Tuesday, March 7, 2017

God and Freedom


No thing can be made measurably manifest in the absence of a sponsoring expression or reconciliation of Conscious Will.
Reconciled, participatory Will is that without which a thing would not have been expressed.
No measurable Substance unfolds to existential relevance except as the reconciled product of Conscious Will interfunctioning with accumulated Information.
As a Conscious Observer, to take a perspective at any particular locus in space-time, it is necessary both to focus on a limiting system and to lose focus on that which limits it.
Any aspect of the Godhead that fluxes to consciousness of a particular perspective will lose contemporaneous consciousness of other perspectives.
Is there a holistic Reconciler that fluxes with consciousness of all perspectives?
Apart from innate empathy, may it know of that which it reconciles?


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

If God were entirely outside our space-time, with no capacity to change how it unfolds, then God would be irrelevant to us. 
If God functions both in and out our space-time, then we do not have complete free will, but only the partial free will of conscious parts functioning within the framework that defines us. 
If God has at least participatory free will, then God inter-functions with, and reconciles, our prayers and inputs. 
If all that unfolds is pre-set, and God knows it all, then God is powerless to change the creation, even if God had power to create creation.
The intuitive upshot of an imperfect yet empathetic perspective:  Some aspect of God functions in our space-time, and we do not have complete free will, but only the partial free will of conscious parts functioning within the framework that defines us.
A way the Godhead might simultaneously enjoy something like both omniscience and omnipotence would be as a Trinitarian Flux, fluxing aspects or faces of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. 
Holistic Consciousness may have access to all knowledge, yet, at any particular locus of space-time, not have accessed it all.  Holistic Information may at any particular space-time have agglomerated records of all that has gone before, yet not have pre-set all that will subsequently unfold.  Holistic Substance may at any particular space-time have specified limits for what is next to unfold, without necessarily specifying limits for what is to unfold after that.
Under a Trinitarian conceptualization, the Conscious Aspect has power to make choices, the Information Aspect has power to reconcile, and the Substance Aspect has power to specify. 
We, as perspectives of the Godhead, do not have Free Will to change the purposes, reconciliations, and determinations of the Godhead.  But, as imperfect perspectives of the Godhead, we do enjoy Participatory Will.

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

Without respect for innate spiritual higher-mindedness (the Godhead), science-reason-secularism would be lame. Science is powerless to derive or inspire higher-minded morality and empathy. Pure reason cannot derive ought from is. That requires receptivity to the immeasurable Source-Reconciler. And that receptivity is only available in direct intuition, innate empathy, good faith, and good will. Organized religion merely provides forums for assimilating the sustaining values of good faith and good will. Without that, we would be mere serfs and slaves to law droolers, who would rule us and exempt themselves. Christian values inspired and sustained America's Founders. No other system or religion has come close to that record for promoting decent human values of individual freedom of expression and enterprise. Too often, scientisimists rush from moral lameness to spiritual blindness.


CONCERNING SCIENCE, COMMUNICATION, AND CONSCIOUSNESS:

We often think of simple "cause and effect" communication as being inanimately unconscious and billiard-ball like. Then we consider communication among conscious beings with multi layered brains, using symbols and words of multi, fluxing, and ambiguous layers and levels. Such communication entails processes of feedback, to refine communication and make it clearer in perspective and context.

Feedback is essential to communication among conscious beings. Without communicative feedback, there could be no tendency towards clarification out of the background of fuzz, noise, and chaos. The essential aspect of Consciousness is communicative feedback. (This implicates conscious modeling, i.e., representation-communication-clarification.  Re-presentation means presentation of something other than the original thing-in-itself.  Re-presentation is what is accomplished when a photon, impacting a substance, leaves/imprints an image, and receives/carries another.  An image of something is not the original thing itself.)

Among mortals, this entails a body (Substance) with memory (Mind) and time (recorded Information). Human beings do not interact simply as pre-set billiard balls, but as evolving identities that process feedback.

Is consciousness limited to human beings? Maybe consciousness of self is limited to higher-brained creatures. But what about sub-consciousness of identity? How does any so-called inanimate part-icle retain its measurable identity even as its various layers and levels inter-function with other particles in ways that, on individual levels, retain some aspect or degree of innate uncertainty? Out of the allowed range of possible expressions within the limits of defining parameters, how --- except with communicative feedback --- is the relative locus, vector, charge, mass, inertia, relative speed, density, frequency, wavelength, and intensity of any particle/wave conserved, phased, renormalized, and reconciled? And how is this dance of feedback communicated and coordinated within the cosmic bubble that we happen to share?

