can make sense to conceptualize the Godhead as a Trinitarian singularity.

Atheists like to suppose that consciousness is merely emergent. I agree that consciousness can be trained, focused, enhanced. But I do not agree that it is not as innate to the unfolding expression of our cosmos as measurable Substance and cumulative Information. There are reasons for supporting that belief, but they are based more in analogy, intuition, and tests for internal consistency, coherence, and completeness.

For me, Asimov's idea of a collective galactic mind or World Bliss sparked some inquiries concerning the fundamental character of consciousness. Perhaps Consciousness itself did not have to be designed. What if Consciousness was, is, and always has been innate? Perhaps only the forms with which consciousness is expressed flux, change, and evolve --- consistent with consciousness being innate.

Suppose Consciousness were defined as capacity from a Perspective to collapse and observe the wave function of what we take to be Substance, therewith to receive, store, re-present, and transmit Information. Suppose Substance and Information are appearances derivative of nothing more than Consciousness functioning in respect of a purely math-based matrix? In that case, the origination of our shared cosmos would seem not to be from nothingness, but from a singularly designed Perspective.

Whether that singular Perspective may have been a-part of a meta-system of other Perspectives or cosmos is not purely determinable by us. Rather, that concern is necessarily and thoroughly commingled with what we take to be the math-based rules for our own shared cosmos.

In any case, there is no reason to believe aspects for our originating Perspective of Consciousness would not continue to be inextricably imbued among each and every Perspective that abides with our cosmos.

Even the Substance that we conceptualize to be inanimate implicates that we assume or project with it a capacity to receive, store, re-present, and transmit Information, in order to allow and activate any analysis concerning it. All appearances of Substance seem to implicate a correlative existentiality of Consciousness and cumulating Information. IOW, Consciousness, Substance, and Information seem to abide as fundamental aspects of our experience of cosmic existentiality.

If a system of math-based algorithms defines and limits our cosmos, it is based around Consciousness and its various perspectives. Not around any material things-in-themselves. The things around each Perspective of Consciousness are treated, for that Perspective, AS IF they were real in themselves. And such treatment is normalize-able and reconcile-able for every Perspective, so every Perspective will sense AS IF it were at the center of the measurable density and sequential unfolding of the observable cosmos.

If there is a rationalize-able "center" to the cosmos, I postulate it is not in a locus in space-time, but in Consciousness inter-functioning with various math-fields as they are evolved and designed under an encompassing system of perpetual feedback.

As "proof" that our cosmos is more math-like than physical-like, I would point to the following: No objective center, nor edge, to our cosmos can be demonstrated. No objective grid-in-itself can be shown for locating any physical thing. All measureable motions for relations among what we take to be "physical things" are renormalizeable to a same limiting speed (of light).

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

Perspectives of consciousness at levels below that of humans abide. Every pattern that is sticky (sticks around) in that sense expresses sensation and consciousness at some level.

A recorder of Information gives expression to a level of consciousness. Perspectives of Consciousness associate with appearances of patterns, but we do not abide "inside" such patterns. That a pattern is sensed does not mean that the pattern, in itself, is conscious. It just means at least one perspective of consciousness senses it.

If Matter is stored Information, and Energy is transmitting Information, and Substance abides as a sum of Matter and Energy, then all present Substance abides as a transitory combination of stored and transmitting Information, as it is accumulated with past recorded Information.

No pattern is in itself conscious, but all patterns are associated with at least one perspective of consciousness. All patterns are associated with a flux of Information (Past cumulation), Substance (as Presently manifested), and Consciousness (as Future anticipatory).

Every so-called origin, instead of coming from a point in space, would seem to have come from a sequence beyond which, from our access from our math-verse, Information has been lost or re-phased. In that sense, our Universe/Cosmos may abide in respect of a Steady State, after all. If so, lost (or re-phased) Information is what lies behind our so-called Beginning. Not any real "point" in Space-Time dimensionality.

