Re: "a serial apprehension of a series of completely static frames, like data constructs"
An interesting conceptualization (model, construct, metaphor). A way to describe reality, or a way to "actually be" reality? Can it be a complete, coherent, consistent description, or must it be a description that is useful for some purposes, and less useful for others? Whatever "reality" is from "frame to frame" thought to be, and however useful such thought may seem, can any mortal ever "know"?
What is "more real" -- versus more inferior or derivative or correlative or "of equal dignity" on the flux side of a same coin -- of experience?
(1) Is the-measurable-quantitative the superior "cause" of the-immeasurable-qualitative? Or (2) is the-immeasurable-qualitative the superior cause of the-measurable-quantitative? Or (3) is the-measurable-quantitative (Substance) of equal dignity (in reality) with the-immeasurable-qualitative (Consciousness)? Or with the accumulation of each previous (past) experience into a record (In-form-ation)?
I doubt science and/or logic can ever produce a definitive answer. Yet, each of the 3 ways of conceptualizing may have useful application, depending on locally unfolding purposes experienced in space-time. I think the 3rd way of conceptualizing may have advantages in some niches for accomodating moral purposefulness to technological capabilities. It may have value for conceptualization purposes. But I doubt it can be "known" to actually be the case.
Even so, I suspect your conceptualization WILL lead to technological applications! Somehow, we are able to bootstrap ourselves, even though we do not have complete understanding. Sometimes, we construct successful technological applications even when our underlying theories (constructs) are less "true" than contextually useful, given the present flux of happenstance. Some encompassing "rules" (hypotheses) happen to hold well or long enough to allow us or to inspire us to make technological use of them. But I suspect all math-based rules eventually flux over the expanse of space-time.
I find it hard to conceive that we ever come to an end of possible technological applications. (Is the cause of infinity finite?) Rather, I conceive that what we take to constitute even the most fundamental laws of nature come to flux and change as their applications unfold across the potentialities of space-time. Alas, even that is "just a conceptualizaton" (model). As such, I suspect even that conceptualization cannot be completely wrapped up in a box and tied with a pretty bow.
What the hell "is" infinity/eternity, anyhow? Sometimes, I punt to this "answer": A long ride on a nice Harley. Alternatively stated: What we make of it.
A Trinitarian Aspect of Consciousness, Substance, and Information seems to abide, innately, by which patterns of order cannot do other than arise to experiential manifestation out of a Chaos of Potentiality. "IT" calls each mortal Perspective of Consciousness to IT's inevitable, ineffable service, as an Experiential Manifester. IT's purpose seems to be to avail pursuits towards expressing Good Faith (Great Commandment) and Good Will (Golden Rule). IT's method of hammering out such patterns necessitates an anvil -- which is Death and Change, by which all that comes to pass into present and local manifestation also must pass into death and recordation into Information concerning all that has gone before.
Perhaps pride and hubris led some to try to "own" IT by reducing IT to math. But IT is more than math. IT includes that which gives life to math, by igniting and animating math. IT is that which cannot give measurable signs of feedback with itself except via the tool for measuring, which is Math. The Trinity (CSI) cannot flux out measurable significations of itself except via Math. And that Math is somehow applied to Reconcile all the in-folding Perspectives of the Parts with the out-folding purposes of the Holism.
Well, weather delayed my Ride.
I am mainly on board with what you say. Remember, each theory can be like a coin with two sides: One side pertaining to measurable, practical, empirical, substantive, technological applications. The other side pertaining to immeasurable implications and hints concerning morality and purposefulness. IAE, different theories (conceptualizations) regarding reality are often unavoidable and needed or helpful to serve different applications and purposes. I don't think any grand unified theory can ever perfectly match "reality."
For purely philosophical purposes, I don't see much drawback in conceptualizing measurable reality as neither the ultimate cause of observer-based consciousness nor the inferior product of "mind," but instead as part of a correlative of a trinitarian flux of immeasurable Consciousness, locally measurable Substance, and cumulating Information (CSI).
As to identity of personages, yes, many interesting aspects of feedback flux seem to be intimated. One may conceptualize that we are each expressions of the same reconciling Consciousness, but with differentially imposed local blinders and glasses. Hence, innate empathy, i.e., good faith and good will. Often helped, leveraged, or distorted by organized religion.