Often, we forget that even communication (transference of force and/or energy) among the tiniest of billiard balls entails fractals of many layers, levels, and fluxing perspectives, contexts, and phase shifts. Just when we suppose we have found the tiniest building block billiard ball or particle, we find it phase shifts into something more ambiguous and receding, like a rainbow. We may come to intuit that no particle really abides as a thing in itself, but that the measurable substantiality of every particle is renormalized to perspectives to the extent they happen to share a frame of reference.

If conscious perspective is essential to avail any particle of meaningful, measurable, recordable existentiality, then consciousness must abide as an innate aspect of beingness. So, of beingness, we have the present measurability of substantiveness (Substance), the past accumulation of records of previous substantiveness (Information), and shared renormalization of perspectives to context (Consciousness). Thus, our existential reality consists of three fundaments of equal essentiality: Consciousness, Substance, and Information -- CSI. Immeasurable Consciousness must inter-permeate with all of Substance that is measured out and then recorded into re-derivable Information. Thus, the unfolding source (Godhead) must feedback and flux with Consciousness, Substance, and Information.

Of Measurable Science and Cause and Effect:

As the measurables around our bodies and minds change, so do we -- coordinately. We do not cause the measurables to change, nor do they cause us to change. These measurables are merely the coordinate significations of change. But, intuitively and empathetically, some inter-functioning, feeding-back, Reconciling-Source of innately spiritual and immeasurably conscious apprehensions and appreciations does part-icipate -- in Itself and with us -- to facilitate all such change.

Our apprehensions, appreciations, coordinations, and observations of chronological unfoldings ("causes and effects") do not cause such change, but are interwoven with it. We appreciate the signs that are "written on the wall."

As the rules and formulas that nurture us change, we are facilitated to notice and sometimes measure perspectivistic and relational rates of such change --- even though our conscious Will to "cause" such change is not free, but only part-icipatory.

The measurables we notice are not "in themselves" measurable, but measurable only to perspectives within contexts, relationally. From points of view that are normalized to a shared frame of reference ("bubble").

The CSI Godhead (Consciousness/Substance/Information) applies presently operational rules to appreciate new rules, which in turn eventually coordinate with change in the previous rules.

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



TWINS DIFFERENTIALLY TRAVELING IN SPACE-TIME:  An identifiable particle in space, to the extent it continues in time, is necessarily functioning both as a particle and as a wave, through space-time.  Its accumulation of relationships is how it records relationships/chronologies in time.  Different particle/waves accumulate relational information at different rates.  When they mix, they renormalize with one another.  A photon imparts information concerning a pervious record of an image as it absorbs a new record of an image.  This entails a process of image-ination and in-form-ation.   Differently traveling twins may differentially experience and absorb in-form-ation, so that, when they return to re-mix together, one may be of a different entropic aspect in wear and tear from the other.  One will have experienced information at differently renormalizing rates, intervals, and interpretations from the other.


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

A photon is a particle in space and a wave in time.  In space-time, a photon is a particle-wave.

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


Science, in itself. is not real.  Rather, science, as an unfolding process, is real only in this respect:  The CSI Godhead (Consciousness/Substance/Information) applies presently operational rules to make new rules, which in turn eventually change the previous rules. 
Once the previous rules are changed, their old formulas and formulations may or may not be preserved as part of the past -- depending on the extent to which the information accumulated and recorded concerning the past is preserved.
If our cosmic bubble were burst or dissipated, would its accumulation of Information (or "science") be preserved as part of what is real?  Who can say?

Welding as a science remains real only to those of us who happen to share a bubble in which the process that we call welding is reliable. Apart from that happenstance, the reality of welding, as we know it, is temporal. Against the time of the Godhead, the reality of our science of welding may be fleeting, at best.