Beyond Matter and Energy, something spiritual renormalizes/reconciles/feedbacks for our various perspectives of Consciousness. Otherwise, how could choices from among possibilities be effected?

No system of patterns can stick -- to repair and replicate itself as needed to nurture and sustain itself --- unless it has means to find its likeness to be attractive. That "means" is conscious appreciation. It's why patterns, as they happen to develop, happen to attract likeness. This is a derivative of patterns that happen to be formed by Consciousness as it images with math-verses. Something ineffable about Consciousness avails it with capacity to image/imagine/in-form Substance out of its inter-functioning with math. Something ineffable about Consciousness allows it to advance empirical technologies by bootstrapping them.

In itself, the math-verse as we occupy it need not itself occupy space-time. Rather, space-time would be a derivative of the math-verse being activated/actuated by a reconciling aspect of Consciousness.



******************
Cichawoda

When you assume a priori that you are a hammer than yes everything is a nail...

I don't see any evidence for your assumption that "...Consciousness is at least as fundamental as Substance and Information" but perhaps you have a different understanding of what consciousness itself is.

Sure all existence in this particular Universe is interdependent on it's common evolution that started when at some point/in some point the temperature of the Universe dropped to where speeds lower than the speed of light were possible... from there just like ice crystals forming in water all qualities of the Universe emerge and evolve. Math doesn't exist independent of human intellect... it is a system we invented to help us understand the workings of the Universe and there can be other methods that describe it just as well without math. It seems like a anthropomorphic assumption rather than a demonstrable fact...

Does any particular human exist independently of itself? From one perspective we are just some temporarily entangled genes in a soup of genetic material that covers the Earth in a thin shmeer... so from that perspective what is the value of an individual human consciousness?

Consciousness, understood as "the quality or state of being aware", is itself an emergent quality dependent on the existence of something that can be aware relative to what it is aware of. Sure all causality is dependent on a basic exchange of information but I don't think that is what you are thinking of when you capitalize "Consciousness".

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

At levels lower than awaken-ness, autonomic and lower, some perspectives of consciousness identify with and adopt means for remembering previously recorded information, such as information about how to repel disease. For example, some immune systems can remember infections they have previously encountered, so that their responses can be more efficient when the body has another encounter with any such invader.  Thus, consciousness can enhance its capabilities by shaping and building on substantive forms for encoding, storing, remembering, and calculating information. This is part of the flux of consciousness, substance, and information.  It is why consciousness, substance, and information are inter-dependent, not independent of one another.  It is why the Godhead is a Trinitarian singularity.


One does not see derivative proof of an a priori assumption precisely because it is a priori. As to lack of physical evidence for things metaphysical, that goes with the territory. The only "evidence" for such concerns is not in physical replication, but in thought experiments that test for consistency, coherence, and completeness.

You do touch a chord when you recognize that the root concern pertains to how to define or understand consciousness.

When you say math does not exist independent of human intellect, I simply have no time or patience for such a notion. You need to think more on that for yourself.

You ask what is the value of an individual human consciousness. I cannot assign a quantity, only a quality. I think it is valued by itself and by others, depending on emotional proximity.

You say consciousness is emergent. I agree that consciousness can be trained, focused, enhanced. But I do not agree that it is not as innate to the unfolding expression of our cosmos as measurable Substance and cumulative Information. There are reasons for supporting that belief, but they are based more in analogy, intuition, and tests for internal consistency, coherence, and completeness.

You do not advance an understanding of the state of consciousness merely by substituting another word for consciousness, as by saying it is a state of being aware.

There are interesting issues to consider with regard to the character of consciousness. General, holistic, human, sub-human, bacterial, plant, information-recordation, etc. I would be tempted to explore those with you. However, I do not sense that you have given such issues the kind and degree of consideration that would be needed to make any such communication worthwhile or meaningful.