I doubt logic, math, and empiricism can provide a "right" answer. Only answers that seem useful (practicably, intuitively, or empathetically) for purposes pertinent to a locally adopted and adapted space-time reference. As each observer flows, fluxes, and extends beyond his present locality, I expect the math-based rules will change -- even if ever so slightly. Perhaps, eventually, every experience that is possible to happen will happen, and every conceptualization that leads to applications will be conceptualized?
As I would conceptualize the Trinity (CSI), IT cannot flux out measurable significations of itself except in respect of Math. Somehow, Math is applied to Reconcile all in-folding Perspectives of the Parts with the out-folding purposes of the Holism. A Trinitarian Aspect of Consciousness, Substance, and Information (CSI) seems to abide, innately, by which patterns of order cannot do other than to arise to experiential manifestation out of a Chaos of Potentiality.
The Trinitarian Holism calls" each mortal Perspective of Consciousness to IT's inevitable, ineffable service, as an Experiential Manifester. The Holism's purpose (?) seems to be to avail pursuits towards expressing Good Faith (Great Commandment) and Good Will (Golden Rule). IT's method of hammering out such patterns necessitates an anvil -- which is Death and Change, by which all that comes to pass into present and local manifestation also must pass into death and recordation into Information concerning all that has gone before.
I have no special technological application in mind for this conceptualization. Rather, it serves only or mainly to rationalize a spiritually, immeasurably, "real" basis for civilizing unfoldments based in good faith and good will. I suspect it may tend to be more spiritually inspiring than an unnecessary belief that all of life is "merely" the product of a dumb, uncaring, un-connecting, and uninvolved Source.
If the matrix itself evolves, could it be "the cause" of its own unfolding evolution? That boggles the Mind.
I agree that the cosmic system seems to entail a meta-engine of continuous ignition and feedback, so that even the math-based rules for the matrix evolve, as the system as a holism reconciles feedback from and among all such particular perspectives as happen to be processed through its matrix, from past potentiality through present manifestation into future information. The territory of the cosmos seems not to be derived solely from inert rules of math, but from some meta-engine that continuously activates and fluxes the math. The consequence is the ever-fluxing presentation and reconciliation of measurable forms. Without a meta-engine to animate the math, the matrix, by itself, would seem to the intuition of consciousness to be inadequate to produce or reconcile what we experience.
We are in a situation such that our fundamental words and concepts seem to convey meaning, yet the meaning is incomplete. Words like cause, will, purpose, know, form, information, reality, meta-reality. Always rendering attempts at non-trivial communication ambiguous, fluxing, and incomplete.
With only one concept, we could add or iterate only triviality. One is one. God is God. Tautology.
With only two concepts, we could generate only circular reasoning. Jesus is Lord. Beingness is good. Two is one plus one.
With three concepts, we can get a fluxing trinity. Immeasurable Consciousness, Measurable Substance, Cumulating Information. CSI. C need not be defined by SI, but C's flux would be prescribed consistent with SI. Likewise for S, being prescribed consistent with CI. And I, being prescribed by CS. We can get agent, reactant, medium/catalyst. Past, present, future. Object, Equality, Representation. Will, feedback, reconciliation. Focus, context, change. Rule, evolution, purpose. Yet, the flux remains uncertain, even though apparently confined to parameters.
SPACE: What is Space? It is essential to geometry. To apprehending where one abides. Yet, it has no independent reality, apart from time. And space-time seems to have no independent reality apart from formations of matter-energy. And no meaning apart from recordation, information, potentiality for perception, observation.
How one experiences and measures Space is affected by the bodily form that is adopted/adapted to avail a perspective or sensory interpretation of what one observes or records. Different forms may differentially apprehend or interpret a quality of space, yet aspects of such interpretation may be translated or renormalized, to avail communication between perspectives. Still, the transmutive nature that avails one's interpretation can affect the quality of one's interpretation, as well as the range of other forms with which one may communicate with any consistency. And some transmutations within or across Space will result in death or memory wipeout of the original personage being transmuted. Whereupon the previous locus of Space may suddenly appear vastly, contextually, different. The state of the math-web-matrix that provides the context for experience will have been altered. Altered state. And how one is organized to perceive affects the context "where"one abides. Question begged: Apart from math, what is Space, "ïn itself"?