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

To my conceptualization, a feedback situation applies between the Trinitarian Godhead of (immeasurable) Consciousness-(measurable) Substance-(accumulation of past recordation) Information and the various individual and particular perspectives of it, such as the personages on our planet. 
I conceptualize that the CSI Godhead appreciates moral purposefulness, but that its appreciation fluxes with feedback regarding us.  We do participate in defining how our destinies can and should unfold.   That has to do with how our prayers and purposes are reconciled in ways that do not threaten the rules that limit and define our shared bubble.
The Great Commandment is merely to love (appreciate) the Reconciler (CSI).  It is absolute.  Subordinate moralities are relative.  They are reconciled out of the mix.  Regarding them, I can say or judge, given such and such a purpose, such and such was counterproductive (or evil).  But, if we are to speak of morality, I believe all subordinate moral codes should serve in some respect the Great Commandment (good faith) and the Golden Rule (good will).
What is an I-ness?  Simply a perspective of the holistic CSI, given particular form by limiting its capacities and senses.  Without limits to our particular forms, we could not be humans or evolve as humans.  Homeschoolmom expressed some related ideas concerning how evolution unfolds consistently with entropy.

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

Is there really a foolproof Turing Test?  I don't see how objective-measuring can remove all potential for subjective other-directing.
The eye has evolved to allow us to see, tune, and take approximate measures of relational size, form, and distance.  Other of our senses allow us to take approximate measures of heat, pressure, taste, sound, balance. Together, I think our senses facilitate a general sense of consciousness of self.  A qualitative sense of being.  I think various receptors allow sensations of pleasure.  Together, I think that allow a qualitative sense of purposefulness
I think a qualitative sense of morality is an upshot of the mix of senses of being and of purpose.   (Dogs are readily seen to exhibit a sense of fair play.)   However, apart from good faith (Great Commandment) and good will (Golden Rule) that seem to flow inherently from the general senses of being and of purpose, I don't think the cosmic Godhead sponsors any other permanent rules of morality.
 Rather, evolution unfolds generally in coordination with a generalized sense of being and of purpose.  Societies of laws and governance evolve in coordination with their capacity to endure and to facilitate various aspects of good faith and good will.  I doubt any person or society that was entirely devoid of good faith and good will could long survive or replicate. 
Dawkins seemed to hypothesize a kind of good will attraction among "selfish genes."  He modeled that, and engaged in statistical analysis.  But I doubt individual genes are "really" selfish.  I suppose one could engage in statistical analysis to  "measure" degrees of "sensations of being" or of "sensations of purposefulness."  But I suspect such analysis would amount to circular rationalization to a contrived purpose.  Fundamentally, I think of the sense of being and the sense of purpose as being qualitative, not quantitative.
The relative power and freedom to give expression to moral purposefulness (good faith and good will) fluxes between societies and their individual members.  Some societies tend towards collectivism, others towards individualism, others towards empire or globalization, others towards nihilism and anarchy.  These varieties of social expression compete.  Whatever the upshot, historians (and scientisimists) of the time will be paid to rationalize it as moral (or perhaps even the best of all possible worlds).  Some may even call the desired upshot the everlasting will of the Godhead.  I don't dwell much on that.
I don't think there are many specific rules of cosmic morality.  Rather, most rules of morality are subordinate to a purpose.  If we are of a society that values freedom of expression and enterprise for individuals, then we will promote a different set of rules than would those who aspire to a society that more values longevity, security, equality, servitude, and diktat.  If one considers the power of the human brain, it seems a wrong and a waste to confine it to servitude.
For a decent, civilizing society that respects and facilitates the freedom of expression and enterprise of individual citizens, I think a model for a religious faith is invaluable and essential.  That model may evolve, but it would need to inspire respect for a caring, empathetic, inviting, tough-loving, Reconciler.  It would need to accord forums for congregants of good faith and good will to coordinate their rules of social engagement.   Preferably, more in terms of general morality than in terms of stifling elitist regulations down to the toenails.  However, when the citizenry is unassimilated, divided, and ruled by oligarchic collectivists, then individual freedom of conscience will tend to be replaced by stifling, arbitrary, ignorant, sub-humanizaing, elitist diktat.
If the Reconciler smiles on the efforts of American Idealists, we will preserve the Ten Commandments, the Great Commandment, the Golden Rule, and the idea of Christian Charity (not Gov taxation).  However, if the ACLU has its way, oligarchic collectivists will run most Christians out of the public square.  Presently, the ACLU and its fellow travelers have made long strides towards a general course of sub-humanization.