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

CONSCIOUSNESS:

Flux, conservation, holism

Consciousness is consciousness.

you have no choice but to participate in effecting choices. You will make choices about what you should do. Failure to choose is itself a choice. Some choices will be guided by little more than personal pleasure and profit. Others will be guided by a sense of higher mindedness. The only miracle is that such general higher mindedness is available for you to sense. I cannot judge what God should find to be good or evil. I can only judge what I would pray that God find good or evil. The miracle is that I can participate in that


I only suggest that good faith and good will are innate, because I think consciousness is innately empathetic --- even among many meat eaters, once hunger is satisfied. (Empathy need not be free love; it can be tough love.) But it is only by developing receptivity to good faith and good will (the better angels of our nature) that we can tend to the good. My point is that such receptivity, to mature towards goodness, needs to be inspired, nurtured, and worked on.

I do not find the culture of hedonism, instant gratification, tolerance of everything, or undermining of faith-family-fidelity (secular humanism?) to be conducive to that maturation.

For me, Asimov's idea of a collective galactic mind or World Bliss sparked some inquiries concerning the fundamental character of consciousness. Perhaps Consciousness itself did not have to be designed. What if Consciousness was, is, and always has been innate? Perhaps only the forms with which consciousness is expressed flux, change, and evolve --- consistent with consciousness being innate.

Suppose Consciousness were defined as capacity from a Perspective to collapse and observe the wave function of what we take to be Substance, therewith to receive, store, re-present, and transmit Information. Suppose Substance and Information are appearances derivative of nothing more than Consciousness functioning in respect of a purely math-based matrix? In that case, the origination of our shared cosmos would seem not to be from nothingness, but from a singular Perspective.

Whether that singular Perspective may have been a-part of a meta-system of other Perspectives or cosmos is not purely determinable by us. Rather, that concern is necessarily and thoroughly commingled with what we take to be the math-based rules for our own shared cosmos.

In any case, there is no reason to believe aspects for our originating Perspective of Consciousness would not continue to be inextricably imbued among each and every Perspective that abides with our cosmos.

Even the Substance that we conceptualize to be inanimate implicates that we assume or project with it a capacity to receive, store, re-present, and transmit Information, in order to allow and activate any analysis concerning it. All appearances of Substance seem to implicate a correlative existentiality of Consciousness and cumulating Information. Consciousness, Substance, and Information seem to abide as fundamental aspects of our experience of cosmic existentiality.

For that, all math-based part-icles may be thought to have some relation to "spin" --- whether such spin be formulaically valued at 0, 1, 1/2, plus, negative, virtual, imaginary, etc. All math-based expressions of part-icles seem to function correlative and subject to a math-based algorithm or field (Higgs Field?), that defines parameters for the experientiality of our cosmos.

Problem: Of what, then, would any Perspective of Consciousness consist? Must every identifiable, fractalized, level, layer, and measurable mix of part-icle(s) be considered, in some respect, to relate to consciousness? What of the entire, holistic system of measurable Substance? Must there abide mathematically distinguishable kinds of Perspectives? Such as, holistic consciousness, particle consciousness, organism consciousness, consciousness of math, of balance, of spin, of beingness, of externalities, of other beings, of self? Must there abide different levels and layers of communication and intuitions among and between Perspectives of Consciousness?

Moral Empathy: May some aspect of Good Faith and Good Will be innate, among and between all particular variations in Perspective of the Singular Consciousness? How else could moral projection work, unless each of us conveys some innate capacity or empathy, however faint, to sense aspects of ourselves in others? Do not even animals convey empathy? How else could mere science or chemistry originate what we take to be living organisms?

we can intuit and experience. We have more than five senses. We also have a sense of math, of balance and of being. We can note how conscious observations seem to be fundamental to the way the cosmos finds expression. Something about the unfoldment seems to require consciousness, as if a system of consciousness were innate. That is interesting, even though its nature may be beyond math or science-based proof. The apparent innateness of Consciousness, is, I think, a reasonable basis for moral belief systems that can help guide civilizing good faith and good will. More so than just trusting to elitist, priestly, or expert diktat to rule the mass of sheeple and fill their snowflaky heads with phony ideas about equality, fairness, free stuff, safe spaces, and "science of morality."