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

There aren't many substantive expressions that do not yield in aspects to approaches for mathematical analysis.  The more we happen to depend on a shared bubble of approaches, the more we will tend to communicate among ourselves AS IF those approaches were "real." 
However, even for the most reliable of dependencies, such as, for example, the speed of light,  it is becoming more apparent, over a wide and long enough haul,  that even those change.  There are no non-trivial formulas that are true-in-themselves, apart from a limiting and happenstance bubble. 
While everything that we communicate can be subjected to math-based analysis (some in more detail and encompassment than others), all such communications (the non-trivial or non-tautological ones) are incomplete.  There will always be unmeasured or immeasurable qualitatives at the fringes and in the fuzzy transitions and phase shifts.  In some endeavors, those qualitatives often lead our best laid plans to go awry.  We proceed then with leaps of faith, tinkering, searching for better explanations and models that are more complete or reliable to our purposes.
I doubt a philosophy based purely in substantive and math-based analysis can well serve the moral needs and chosen purposes of humanity.  Or even a "best" model of "reality."  I think reality tends better to be modeled as Trinitarian.  Past, present, future.  Substance, Information, Consciousness.  In constant and continual flux.  (Moreover, I suspect even the very bubble we share is reconciled to flux in feedback response to the ways we happen to model and tinker with it.  Like a living X-Box Virtual Reality Holodek of feedback reconciliation.  How many more cloud advancements before players become more like virtual gods to their chosen X Boxes?)
Sam Harris would likely agree with you and disagree with me.  So, if one were to swallow that pleasure is the most important or only worthwhile human purpose, then one may suppose that the only test of morality is what would facilitate the most pleasure for the most people.  There are problems in logic with that, but put those aside.  If one takes the leap of faith that what is moral is what is most pleasurable to most people, then one could, like Ron Hubbard, audit for brain wave evidence of pleasure sensations.  Then a team of moral scientists could endeavor to apply findings to the mass herd of humans.   Thus could a Church of Scientology evolve to a Church of Scientism.
But that cup of tea would not be for me.

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

It used to amaze me how little insight and common sense people have who think like you. Yes, God is irrelevant to an attempt to find a theory of physics to explain and control every measurable thing. No, God is not irrelevant to innate spiritual insight, intuition, and empathy. Nowadays, I tend to feel sorry for people who lack the common sense to understand that, but I cannot fix them.
The Godhead does inter-function with our cosmos. The way IT does so is by effecting choices within parameters of possibilities. Because the way IT does so with regard to measurables is necessarily consistent with math-based rules for measuring, neither math nor empiricism can be used to prove or confine the Godhead. So, the only way the Godhead is relevant to us is through innate spiritual intuition and empathy. It is with those that we derive our moral codes and meaningful purposes. Not through some grand theory of moral science for measuring degrees of morality.
Regarding morality having "nothing to do with science," I would not say morality has nothing to do with science. I would say that morality has nothing measurable to do with science.
When you say morality pertains to "what is best from the society it represents," you use that word "best" in an ambiguous way. Do you mean measurably best, or do you mean intuitively, empathetically, and immeasurably best? Unless you mean measurably best, then you are in effect, however unwittingly, in agreement with me. But if you do mean measurably best, then you need to provide a more rigorous, scientific definition of your term "best." It does not appear that you have thought this through.

My only proof is in direct experience of a general (qualitative) sense of being.  Not in any specific (quantitative) measure to any specific sense.

Re:  " what the society as a whole agrees that is best"

And who is the judge of what society as a whole agrees (or should agree, or changes its mind to believe, i.e., have faith) is best?  To think this is some kind of objective or scientific test is silly.  How does "society as a whole" agree?   Is "settled morality" like "settled science"? 

Surely, you can do "better" than that.  Are you saying that some kind of utopian representative republic should be forced on every society, culture, and nation --- regardless of the traditions and desires of its people?  How chauvinistic of you!

Regarding proof:  Yes, by definition, to confine holistic God to a definition or an empirical proof is beyond any mortal's particular capacity.  I don't deal in silly empirical proofs of God.  I deal in reasons to have faith in a Reconciler of unfolding moral purposefulness. 

Not all reasons for all issues can be subjected to rigorous measurements or material tests.  Some are based in direct intuition or empathy.  Not in measurement by any particular sense, but in experience of a general sense of being. 

For example, "you" (and any other Turing Bot) probably believe you have an essential identity.  So, prove it to me.  Or to "yourself."  Prove you're not a bot who only deludes himself that he's a human being.  Prove "├┐ou" are "more reasonable, less deluded, or more enlightened" than a person who believes Consciousness is innately tied to beingness. 

If you can't prove that, in empiricism or in math, then does that make you "deluded"?  Do you foresee a Church of Scientism, to inspire and spread the gospel of the "best moral way of being"?  Do you have a list of Ten Tolerances, to provide a consistent, coherent, complete guide to end conflicts regarding that which should be tolerated and that which should not?  Maybe you can join with Sam Harris, to study up on how to produce the best, biggest, longest, orgiastic burst of dopamine in the most human beings.  Or with Jim Jones, to produce the "best" Kool-Aid to put everyone out of their misery in the fastest, least painful way.


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


Regarding Freedom: There is no such thing as free will for an individual to do everything he can imagine he wants to do. There is participatory will, that allows an individual, within the parameters that nurture his body and mind, to participate by appreciating his context and his choices --- that are reconciled within it. His choices are necessarily constrained by math-based rules that define and conserve his encompassment. The very idea of parts implicates an idea of an encompassing holism, to whose rules and parameters the parts must conform. The parts cannot unfold in any way beyond the extent of the conservatory math that is applied to or by that with which they are encompassed.

If all choices were pre-set, then the holism would amount to no more than a set of pre-determining rules, for which any creator would have no further role or involvement.

However, that does not seem to be the way our cosmos works. In broad parameters, our cosmos does seem to have been reliably pre-set. If it had not been, our bodies would have had little chance to evolve from the slime.

However, our role as appreciating and apprehensive observers seems to affect directions for how particles and particulars unfold. Something about our cosmos seems to require an interplay with observers from transitory points of view.

Indeed, it is hard to imagine how there could be any such thing as any independent inanimate unconscious fundamental building block thing-in-itself. Rather, every measurable thing seems to necessitate a context and a measuring point of view (appreciative, conscious, and part-icular observer/part-icipant).

Moreover, our attempts towards unifying explanations seem to implicate an origin of substance and anti-substance out of no-thing-ness ---- which "really" abides as some-thing-ness (however immeasurable IT may be).

At fuzzy fringes that limit us and facilitate our phase-fluxes, there seem to abide essential qualitatives that defy rigorous, unifying, particularly pre-set, quantification.

Perhaps this leads some philosophers of science and morality to intuit an inherent, innate role for consciousness and pure math in the unfolding of what could not otherwise appear to be our substantive cosmos.

IAE, there is nothing in logic, math, or empiricism to make a belief in an inanimate and entirely pre-set cosmos any more probable, necessary, palatable, or scientific than a belief in a consciousness-based cosmos.

Moreover, the idea of an inanimate and entirely pre-set cosmos tends to deaden inspiration for moral purposefulness, while the idea of a consciousness-permeated cosmos implicates an intuitive and empathetic appreciation for good faith (Great Commandment), good will (Golden Rule), and pursuit of purposefulness. it facilitates churches and forums for people to congregate to inspire and assimilate moral values and meaningful lives. It facilitates intuitive, appreciative, personal, feedback-receptivity, respect for Something Spiritual that Guides and Reconciles our unfolding experiences.

In these days of moral overreach by too many scientisimists, we are seeing how a representative republic unravels as its citizenry replaces the moral values of spiritual-based good faith and good will with little more than a "scientific" pursuit of the biggest and longest orgiastic send off. We are reaping the fruit of "moral scientists" who decided that spiritual-encouragements of faith, family, and fidelity were of little import, if not humbugs.


We don't have free will to suddenly change the rules for the niche without whose nourishment we could not survive. However, over time, the chassis with which our consciousness is adapted will be modified. We don't individually have free will to effect those modifications all at once. But, over time and space, working in a feedback flux with the Holism and one another, there does abide such power! That is what I mean by Participatory Will. We participate in a feedback dance with the Holism, as IT reconciles, unfolds, and guides our choices.

I don't believe our substantive cosmos is entirely pre-determined in its path of unfoldment. I think the Reconciler is involved with us! I believe spiritual intuition and empathy are innate to every perspective of consciousness. I believe congregations in respect of that are advantaged to assimilate sustainable and civilizing values.
However, because whatever the Reconciler measurably effects will be consistent with rules of measurement, the existentiality of the Reconciler is necessarily outside the proof of measurables.
In an array of ways (quantum uncertainty, observer effect, butterfly effect, lack of ultimate building block thing-in-itself, paradoxical nature of philosophy of particulars, etc.), the spiritual entailment of the reconciler seems to be qualitatively interpenetrating in ways that will forever defy reduction to scientific quantitatives.