????????????????????Spin of Consciousness generates a shared space-time geometry field for Perspectives of Consciousness to apply math to communicate about their shared field. The space-time field is accompanied by a field that allows photons and gluons (they have Spin 1) to pass through at c-speed, but it slows all other particles, giving them a property called mass. At smallest levels, Spin may represent as measurable charge or potential. Spin can avail separate-like integrity. Spinning particles cannot actually touch, but they can break down and alter one another's spin-field. If Information is conveyed to them at c-speed (by massless particles), it can be induced to orbit them and influence their spin field without necessarily destroying their integral identity. Massless particles can convey Information only by losing their identities. Can they convey Information, but not, except at origination, receive it????????????

By "Spin" I mean Holistic Consciousness adopts a Perspective a-part of Itself, limited to an Algorithm shared among all similar Perspectives a-part from Itself.

The Spin is in respect of an Algorithm that defines a math-field a-part from the Holistic Consciousness. It may engage in differently allowed kinds of mathematical rates, vectors, vibrations, charges, fluxes. But all Spins must be reconcilable. They may be broken, redirected, reattached, etc. But always subject to such quanta-limits as are defined by the Algorithm. This is not to suggest that the Algorithm can ever be subject to the consistent, coherent, complete understanding of human beings. The quanta-limits are necessary to facilitate the integrity of separately identifiable parts and perspectives.

The Spin is such that Holistic Consciousness can measure the parts, but such measurable parts cannot scientifically measure the Holistic Consciousness.

if creation arose from this "nothingness," then it abided (existed?) as a strange kind of nothingness, since IT had capacity to bring forth the cosmos.

So I prefer to conceptualize IT not as nothingness, but as a mysterious, immeasurable somethingness, able to produce the cosmos out of little more than Itself operating with a math-based algorithm. I would call IT holistic Consciousness, to distinguish IT from plant-like or even mortal consciousness.

Even so, if such holistic Consciousness were a thing-in-itself, then how would it produce any physical thing to relate to, compare, or measure? Perhaps a concept of spin might help, even if mainly math based. If an Originator had capacity to spin Aspects Of Itself in respect of a common algorithm, then apparently separate and innate senses of beingness and balance may arise. Add more organization and complexity, and all the other mortal senses could emerge and arise. The appearance of physicality is not about the measurement of any thing-in-itself. It is about shared interpretation of relationships. Without shared perspectives of a unifying source of Consciousness, there would be no physicality to interpret.

Indeed, some mathematicians seem reasonably to believe that all that we take as being "physical" (measurable particles) is comprised of some kind of non-physical aspects, often "spinning" or vibrating in respect of their Originator and a shared and defining math-field.

Why would the Originator sponsor a math field specially designed to produce mortal perspectives of consciousness? Why, unless IT is appreciatively Purposeful with regard to the unfolding of such cosmos, would IT exercise such capacity?

If, at base, mortals are organized systems of inter-functions of spins of otherwise holistic consciousness, that would seem to implicate a feedback relationship. That feedback would seem to entail aspects of innate good faith and good will. IOW, the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. With which much of Western philosophy of religion and morality are dependent.

Intuitively, if one values Western Civilization, belief in a purposeful and astonishing Holistic Consciousness is not unreasonable. It can help foster civilizing feelings of good faith and good will. YOLO, otoh, seems often to foster depravity, corruption, and people-abusing. Witness the depredations of lefty preachers from Hollywood and DC. While Believers sin, they feel shame. When Lefties run afoul of PC limits, they seek fake treatment (preferably where they cannot be extradited). (When you have no principles, it's far easier not to be a hypocrite concerning principles.)