(All good bacteria go to heaven. Or not.)
I am agreeable to a belief in a powerful, caring, Reconciling Consciousness. I suspect IT seeks all manner of possible experiences through each and every perspective of consciousness. I suspect each such perspective is eventually restored to, re-absorbed by, and subsumed in, that Reconciler.
I suspect what makes us mortals is what defines and limits us to particular spatial-temporal perspectives. Without our defining limitations, we could not have power as mortals. But because we are particular derivatives of the Holism, none of us, while alive, can be tasked to carry a bigger cross than we are able. Because when the cross exceeds our limits, we die. We are then transposed.
As to eternal rewards or karma for mortal perspectives, I claim no knowledge ....
Regardless, I do not intend to be antagonistic to a heavenly faith -- unless or until it becomes twisted to rationalize some kind of despotic communism on Earth.
I celebrate faith that inspires and sustains a representative republic that can facilitate individual decency, freedom, dignity, good faith, and good will. I celebrate forums and churches that assimilate sustainable values in respect of such faith.


You are very confused because your brain is self-blocked. God is God. Ultimately, there is one cosmos. One manifestation of an array of all that is and will be possible.
The different dressings people try to put on God to model God are only about their perspectives, desires, and hang-ups. Most religious people do not claim to "really" know the mind of God. But they do seek guidance from God by being receptive in meditation and prayer concerning God. They pursue non-trivial truth, while appreciating that their mortal limitations will never completely avail it. Much as they pursue happiness. Or, in your case, distemper.
Does light "really" consist of waves or of particles? Neither, by itself. Whatever light (or any other measurable standard for measuring) "really" consists of is as beyond our complete explanation as the conundrum of any particular "thing in itself." Still, we find value and purpose in tinkering with various approaches to trying to understand and use light. To say there is no value to trying to understand or use light by modeling it in different ways would be the practice of a fool. A nobody.
Able scientists have provided us with useful ways to model light. Insightful theologians have provided us with useful and/or inspiring ways to conceptualize and appreciate God. Look through your blockages and you may come more to appreciate some of them.

*********************
So, you are admitting that "something" can exist (only) in one's mind? What is this something that can exist only in one's mind?
Light functions as both a wave and a particle. As to what light "is" or will become, I doubt any mortal knows. I function and model as a citizen. But "I" am much more than a citizen.
I do not believe my model for God is God. Rather, I believe my model is a model. The Source of Mind is what people often call God. IT is not "in" any mortal's brain or mind. IT is the Source of Mind.
I doubt you learned much in high school at all.

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

We use math to measure aspects that are measurable with math. We do not measure any thing-in-itself. We do not measure anything that is independent (for its definition and changing nature and function) from the encompassing and fluxing context within which it is found. Assuming some particular things-in-themselves may "really" exist, none can be measured by any means that would alter their character and/or place, because the measurement itself would have changed an aspect of the thing being measured. We base our measurements on assumptions that all aspects of things necessary to the measurement remain otherwise constant. However, beyond approaches to limits, we are otherwise unable to confirm that assumption. Scientists are beginning to realize that not even the speed of light necessarily remains constant for galactic periods of time.



Given such conundrums, some physicists/mathematicians think it may make sense for some purposes to model empirically measurable substances as if they were derivatives not of anything really physical, but purely of math. (And maybe "something" immeasurable --- unless math can measure all math.) In that case, electromagnetic radiation would not really consist of waves and/or particles, but of purely math-based values (as in the case of a matrix). Again, this is modeling for empirical purposes.



Modeling about Spiritual Mind (God) is for moral purposes. Do you respect any kind of moral code? If so, do you regard it as dealing somewhat with immeasurables, or do you really think you derive it rationally, purely from what is measurable in physics? Have you found a way to derive ought from is? Can you teach it, without its becoming a religious leap of faith?


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

Lol!  Of course the Immeasurable cannot be evidenced by measurables!  Only a fool (or a nobody) would confuse himself by believing that measurables have or could have disproven immeasurables.  (What is the source of science, or the measurable cosmos?  Math applied to nothingness that was really somethngness?)
The evidence for the Immeasurable is not in empiricism.  It is in innate spiritual intuition and empathy.  It is "in" Mind.  By appealing to science to disprove what is beyond science, you have now confirmed that you are not just very confused.  You are very, very confused.
I notice you make no attempt to use science to justify a moral code or to answer my inquiry concerning how you derive ought from is.  Are you afraid?  Answer the question:  How do you derive your moral code without taking a leap of faith?  Do you find it in science?  Preach!  Tell us what science says concerning the moral code we "should" respect.  Break it down and show us your work.  Show us how your moral system is entirely based in "science."
I am going on a nice bike ride.  Use the time to put your thinkster to work.