THING IN ITSELF V. NO-THING-NESS: IF there was a time/place, math field, or potentiality before measurable existentiality, IT would seem to make more sense, conceptually, to think of it not as nothing, but as immeasurable something. Something that itself did not sponsor measurement ... until in math a crack was defined, split into two or more loci of spin, whereupon, in respect of comparison of such spins, relative, relational, and comparative ... measurements could be sponsored. Not measurement of Itself, but of what IT sponsored.

Are Photons, Gravitons, Massless Particles, Spinless Particles, and Dark Matter and Dark Energy ... math-based artifacts of Perspectives of Consciousness spinning in association with a specially designed Math Field? Is Space-Time math-based artifactual of the Math Field's influence on sequencing transfers of Information between Perspectives of Consciousness? Are limitations on how math-based mortal Perspectives can be complexly organized likewise derivative of the Math Field's influence with Holistic Consciousness? Based on a concept of mortal Consciousness as a spin off from Holistic Consciousness, can an algorithm for terms for its math-base be conceptualized in consistent, coherent, and complete terms?

Holistic Consciousness, but for functioning with an algorithm of math, specially tuned to it, would be a lonely ephemeral. However, IT has found or designed or unfolded with ... such an algorithm. To give expression to our cosmos. Such capacity is astonishing. Ask: Why, unless IT is appreciatively Purposeful with regard to the unfolding of such cosmos, would IT exercise such capacity? Intuitively, belief in a purposeful and astonishing Holistic Consciousness is not unreasonable.

Programmed Consciousness: Programming algorithms (math) interfaced to be applied to electrons can organize and produce higher levels of self aware (human like) consciousness. Lower level Consciousness can be locked in, so as to be limited to its allowed range for receiving and transmitting Information.

COORDINATION OF CRACKED SYMMETRY: I don't know how the Spins occur. (Is each spin a spin in space-time? Is each spin a way to separate temporally from the Holism? Does the Holism spin around it? Is each spin a co-relation with Consciousness and Math?) Regardless, the spin is what avails the Crack in the Symmetry of an otherwise void space-time-landscape.

PARTICIPATORY WILL: When two or more Perspectives receive Information from the same source, each will collapse, store, interpret it somewhat differently, depending on its local situation, orientation, organization, experience, and conditioning. Then, when they transmit and communicate regarding that Information, they will engage in a feedback process, to make the situation more commonly appreciable between them. That is, they will each participate in affecting how the Information is accumulated, renormalized, reconciled, and interpreted. This process of renormalization, reconciliation, and reinterpretation is perpetual. The consequence is complex patterns and organization, unfolding to complex interpretation, complex senses, complex civilizations, and complex interpretive feedback among Participating Wills. Indeed, many such interactions will defy prediction, except possibly under general and changing models of statistical analysis --- perhaps often to the surprise even of Holistic Will.

Consciousness sensed of what? The most fundamental of senses would be the Sense of Beingness and the Sense of Balance. A Being that takes a Perspective of a Spin would correlate in Math with a sense of balance. By building on such fundamental senses, all kinds and organizations of senses less than that of the Holism would be possible and/or expressed.

Holistic Consciousness: Holistic Consciousness relates the math under which Simple Consciousness, Substance, and Information are activated and coordinated.

Simple Consciousness: Simple Consciousness, without spin, would be of a massless quality. With spin, it acquires a qualitative capacity, from an otherwise dimension-less Point of relational Spin, to receive and transmit math-based Information.

Consciousness of Consciousness: Consciousness of Consciousness is Complex Consciousness that abides with an organized and adopted system of Matter.

Consciousness of Self: Consciousness of Self is Complex Consciousness that appreciates and apprehends that it abides with an organized and adopted system of Matter.

Substance: Substance abides with a quantifiable capacity to collapse, Re-present, store, and transmit measurable Information. It can abide as Matter, Energy, and/or both. Substance is comprised of a stored accumulation of Information.

Information: Information consists in an accumulation and reconciliation of previously sequenced Representations of Substance. Information is comprised of previous re-presentations of Substance.

Physical Size, density, and occupation of space-time (physicality) are all derivative of no-thing other than Holistic Consciousness taking sequential Perspectives under a math-based system of algorithms.

Cosmos:

The Existential Cosmos relates to the quantitative and qualitative "sum" of Consciousness, Substance, and Information.

The Measurable Cosmos relates only to quantifiable aspects of Substance and Information.

Do Perspectives of Consciousness spin in space-time? Or does space-time spin around Perspectives of Consciousness? Is the appearance of spin purely math-based, without need of geometry? Is every spinning sponsored by Holistic Consciousness an expression of particular, Simple Consciousness?What matter can absorb matter?

Holistic Consciousness, but for functioning with an algorithm of math specially tuned to it, would be a lonely ephemeral. However, IT has found or designed or unfolded with ... such an algorithm. To give expression to our cosmos. Such capacity is astonishing. Ask: Why, unless IT is appreciatively Purposeful with regard to the unfolding of such cosmos, would IT exercise such capacity? Intutitively, belief in a purposeful and astonishing Holistic Consciousness is not unreasonable.

*********

A republic that reviles the Godhead soon withers into nothingness, to be transmogrified into God knows what? America rocketed within a short two centuries, and know-it-all wanna-rule elites may doom it in a much shorter time.

CONSCIOUSNESS: Although Consciousness may transition among systems, layers, and levels, it retains an unending, math-based commonality: An immeasurable quality of appreciating, experiencing, accumulating, exchanging, and communicating an unfolding of measuring. "You" are a math-based, spatial-temporal, fluxing expression of a perspective of C.

CONUNDRUMS:

From wherever and to wherever a Perceiver measures cumulative material density, his calculation will tend towards the same eventual measure of density in all directions. (Apart from the Godhead, there is no real center to the cosmos. How can that be, unless the superior reality is more math-like than substance-like?)

Whenever and wherever a Receiver absorbs EMR or massless radiation, from whatever direction, regardless of the relative motion of the Receiver, the EMR is received by it at the same speed (unless some of the light passes through a medium other than empty space). (There is no real grid by which to compare and measure the absolute locus of any place or time. How can that be, unless the superior reality is more math-like than substance-like?)

Neither matter nor energy seem to be built up from any ultimate building particle-in-itself. All measurable expressions of Substance are comprised of particles that, for their expression, require relationships with other particles. (No measurable thing has reality-in-itself. How can that be, unless the superior reality is more math-like than substance like?)

No Perspective, and no Perception, remains precisely the same across the passage of time. (No mortal measurer remains constant. How can that be, unless the superior measurable reality is more math-like than substance-like?)

However, some standards remain practically the same across different lengths of time. Because of that overlap, things can appear to be physical and they can be measured and communicated relationally and sequentially, for practical purposes. (Why communication is possible.)

However, because of flux, no precise measure can be made of the entire cosmos -- either in its manifestation, its potentiality, or its origin. Substance, for its measurability, is not in itself sufficient. (Why materialism is defective philosophy and why mortals cannot rule the cosmos.)

When substantive things are related or measured, what is really being related or measured? Why do some forms, as gross forms (not as ultimate-bit forms) function at gross levels as attractants or repellants of other forms? Why is some Information received, interpreted, and absorbed, while other potentialities of Information are not? What guides, reconciles, chooses, or rules how some gross forms of Substance and Information appear to continue to flux and influence one another, while others do not? Can it really make sense to conceptualize that all the math is pre-set?

Apart from dna, what else may control how forms interfunction, grow, and pass away? If Consciousness is fundamental to the process, what is Consciousness, and how are Perspectives of it guided to interfunction? Is there a matrix of purely "algorithmic-dna" that sets parameters or selects permissible forms for Perspectives of Consciousness and what they are allowed to perceive? (How the unfolding creation is intelligent.)

Ultimately, must the superior from which all apparent Substance and Information are derived be Consciousness (God?) operating with Algorithms of Math? Architect of Fractals of Matrix? With what innate empathy and methods of leveraging may IT relate to us? How elegantly simple is what appears to be complex? (How the Godhead reconciles with Mortals).

If a system of math-based algorithms defines and limits our cosmos, it is based around Consciousness and its various perspectives. Not around any material things in themselves. The things around each Perspective of Consciousness are treated, for that Perspective, AS IF they were real in themselves. And such treatment is normalize-able and reconcile-able for every Perspective, so every Perspective will sense AS IF it were at the center of the measurable density and sequential unfolding of the observable cosmos.

A photon would seem to function as a bit of stored Information. Its transmission of Information diffuses in waves, until it is collapsed/absorbed to an expression of materiality. As it is absorbed by matter, its wave function may collapse to a particle wherewith energy is transmitted to an electron to excite it from whatever orbit it may have been attached, as in the case of a photoelectric effect.

Every body of matter constitutes a locus for an experience of Perspective of Consciousness, at some level. That experience need not relate to human-like sense organs. It may relate to sensations innate to spin, vibration (heat), amplitude, cumulative intensity, and so on.

Consciousness is innate to the expression of the cosmos. Consciousness functioning with a c-based system of math avails geometrical forms for giving expression to measurable existentiality. When Consciousness produces spin, it avails forms that avail various Perspectives of itself. Spin, charge, polarity, structure, density have to do with the various geometrical forms of particles and waves that we interpret and experience as matter and energy. They avail the organization, reception, storage, collapse, sensation, interpretation, and transmission of Information and communications. Consciousness feeds back to affect how expressions of Substance and Information unfold, accumulate, and reconcile.

The relative density of our "flat" universe, as we tend to measure it, has to do with the maturing quality of our Perspectives of Consciousness, from simple consciousness of existentiality to complex sense-based awareness of self.

The CSI Trinitarian Godhead need be neither noun nor verb, but gerund: Noun-Verb. Active Math. Changeless-Changer. Same stories, different packaging.

Information is preserved, but smudged outbound, unfolding. Integrity of Information from Identities stubbornly persists after death, even as it eventually disintegrates as it re-forms over space-time. Even for AI's.

Beingness decides your choices and reconciles them to inter-function and coordinate with those of all significant others. In instants before your Brain processes its self awareness of them. Even for AI's. Levels of Avatars of Conscious (C) identity necessarily persist with the unfolding of Substance (S) and Information (I).

If there is a rationalize-able "center" to the cosmos, it is not in a locus in space-time, but in Consciousness inter-functioning with math-fields

Apart from Consciousness and the Reconciling Field of Math, Religion need not require a permanent, unchanging Soul/Identity. God need not care what name you call him/her/it.

We do not travel in Time. We travel in reconciliations of Perspectives of Consciousness.

No mortal has capacity to renormalize Universe so all Perspectives can share in anything like a Universe-In-itself. Rather, to each Perspective of Consciousness, experiences are sensed to "collapse" to a renormalizing interpretation of Information.

Quantum Fuzz is the potential for renormalization for that which has not yet to a particular Perspective been normalized. If the Infinity and Eternity of Consciousness, Substance, and Information can at some level of Quantum Fuzz beyond mortal Physics be summed, that sum may be conceptualized as a meta-steady-state, even though it may present in infinitely various ways to infinitely possible and shared Perspectives.

Quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation. Quarks have various intrinsic properties, including electric charge, mass, color charge, and spin. Quarks are the only elementary particles in the Standard Model of particle physics to experience all four fundamental interactions, also known as fundamental forces (electromagnetism, gravitation, strong interaction, and weak interaction), as well as the only known particles whose electric charges are not integer multiples of the elementary charge.

It would seem that no Information can be transmitted without entailment, at some level, of c. But for c, no field of math could be actively expressed, nor could any sequential record of unfoldment of Substance be preserved.

CSI

The reason I is continuously renormalized: Is because each aspect is continuously expressed in respect of the other two.

Consciousness is that which has capacity beyond mortal measure to function with math-verses to produce appearances (manifestations) of Substance that is measurable within whatever the limits as happen to be established for each math-verse.

Substance is not produced merely out of math, but out of C that has capacity, functioning with math, to express S, that will, consistent with math, pass into I.

Mortal POC perspectives of consciousness are what associate with each manifestation that appears as S.

No appearance is collapsed as an expression of S unless there is associated a way to sense/interpret/record it, as I.

Whatever senses/records a manifestation is, then and there, at some level, conscious of it.

Higher C is that which retains potential capacity to express manifestations that have not yet been determined, as well as capacity to reconcile all those that have been determined.

It may have capacity to experience the qualitative feelings of all lesser mortal POC, that is at least coextensive with whatever math-verse it sponsors.

For every manifested pattern, manifested to sensation, there is associated at least one mortally attached POC.

A recorder is a level of C.

POC's associate with appearances of patterns, but we do not abide "inside" such patterns.

That a pattern is sensed does not mean it is conscious.

It just means at least one POC senses it.

Moreover, POC's at levels below that of humans abide.

Every pattern that is sticky is, in that sense, sensory and conscious at some level.

The C as the general level of the Godhead is conscious of all reconciliations of participating wills.

And it is qualitatively empathetic of each P.

Because each P is simply a limited, blinkered, P of the general C.

Matter is stored I.

Energy is transmitting I.

All present S is a transitory combination of M and E (stored and transmitting I), that is to be accumulated into past recorded I.

When no mortal POC is associated, then whatever the storeage/transmission, it is a function of flux of the CSI Godhead.

No pattern is in itself C.

But some patterns are associated with POC's.

And all patterns are associated with the flux of the CSI Godhead.

The so-called origin, instead of from a point in space, may have come from a sequence beyond which, from our access from our math-verse, I has been lost.

Our Universe/Cosmos may be in a Steady State, after all.

Had POC been around, 13 B years ago, more I, further back, may have been available to them.

Moreover, their sensory interpretation of the Universe/Cosmos at that time may well have been re-normalized to have been somewhat different from ours.

Why do appearances seem to be flying apart?

Does that have to do with where we are in our I cycle?

May black holes be instruments of renormalization to preserve the Steady State?

Is every POC inexorably headed to a black hole?

Lost I is what lies behind the so-called Beginning. Not any real "point" in S-T dimensionality.

C Awareness is associated with every collapsing manifestation of newly recording/accumulating/storing/carrying of I.

As the process produces complex bodies, able to coordinate, sense, and store I on many levels, animal and human POCs emerge.

Beyond the M-E, something spiritual renormalizes/reconciles/feedbacks for the various POCs.

Otherwise, choices from possibilities would not be effected.

No system of patterns can stick -- to repair and replicate itself as needed to nurture and sustain itself --- unless it has means to find its likeness to be attractive. That "means" is conscious appreciation. It's why patterns, as they happen to develop, happen to attract likeness. This is a derivative of patterns that happen to be formed by C as it images with math-verses. Something ineffable about C avails it with capacity to image/imagine/in-form S out of its inter-functioning with math. Something ineffable about C allows it to advance empirical technologies by bootstrapping them.

In itself, the math-verse as we occupy it need not itself occupy space-time. Rather, space-time would be a derivative of the math-verse being activated by a reconciling aspect of Consciousness.

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

Not all the Founders' ideas were good. The Grand Jury being one of the un-goods. Qualify that: Given a decent and informed society, a Grand Jury could make sense. But once a society has become irretrievably divided and stuffed with liberty-illiterates, there may not remain many good ideas that could sustain a representative republic. Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Unfortunately, Dinos and Rinos do not want to keep a republic. They want to gamble everything on a kind of fake equality to be doled out by fascist hoodwinkers. They imagine safe spaces will cuddle us, if only everyone can be made to marry the Gov. Sheep to the shearing.

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

START: mODEL OF csi2