Of course God exists outside physics, in the imagination of consciousness. God said, let there be light. And there was light.
Of course the supernatural exists, beyond measurement, in the spiritual imagination of consciousness. I agree. So what are you arguing about? You still seem very confused.

So, you are admitting that "something" can exist (only) in one's mind? What is this something that can exist only in one's mind?
Light functions as both a wave and a particle. As to what light "is" or will become, I doubt any mortal knows. I function and model as a citizen. But "I" am much more than a citizen.
I do not believe my model for God is God. Rather, I believe my model is a model. The Source of Mind is what people often call God. IT is not "in" any mortal's brain or mind. IT is the Source of Mind.
I doubt you learned much in high school at all.
*****************
EDIT:
We use math to measure aspects that are measurable with math. We do not measure any thing-in-itself. We do not measure anything that is independent (for its definition and changing nature and function) from the encompassing and fluxing context within which it is found. Assuming some particular things-in-themselves may "really" exist, none can be really measured by any means that would alter their character and/or place, because the measurement itself would have changed an aspect of the thing being measured.
We base our measurements on assumptions that all aspects of things necessary to the measurement remain otherwise constant. However, beyond approaches to limits, we are otherwise unable to confirm that assumption. Scientists are beginning to realize that not even the speed of light necessarily remains constant for galactic periods of time. Some suppose it may change in phases.
Given such conundrums, some physicists/mathematicians think it may make sense for some purposes to model empirically measurable substances as if they were derivatives not of anything really physical, but purely of math. (And maybe "something" immeasurable --- unless math can measure all math.) In that case, electromagnetic radiation would not really consist of waves and/or particles, but of purely math-based values (as in the case of a matrix). Again, this is modeling for empirically measuring purposes.
Modeling about Spiritual Mind (God) is for moral purposes. Do you respect any kind of moral code? If so, do you regard it as dealing somewhat with immeasurables, or do you really think you derive it rationally, purely from what is measurable in physics?
Have you found a way to derive ought from is? Can you teach it, without its becoming a religious leap of faith? Might you have some sub-conscious belief/idea of God/higher-mindedness, yet, because you have not named it or called it God, you suppose you are just a pretending or unaware atheist? Or a seeker of moral purposefulness, just like everyone else, but one who does not like the verbalized sound of G O D? If so, that's ok. I doubt G O D is troubled it you want to refer to a name or not. so long as respect is intimated in higher mindedness.


Science deals with models of reality, not directly with reality. Science is what intelligent observers use to model explanations about reality. Science is a process that relates to reality. Science itself is not physical reality. And often scientific models are wrong, incomplete, transitory, or reliable only to a bubble in space-time. There is no measure for how much reality a model holds.
There is, however, practical experience for how reliable a model seems to be. While and where we happen to share a same bubble of limits and potentialities, we can tinker and model to achieve amazingly reliable and practical technologies.
But those technologies and reliabilites pertain only to the cosmic bubble that we happen to share in space-time. That bubble changes. Does that bubble have reality for any being of a different bubble? When our bubble out of otherwise seeming nothingness phases to express something else, does our model of its "past reality" still exist? Are either the past or our models of it real? Or only derivative of a "superior and immeasurable reality-in-itself?"


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

The eye has evolved to allow us to see, tune, and take approximate measures of relational size, form, and distance.  Other of our senses allow us to take approximate measures of heat, pressure, taste, sound, balance. Together, I think they allow a sense of consciousness of self.  a qualitative sense of being.  I think various receptors allow sensations of pleasure.  Together, I think that allow a qualitative sense of purposefulness. 

I think a qualitative sense of morality is an upshot of the mix of senses of being and of purpose.  However, apart from good faith (Great Commandment) and good will (Golden Rule) that seem to flow inherently from the general senses of being and of purpose, I don't think the cosmic Godhead sponsors any other permanent rules of morality.  Rather, evolution unfolds generally in coordination with a generalized sense of being and of purpose.  Societies of laws and governance evolve in coordination with their capacity to endure and to facilitate various aspects of good faith and good will.  I doubt any person or society that was entirely devoid of good faith and good will could long survive or replicate. 

However, the relative power and freedom to give expression to such moral purposefulness (good faith and good will) fluxes between societies and their individual members.  Some societies tend towards collectivism, others towards individualism, others towards empire or globalization, others towards nihilism and anarchy.  These varieties of social expression compete.  Whatever the upshot, historians of the time will be paid to rationalize it as moral (or perhaps even the best of all possible worlds).  Some may even call the desired upshot the everlasting will of the Godhead.  (I don't dwell much on that.)

I don't think there are many specific rules of cosmic morality.  Rather, most rules of morality are subordinate to a purpose.  If we are of a society that values freedom of expression and enterprise for individuals, then we will promote a different set of rules than would those who aspire to a society that more values longevity, security, equality, servitude, and diktat.  If one considers the power of the human brain, it seems a wrong and a waste to confine it to servitude.

For a decent, civilizing society that respects and facilitates the freedom of expression and enterprise of individual citizens, I think a model for a religious faith is invaluable and essential.  That model may evolve, but it would need to inspire respect for a caring, empathetic, inviting, tough-loving, Reconciler.  It would need to accord forums for congregants of good faith and good will to coordinate their rules of social engagement.   Preferably, more in terms of general morality than in terms of stifling elitist regulations down to the toenails.  However, when the citizenry is unassimilated, divided, and ruled by oligarchic collectivists, then individual freedom of conscience will tend to be replaced by stifling, arbitrary, ignorant, sub-humanizaing, dlitist diktat.

If the Reconciler smiles on the efforts of American Idealists, we will preserve the Ten Commandments, the Great Commandment, the Golden Rule, and the idea of Christian Charity (not Gov taxation).  However, if the ACLU has its way, oligarchic collectivists will run most Christians out of the public square.  Presently, the ACLU and its fellow travelers have made long strides towards a general course of sub-humanization.

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

Law Droolism is how faithless pervs seek to rule and farm the corruptible masses.



Well, I do prefer the KJV. Regardless, politically, I am concerned with preserving the representative republic, with equal dignity for all who are faithful to a decent republic that respects the freedom and dignity of individuals. So I try not to mix religion any more than is essential.
That said, I think faith in a caring, inviting, reconciling, Sponsor of Higher Mindedness of some sort is essential. I do not consider Islam to be a spiritual faith, because it is based not in faith but in oppression and force.
The doctrine of original sin, etc., is complex and, when considered in depth, is not nearly as simplistic as some like to believe. Imo. That said, I do believe mortals are inferior to the Reconciling Source (Trinitarian Godhead) and in need of guidance and correction. Beyond that, I do not much engage.
I have no quarrel with religious study in Church. Nor with Christian or other values of decency being represented in the public square. I do not think all societies, cultures, or countries are suited to representative republicanism as a form of governance. And I think they, and oligarchs, seek generally to undermine the American Republic. And that, politically, is my main concern.
I suspect the Godhead is interested in, and needs, outlets for experiencing particular points of view within limiting and defining contexts, and vice versa. I think the relationship between the Trinitarian Godhead and individual Beings, unavoidably, is one of constant, continuous, and appreciative feedback and reconciliation. So I think our imperfection (being limited as part-iculars) is one of necessary, innate design. Original sin and ongoing sin may somehow be bound up with that, but that idea does not seem as essential to the furtherance of a representative republic as the idea of shared and humble receptivity before a guiding Reconciler. Imo. :)



Instead of talking about Jews versus Jews, I would rather talk about Zionists versus Secular Atheists. It's the Secular Atheists that want to replace the assimilation of moral values with oligarchic diktat and ACLU law drooling that give me the creeps. Especially when they want to claim special license to affirmatively free them from handicaps they want to impose on other Whites. A complicating problem seems to be that Zionists are dependent on funding and political support from American Jews.


I don't believe Adam tainted humanity or that Jews tainted only themselves. I think humanity is naturally in need of guidance, correction, reconciliation. Jesus would have had to die, regardless of whether He had been assigned a birth among people of any religion or culture. Regardless, I think the YOLO idea is silly.

Only recently have I noticed so much whining about so-called anti-Semitism. It's as if the whining were coordinated, like the so-called War on Women. Is anti-Semitism really on the increase, or is there some undercurrent agenda at work?
Are those who want to preserve legalistic regulations down to the toenails getting anxious that Americans may actually want to restore some freedom and dignity for individuals, free from globalistic law-drooling regulators?







No comments: