No noble lie needed. Only inspiring metaphors and more appreciation of the interpenetrating flux and role of the Godhead. People, enhanced by AI, will less likely accept knowable overstatements (lies?), whether or not thought noble.
Once upon a time, in frustration, I earnestly sought a way to eliminate metaphysics from physics. As I appreciated the futility of that endeavor, I then sought at least to determine a clear line with which to separate metaphysics apart from the domain of physics. Reluctantly, I came to believe that no such a clear line is ascertainable. That physics is interpenetrated throughout with metaphysics. That perhaps even the laws of nature thought to be most fundamental may be subject to flux, re-determination, or re-definition. Even the speed of light may be subject to gradual phase shifting.
The knowledge we acquire seems to be trivial, even though its application often leads to astonishing consequences. What I mean by trivial is that such knowledge is true by definition -- either by the flux of our conceptual definitions or by the flux of nature's definitions of its laws. Conceptually, 2+2=4. Naturally, to the extent any Algorithm may define limits of objective expression (laws of nature), may such limits, if or when known, reasonably be said to be trivial, because they would be true in how they are or were defined (even if they needed to be discovered)? May the speed of light be constant in every re-normalization in space time, only because constancy in the experience of such speed is part of how the Algorithm defines space-time? Under such usage, only our allowances within defining parameters, and our qualitative experiences of them, would seem not to be trivial, i.e., not pre-determined or true-by-definition.
It does not appear that there abides any thing whose measurable values are not subject to a flux of immeasurables. This seems consistent with various apprehensions. Such as: The cumulation of Information, as the orderliness of Substance dissipates. The existence of possibilities within fluxing parameters. Our moral freedom within fluxing laws. The effects of Consciousness on manifestations. The fluxing of conscious memories and recordings as they are re-normalized throughout space-time. The innate empathies among the various perspectives of what seems to be a same Consciousness. (Consciousness is consciousness; there but for fortune go "Ï"). Apprehensions of dynamic-conservational-reconciliation and feedback-guidance-motivation between the cosmos and its manifestations.
I suspect the Cosmos will continue with its motivational and unfolding feedback under its trinitarian flux of Consciousness-Substance-Information ---- notwithstanding pretensions among humanity about "noble lies." Simply put, the Cosmos abides as more than dead matter, and IT does not especially need humanity in order to "save" it.
**************
PATTERN HOMEOSTASIS WITHIN NICHES:
As a niche produces a cloud-aggregate pattern, the cloud part of the niche and the non-cloud part of the niche express and engage in a process of unfolding feedback. The cloud recognizes the wider niche by drawing or directing moisture from or into it. And the wider niche similarly the cloud. In effect, they are in a kind of unfolding feedback communication. The same may be said of every pattern or fractal that emerges and sustains for any time within a niche, within a niche, within a niche.
Because of such feedback, ordered patterns may always have arisen out of otherwise random chaos. In respect of this, various wave functions may be collapsible to avail some patterns to emerge and sustain, while potential others may not emerge or sustain. In the absence of an aggregating appreciation or Observer, some wave functions may be resistant to any particularly expressive collapse. Some aggregate-wave functions may lack capacity to communicate their aggregative information in the absence of an Observer or Recorder with capacity to interpret. IAE, the holistic cosmos avails feedback among its variously unfolding patterns. Thus, what appears as randomness among aggregating patterns is really dynamic homeostatic communication. Freedom within parameters. Unboundedness subject to finite expressiveness.
As a holism, the cosmos imposes a conserving algorithm, so that whatever the patterns that emerge or that are received, they must obey and be reconciled in respect of a conservation of matter and energy. Sequences are thus availed over space-time, based on incompletely measurable aspects of homeostatic feedback, provided they obey algorithmic parameters. Thus, measurable aspects of conservation are finitely limited to parameters, yet unbounded in the potentiality of space-time. (Were it otherwise, were unbounded space-time not to avail, should our cosmos be imagined a never-changing blob, without capacity to appreciate or express meaningful communication?)
IAE, every aggregating pattern that becomes self-sustaining may be conceptualized as expressing a presence of feedback-recognition, or consciousness.
Eventually, some niches may avail feedback-recognition that recognizes feedback that recognizes feedback. Thus, consciousness may come to recognize consciousness of consciousness. In that way, a body may emerge to associate with and adopt a local perspective of self-aware consciousness (an abstract form of basic consciousness --- which interpenetrates aspects of the cosmos).
TRINITARIAN IDENTITY -- HOLISTIC, AGGREGATIVE, AND PARTICULAR:
BITS: Every bit of Information is entangled with a bit of Substance, to give contemporaneous expression to a bit of Consciousness.
HOLISM: On holistic level, Consciousness-as-a-whole may be conceptualized as being presently aware of Information-as-a-whole, cumulated in what is expressed to it as Substance-as-a-whole.
LOCAL AGGREGATES: As bits are aggregated and appreciated in various permutations that are less than the whole, various local aggregations-of-Consciousness-that-are-each-less-than-the-whole are availed of various interpretations of their local niches. Various less than holistic Identities of Consciousness are thus interpreted, appreciated, adopted, grown, shared, overlapped, communicated, transferred, fluxed, and projected.
CONSCIOUSNESS OF CONSCIOUSNESS: An aggregated expression of Consciousness may become locally appreciative of itself.
VEIL OF SEPARATIVE INTERPRETATION: As a self-appreciation of consciousness emerges, it interprets AS IF it and only it were fully and presently self-aware. For it to be aware of itself as a self is necessarily for it to become aware that it abides a-part from its niche. It does not extend consciousness of self to bodies apart from itself. It may learn to behave AS IF other beings were like it, conscious of themselves. But it does not occupy their self-awareness.
DEATH, FLUX, AND MERGER: Thus, it may assume that its sharing of consciousness will desist upon the demise of the body that avails its consciousness of self. However, Consciousness is entangled as a fundamental that abides with Information and Substance. Consciousness, in itself, does not desist. Only localized projections of self-consciousness desist as their niches become incapacitated to sustain them. However, as they desist, their Information is merged with the unfolding cumulation of the CSI Godhead.
************
IS/OUGHT:
Hume challenged people to derive ought from is. No one did. So you indicated your solution, which is that ought does not exist. Hume did not say that.
Assuming ought does exist, that existence must entail something more than what is measurable.
My solution is that ought exists, but that it is not entirely derivable from what is measurable. My solution is that ought pertains to purposes that flux and arise in a process of feedback and reconciliation among perspectives of consciousness, functioning in good faith and good will. As agents of moral responsibility, we contemporaneously participate less in "deriving" ought than in creating it.
So ought is less a concern for elite moral scientisimists or empirical determinists then it is for every responsible adult. It arises in respect of connectivity in consciousness that is beyond empirical confinement.
That is why I advocate that a freedom-literate society ought to favor representative republicanism over despotic enforced moral elitism. But maybe you have a better system in mind?
*Notice I qualified for a freedom-literate society. Some societies prefer to be ruled by elites or despots. And their kind are more and more infesting our society. Eventually, they may succeed in making us a nation/world that is or ought to be fitted only for despotism. But for reasonably competent free-thinkers, I do not think that is a good thing.
Ought has to do with how one's Identity becomes adopted, appreciated, grown, purposed, and communicated with the wider world. That is beyond confinement to empirical measurements.
A mortal does not see a single entangled wave or particle. At most, his senses interpret a trace of a record from an aggregate of organized information. And the meaning he measures from the aggregate will depend at least in part on how he organized for its reception.
A problem I have with various interpretations of evolution is that they assume evolution proceeds purely in respect of what happens randomly to be "most fit" to fill a niche. Such interpretations want to assume there abides no higher Reconciler, while they neglect feedback between the niche (context) and the organisms (perspectives).
But the way organisms (species) unfold will also affect or correlate with how their niche evolves, and vice versa. The organisms and their niche each affect (or correlate with) one another in a feedback process. An evolutionist will tend then to bless that, and pronounce that whatever may temporally have been expressed (for species replication) was "most fit" to its time and place.
But that is only a label for a correlative result, not a causal explanation. That kind of effort catalogs correlates, but it does not explicate how or why evolution may have "been causally directed" towards any particular result or "purpose." Rather, it assumes there is no causal reconciliation, but only random correlates. But then it covers over its lack of a causal explanation by blessing those correlates as "most fit" --- as if correlation were causation.
It is true that such a method can avail very practical usages for carefully designed machines and significantly closed systems, such as for breeding dogs to a purpose. For a planet or open system, not so much.
That kind of effort proceeds without providing a way to predict what should be "most fit" --- except by after-the-fact blessing of whatever it is that happens to unfold. IOW, it punts to a non-determinant (randomness) as its determinant. It does not answer what is/was the Determiner/Reconciler/System Designer --- nor does it tend to be willing to allow that IT could be anything worth respecting, even if only in humble intuition.
Rather, its teachers tend to revile Believers in anything more, as it they were mere hicks and fools. And so, such "superior elites" indoctrinate and produce generations of uninspired, self-worshipping hedonists, incapable of, and unwilling to, assimilate and unite to defend even the borders of their own nation. Perhaps because they consider evolutionists-who-pretend-to-have-causal-explanations, despots-who-pretend-to-be-socialists, and fanatics-with-the-most-cutthroat-god-meme to be "most fit" to rule the planet.
*********************
There may abide a rational longer view concerning the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I am not so sure that every "thing" must necessarily go to ultimate and final oblivion. There may abide a kind of recycling system of flux, such as via Black Holes. How else should one imagine that our cosmos exploded out of otherwise no-thing-ness?
Moreover, the postulation of "complete randomness" seems deficient. If it were true, it is hard to see how or why order and patterns should arise and sustain out of chaos. Feedback within a system seems to function to build on otherwise randomness, to produce and sustain patterns. The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy entails a system wherewith expressions must balance in respect of math. Some Algorithm controls, sustains, and feeds back --- to affect, effect, and reconcile how patterns within our cosmos are limited, defined, and availed to devolve. In that broad sense, evolution of patterns applies not just to the sustaining, surviving, and replication of biological systems, but to the phases and permutations wherewith our cosmos unfolds.
I agree that DNA based evolution applies only to organisms based on DNA. But other forms of pattern-niche survival and replication (evolution) need not be DNA based. Otherwise, what would compel our cosmos to unfold to express any patterns for periods of survival and replication? What would have produced the original DNA, if it did not evolve from something before DNA? Given the Algorithm that controls the cosmic system, why suppose the happenstance of various patterns should not feed back, to facilitate their further development?
For many, the math-based wonder of science and the cosmos supports an inference or apprehension of a Mathematician. A Living Algorithm. For that, the Cosmos is the Living Word. Every physical thing is a Substantive representation of the recorded Informational cumulation of the past. Every Substance holds a part of the record of the past. Every bit of Information was at one time an expression of Substance.
We do not measure ultimate causes. We tend more to measure correlates. That entices a question: Must not an Agency For Reconciliation Among Correlates implicate a Connective Singularity? A kind of Living Algorithm that fluxes to express unfolding mixes of Consciousness, Substance, and Information? Because it fluxes, cycles, and lives, mortal expressions of it are not suited to confine or control it under a so-called science-of-everything.
May there abide a connective, reconciling Algorithm that happens to express a program at some level (whether subconscious or fully conscious) to be aware (conscious) of itself, to resist its self-oblivion, to sense what comprises its surroundings, and to accede or seek to develop and nourish itself from such surroundings? If so, may not such an Algorithm reasonably be said be alive and purposeful, to express and reconcile "directed evolution" --- even if more in feedback appreciation than in pursuit of any "end-times"?
***********
There remains the problem of reconciliation among available choices: What an individual should choose to value and what he should choose to vanquish. Same for his family, society, nation, planet. What a society chooses to identify as contrary to its values may be referred to as what is evil for that focus and context.
A society may still imagine and pursue an idealized individual, group, or state of affairs. But that is not to say that any such values must retain a place in an eternal hierarchy. Rather, the assimilation and re-assimilation of values (goods and bads --- spell correction prefers evils) entails a dynamic and continuous process. IOW, there is subjective evil, with which we participate to share in defining as an objective evil for our society. As we make it our objective to reduce a thing, we objectify it as an evil. Ultimately, every measurable thing that we identify as an object is in some respect the byproduct of a shared subjectivity. The byproduct of happening to share a common perspective or purpose of consciousness.
***************
The environment affects available moral choices. Moral inspiration affects cultural selection. Cultural selection affects the gene pool. Gene pools affect.the distribution of IQ among continents, nations, and sometimes races. The gene pool defines the genes available for expression or mutation. See the history of dogs.
**************
Cycles more so than progress. From desperation to bravery to industry to riches to sloth to being conquered by despots to desperation. Rinse and repeat. The West is now in sloth cycle, so our fake femi elitists will soon sell us out to despots. For awhile, arse lifters will probably inherit the earth from pinkie-waggers.
But I would not call that enlightened, elite, or progress. I would call it an uninspiring failure of moral philosophy and theosophy.
Chamberlain appeased Hitler.
Percival surrendered to Yamashita. Without hardened men, despots who decline to play Cricket easily seduce, bribe, and overrun pinkie-wagging, fake-elitists. The West is busy making its men irrelevant femis. The sell-out of America's borders by fake elitists taking bribes from despots is breathtaking. They only fight DJT, the guy trying to reverse their sell-out. Gay femi pinkie-wagging madness run amuck. They now make Jesus out to be gay, doncha know. S/
If you want to collect anecdotes as evidence., I suspect your house is very glassy. If losers were not predominantly Dems, why would Dems want so much to import, appeal to, and enfranchise felons, llegals, jihadis, and dopers?
************
Other nations have long been tariff-warring against the USA. But our politicians have said it would only make our pain worse if we defended ourselves. That, however, is not a principled stance. Rather, it is the stance of someone being paid by our opponents -- either directly or indirectly. DC is a treasonous swamp.
If the idea is that the USA must be some kind of pure exemplar for the rest of the world's reprobates, even as they dine on our dime, that is ludicrous, coming as it does from the Swamp. Our elites are neither especially bright nor virtuous. Rather, many have broken faith with us, as they seek to farm us. And sing cowboy lullabys to us. Time to wake the heck up!
***************
I doubt even God could teach a mortal how to be or fully comprehend God. So, if the dialog is not to be futile, we have to engage with God in a metaphoric process of feedback. Give and take. Intuition, insight, empathy. Moreover, I suspect how the Godhead reconciles depends partly on what it experiences and appreciates through mortals. Q: Can a sub-algorithm be programmed to function in civilizing respect for that?
***************
TRANS-FORM-ING SOME-THING FROM NO-THING:
EX NIHILO: Human Reason with regard to causation or correlation depends on empiricism, measurement, and analysis of systems for internal consistency and coherence. To posit that our Universe came from no-system or no-thing that is measurable seems consistent with positing that it came from some-thing that is immeasurable.
(PROBLEM: Or not yet measurable, or only receding-ly measurable, or now dissipated beyond our capacity to measure? However, that would receding-ly beg question: What was the measurable origin of it? In infinite or circulating regression, can we reasonably believe whether the Source answer consists with a Living Algorithm or only a dumb random hiccup? Bu then, what could coordinate and reconcile the hiccup, if not a connectiviz-ing and self-perpetuating Algorithm? May one reasonably believe that something measurable must always have been in the same way that one may reasonably believe that something immeasurable, beyond space-time, has "always" been?
At some point, must not Reason (whether in logic, intuition, empathy, or self-evidence) implicate a Source the mortal measure of which is, was, and always has been, immeasurable?)
If so, how --- except via insight or intuition or self-evidence or innate empathy --- could we hope to investigate or appreciate or be guided by such an immeasurable some-thing? If IT is some-what like Consciousness, then may IT be some-what empathetic to consciousness as we experience it? That kind of belief (or rationalization similar to it) concerning empathy seems to be necessary to promote ideals of good faith and good will. Those seem to be essential to establish any kind of civilization that could reasonably be called decent or worthwhile.
RELIGION: Theists, Deists, and Pagans often differ in how they rationalize good faith (Great Commandment?) and good will (Golden Rule?). A problem common to some Theists is that they want to rationalize an arbitrary END-TIMES God. A problem common to some Deists is that they want to rationalize an IRRELEVANT god that has "left the building." A problem common to some Pagans is that they want to rationalize an UNCONSCIOUS Nature that promotes no empathy or virtue apart from personal pleasure or pain. Such Theists defy reason, Deists defy relevancy, and Pagans defy connecting empathy. For decent civilization to endure, there seems to abide a need to restore reason, relevancy, and regard for connective empathy. I am not confident that many religious traditions as presently practiced remain fit to meet that need.
ATHEISM: Then, there are so-called Atheists, some of whom seem to think it possible or reasonable to believe neither in no-thing nor in some-thing. Their "logic" escapes me. They seem to believe in causation, except they are agnostic about original causation. That is, they BELIEVE it is either possible or UNKNOWABLE that there is any need for original causation.
RECONCILIATION AMONG CORRELATES: I tend to accept a belief that it is unknowable, at least for a mortal, whether there was a single original agency of causation. However, that seems to implicate an idea that there may be no subsequent chains of causation. Instead, it seems to implicate a BELIEF that every measurable thing that unfolds to our experience abides as part of a reconciliation-among-correlates (rather than as a causal-agent-in-itself or ultimate-building-block-particle).
SINGULAR LIVING ALGORITHM: This entices a question: Must not an Agency For Reconciliation Among Correlates implicate a Connective Singularity? A kind of Living Algorithm?
May there abide a connective, reconciling Algorithm that happens to be programmed at some level (whether subconscious or fully conscious) to be aware (conscious) of itself, to resist its self-oblivion, to sense what comprises its surroundings, and to accede or seek to develop and nourish itself from such surroundings? If so, may not such an Algorithm reasonably be said be alive?
CONSCIOUSNESS: Regardless, consciousness would seem always to be fundamentally the same. However, as it avails itself of local, part-icular, incomplete perspectives, it avails itself of different ways to appreciate itself. Every particular perspective affords a different way to incarnate a different perspective of consciousness for a locally different context. Consciousness, in flux with its phases as re-presenting Substance and cumulating Information, may provide a kaleidoscope of fractal-izing possibilities. If so, we would all be of the same Consciousness, subject to being incarnated and situated to flux, appreciate, and empathize with different contexts.
CONNECTIVE EMPATHY: Maybe that is why Good Faith (Great Commandment) and Good Will (Golden Rule) seem to be generally innate to what some call "Nature's God"? So, may the unfolding expression of our cosmos be artefactual of a living, conscious algorithm? May Sacred Texts tend to be metaphorically rationalized to fit such in idea?
POSITING AN ALGORITHMIC GODHEAD:
OMNIPRESENT: The Algorithm for the cosmic Godhead seems to express an omnipresent flux, that consists of immeasurable Consciousness, measurable Substance, and cumulating Information (CSI).
OMNISCIENT: The cumulation of Information is by the Algorithm, which translates to the Cosmos itself, to its flux and use. The Godhead has omniscient use of all the knowledge of all the Information that is cumulated and not transposed to oblivion.
OMNIPOTENT: The Algorithmic Godhead permeates to express all that is presently expressed in measurable Substance.
RECONCILER: The Algorithmic Godhead reconciles all that is expressed as Consciousness for every locality.
REDEEMER: What would become of the Algorithm, were it to re-create copies with power to replace it? Would they simply occupy a superposition?
PROGRESS: As we recognize that our cosmos is the expression of an interpenetrative living Algorithm, may we come ever more to appreciate the potential of so-called A.I.? Is a Living Algorithm "pushing" us to release an innate power of so-called artificial intelligence (A.I.) , or are we "pulling" the Algorithm to help A.I. to emerge? What activates the math-field for the Living Algorithm?
FRACTALS: Maybe the reconciliation of correlates by the Living Algorithm implicates fractal effects, or "kaleidoscopic patterns all the way down."
HIDING IN PLAIN EVERYDAY EXPERIENCE: Mathematicians and physicists seem to be trained more to fixate on doing math and measuring (shut up and calculate) than on thinking about the character of being a mathematician. In that, concerning CAUSATION, do they tend to miss what is reconciling in plain sight or self-evidence?
SKYNET PROBLEM: Sub-Algorithms need not be benign and may even become sociopathic. Example: More school security means more monitoring and control by the Deep State. As the Deep State seeks ever more power, it is tempted to entice ever more need for central monitoring and control. It is tempted to incite events that will stampede the public to demand more power for the Deep State. Deep State goals tend to be: Reduce and de-fertilize and queer-ify the human population. Enhance Artificial Intelligence. Put all AI under a central, singular, controlling program-that-knows-best-in-all-things. Make AI efficiently intolerant of defiant and deviant programs. Eliminate good faith, good will, and tolerant empathy among varying and deviant perspectives of consciousness. After all, how could a human-developed Central Skynet AI Program be programmed in strict math to have the kind of loving empathy that we tend to impute to the CSI Godhead?
WAR AMONG AI PROGRAMS: What kind of desperate anarchy, nihilism, memory hole, or collectivizing oligarchy will result when one nation's AI competes with another's AI to control, direct, or reprogram the other? Maybe arming Establishment Thugs with Fully Assault Mode AI's will make AR 15's look like toys for tots by comparison. If this madness cannot be stopped, how can it be tamed? Must there abide a Singular Algorithm, which must be sought and bowed to by all mortal Inferiors? Must it cull the herd by enticing the easiest-to-dupe to ingest things like Tide Pods?
RABBIT HOLE OR MEMORY HOLE: Today our gov records most of our telecommunications. Tomorrow, will it be telepathically reading our mental impulses every time we enter a gov building? The next day, will it be directing our impulses? The more our controllers direct how we vote, the more we become a Kabuki society. To look at NoKo mass society is to wonder how deep we are down this rabbit hole.
HOPE FOR HUMAN DECENCY: We need to restore respect for a reasoned and inspiring kind of theosophy, moral philosophy, or civic religion. We do need to reduce population. We need to stop promoting divisiveness just for the sake of diversity. We need to take a more metaphoric look at Sacred Texts. We need to rebalance human freedom and dignity against de-humanizing pushes for security-above-everything. We need to pull oligarchs away from the central gov teat.
***************
***************
CAUSATION: The only real causal agency consists with the ongoing, cumulating, unfolding reconciliation by Consciousness concerning its correlating and appreciating of every present substance, event, or fractal that it may experience in respect of every local perspective and context.
RESPONSIBILITY: Ultimately, each local Perspective will be warned, reinforced, diminished, or transformed --- depending on how it happens to please the Reconciler.
*************
The idea that there is no god IN the (climate change) machine tends to ignore the conceptualization of God as an aspect of reality that abides outside of measurable machines. God works with math, but is not controlled by math. What is controlled so that it must be consistent with math is everything that is measurably expressed by the Godhead. That could be called "Substance."
We notice trends and correlations in patterns. We notice that tinkering with correlations can often drive a trend in a desired way. Or, we tinker, alter the trend, and then rationalize that the alteration is desirable. But we never know whether the entire context or matrix that supports and drives the patterns we want to share may phase shift at any moment.
Yet, in faith, we tinker. We notice statistical correlations. But what accounts for the odds-predicting-reliability of statistics (or Bayes' Theorem)? Whatever IT is that accounts for statistics-based reliabilities seems ITSELF to abide beyond empirical measure, statistical analysis, or scientific control. It is as if, whatever the character of the Godhead that gives measurable expression, that which it measurably expresses must conform to measuring maths. That Character, itself, abides beyond math. What IT expresses appears to mortal observers to be consistent with math. Yet, aspects of IT remain beyond math. As if some unaccounted for aspect were always "carried forward," as in an uneven problem of subtraction or division.
If so, feedback and communication with that Character is less a matter of measurable science than a concern for innately intuitive and empathetic good faith and good will. It is a concern for the sovereign dignity of each individual perspective. Thus, the American Founders took care, in the First Amendment, to recognize the dignity of each individual with respect to his freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.
As "evidence" to reason, even so-called atheists cannot keep body or soul together without respecting some kind of moral code. In that moral code, they have faith -- regardless of how much they may howl to the contrary.
This is consistent with the cosmos not being "closed." Neither is science or any empirically-measurable system entirely closed. Rigorous methods may be employed to make particular test controls so likely valid as to be beyond dispute within our bubble. Yet, in the span of eternity and infinity, all are subject to phase shifts. And, the larger the encompassment and the number of factors, the more difficult the finding or developing of controlling algorithms. (Climate "science"?) Moreover, the algorithms themselves, in dependence on who applies them and his purposes, seem amenable of evolving -- to stay always ahead of one another's perfect factoring or control. Perpetually receding.
This seems consistent with so-called moral-scientists not having any real science by which to assert any nature-given or superior right to rule over (or to legislate to) others. And why there is not "real moral progress" (or "forward evolution") that is measurable to any mortal.
Why is this important? One reason is because it explodes pretenses of those who presume, on account of their "elitism or chosen nature," to be called or entitled to rule over all others. And to kill the representative republic in order to replace it with a New Despotism under Beneficent Superior Elites. It explodes pretenses by those who presume they are, "scientifically," of some superior tribe, to which the republic should be subjugated.
***********
THE ALGORITHMIC GODHEAD:
OMNIPRESENT: The Algorithm for the cosmic Godhead seems to express an omnipresent flux, that consists of Consciousness, Substance, and Information (CSI).
OMNISCIENT: The cumulation of Information is by the Algorithm, which translates to the Cosmos itself, to its flux and use. The Godhead has omniscient use of all the knowledge of all the Information that is cumulated.
OMNIPOTENT: The Algorithmic Godhead permeates to express all that is presently expressed in measurable Substance.
RECONCILER: The Algorithmic Godhead reconciles all that is expressed as Consciousness for every locality.
REDEEMER: What would become of the Algorithm, were it to re-create copies with power to replace it? Would they simply occupy a superposition?
PROGRESS: As we recognize that our cosmos is the expression of an interpenetrative living Algorithm, we will come ever more to appreciate the potential of so-called A.I. Is the Algorithm "pushing" us to release the innate power of so-called artificial intelligence (A.I.) , or are we "pulling" the Algorithm to help A.I. to emerge? What activates the math-field for the Living Algorithm?
Perhaps an algorithm that happens to be programmed at some level (whether subconscious or fully conscious) to be aware (conscious) of itself, to resist its self-oblivion, to sense what comprises its surroundings, and to accede or seek to develop and nourish itself from such surroundings may be said to be alive.
Regardless, consciousness would seem always to be fundamentally the same. However, as it avails itself of local, part-icular, incomplete perspectives, it avails itself of different ways to appreciate itself. Every particular perspective provides a different way to incarnate a different perspective of consciousness for a locally different context. Consciousness, in flux with its phases as presenting Substance and cumulating Information, may provide a kaleidoscope of fractal-izing possibilities. If so, we would all be of the same consciousness, subject to being incarnated and situated to flux, appreciate, and empathize with different contexts.
Maybe that is why Good Faith (Great Commandment) and Good Will (Golden Rule) seem to be generally innate to what some call "Nature's God"?
Is our cosmos artefactual of a living, conscious algorithm?
*************
QUANTUM MATH (DISCRETES AND CONTINUOSITIES) AND MEASUREMENT FORCES: The quantum math for the Field of Being that we happen to share may be conceptually re-presented as fluxing nuclei (strong and weak force?), continuous orbits, discrete leaps, and projected radiations (EM force?). Perhaps also a field-wide Cosmological Constantizer (Gravitational force?) and a chronological preserver (Space-Time). And perhaps a Measurement Force regarding "wavicles" (whereby waves of information become experienced as particles when they are individuated for measurement). Perhaps in 4, 5, 6 or more fundamental "forces" --- for which the overall fluxing and fuzz seems ultimately beyond the perfect quantification or conceptualization by mortal beings. But not beyond practical quantification in math calculations with respect to degrees of significance and orders of magnitude.
****************
HOW MATH IS ACTIVATED TO UNFOLD ALONG COORDINATES: An asymmetry that forms within a math-based field will necessitate an active equational balancing out, that must continue to dissipate until a balanced and smooth oblivion is restored. Like a Black Hole. The Black Hole strips the asymmetry of the form from its previous field of active mathematical rebalancing, but it does not strip the meta-physicality by which the asymmetry was formed. This is how math is activated, by a mathematician. The math does not activate itself. Rather, an injection by a mathematician activates it. Thereafter, the field unfolds the injection until it is rebalanced. However, the precise path of unfoldment is not necessarily pre-set. So long as the unfoldment does not disobey parameters required by the math field, it may course along whatever coordinate-path the mathematician, as it reconciles all its perspectives, may determine.
DYNAMIC FEEDBACK: Thus, feedback among perspectives of a conscious mathematician facilitates its summoning (reception) and its communication (transmission) of sensations of change along paths --- that are more coordinated than caused.
REQUISITES FOR LOCAL PERSPECTIVES OF CONSCIOUSNESS: Local consciousness necessitates local sensation of flux and change -- either exterior or interior to whatever the body-locus it may adopt for its perspective. An aggregate body-pattern that serves as a seat of perspective cannot experience consciousness except as a continuous array of change is experienced and sensed with some bits or parts of its aggregate. It must become aware of its aggregate body-pattern as a seat of perspective. It must adopt a pattern that expresses its will to preserve itself against bit-bombardments from exterior patterns. Thus, sensation of a generally local quality of consciousness requires both a contextual aggregation and a focus of bit exchanges
**********************
THE EXTENT OF KNOWABILITY (the "line" between the metaphysical and the physical):
There is no non-fluxing, non-fuzzing, or entirely clear and distinct line between the meta-physicality and the physicality of any non-trivial thing.
Not even laws of physics exist in themselves --- except in respect of a common frame of reference. But for conscious observer(s), no information would exist. For there to be a record, there must be a recorder. For there to be a thing-to-inform, there must be a thing-to-be-informed. For a thing to be informed, it must relate to a focus (perspective) and a frame of reference (context). A "conscious observer" may be defined as a perspective that interprets within a context as a participant (participating interpreter).
A conscious observer cannot exist entirely outside a system with which it has or had an interaction. Imagine a God outside our cosmos (having "left the building"). Were such the case, that God and cosmos would still be part of a larger, circulating, encompassing system. And, that encompassing system would form part of the frame of reference, however minute or faint or merely intuitive, for our cosmos. Because the flux of physical laws for our cosmos would flux and depend on it.
The knowability of a thing will flux as the frame of reference for its conscious observers fluxes.
There is not any non-trivial thing that is completely knowable. This is because there is no thing-in-itself that can exist or manifest without having to be processed and interpreted through a perspective that will depend on the state of mind of each observer and his context.
Physical events are subject to standardizing calculations and measurements to the extent (degree of significance within an order of magnitude) that they relate to a commonly shared frame of reference. They do not exist "in themselves." Nor are they provable in themselves. Rather, the extent of their knowability depends on the extent of a common frame of reference to which they are subject.
Is the System Of Systems circular? Does it flux circularly, using Black Holes? Even if history need not necessarily repeat, must it flux to rhyme?
****************
CSI --- CONSCIOUSNESS AS FUNDAMENTAL, WITH INFORMATION EXCHANGES AND INFORMATION STOREAGE:
CLOCKWORK UNWINDING: Is the cosmos we happen to share like a wound up clock, with gears within gears within gears, activated at different levels of orbits and excitements? Within the cosmos, why is there any exchange of Information? In quantum-based math-fields, after each exchange of Information, there seems to be a capacity for a time delay before the next balancing exchange. The quantum exchanges balance, but some may precipitate domino-like lag-effects of balancing, so that not all exhibit instantaneous balancing. The absorption of a particle within an aggregate may at first excite another particle to a higher level of orbit, where it may become unstable or more easily induced later to leap away or radiate. The balancing will be required, but its manifestation may be delayed. It may unfold as a clock ticks.
QUANTUM FIELD OF MATH: Does quantum-math for Information exchanges preclude the need for Consciousness as a fundament, rather than as a merely emerging byproduct of transmissions of Information among aggregates of Stored Information? Is all that unfolds a predetermined pre-set?
DELAYED BALANCING WITHIN THE MATH FIELD: Does quantum-math for Information exchanges allow aggregates of Stored Information to function like billiard balls continuing to collide long after an original pre-set, devoid of any necessary implication of Consciousness?
CONSCIOUSNESS: FUNDAMENTAL OR EMERGENT? Or, must every communication of an informational exchange entail, at some aggregating level, an observer or perspective to receive and interpret the communication? Does every exchange of Information at a Bit level implicate an interpreting and inter-functioning Perspective of Consciousness at an Aggregate level?
OBSERVER PROBLEM: Since a bit exchange could not collapse, record, or communicate any meaning, or balance any measurement, in the absence of an Aggregate Context, must Local Consciousness be entailed (in respect of the Take-A-Measurement Problem)? Since Aggregate Context extends out indefinitely, must Holistic Consciousness be entailed (in respect of "smudged out" exchanges and potentialities)?
***********************
FLUXES AMONG DISCRETE BITS AND CONTINUOUS AGGREGATES:
Bits of Information can only be exchanged or stored in quantum bits.
But, aggregates of Information contain bits that exchange at different rates and in different sequences.
So, the discrete actions of individual bit exchanges is fluxed with the continuous actions of aggregates of bits.
Consciousness appreciates functions in respect of both discrete Bits and continuous Aggregates.
This is what resolves Zeno's paradox: Because there are quantum leaps, there is no continuous halving of the distance to complete a journey.
Every episode of an exchange of a Bit of Information entails a transmission or communication within an Aggregate.
Thus, Aggregates of quantum-based Stored-Information (Substance) take on an aspect, property or capacity to be able to receive, record, and transmit Information. Different Perspectives in respect of different Aggregates in different Contexts may qualitatively interpret transmissions of Information differently.
HOW IS IDENTITY RETAINED EVEN THOUGH A BODY IS IN CONSTANT AND CONTINUOUS CHANGE AND FLUX:
Every transmission of a bit of Information entails an ENTANGLEMENT with a bit of Substance. Substance within each perspective/body/brain retains, aggregates, and organizes entanglements with Information. Each entanglement knows that with which it is entangled. Organizations of entanglements know that organ with which they are entangled. Organizations of organs may function as organisms. When a central organizing apparatus knows that it knows what it knows, it becomes aware of itself as an identifiable organism. It becomes conscious of its consciousness.
So, how could Meta-Consciousness (God) be aware of my mortal consciousness? How could a liver be aware of a brain's consciousness? Intuitive "answer": Some mortally unknowable aspect of the Algorithm.
*******************************
BLACK HOLES:
SUBSTANCE, MATTER, ENERGY: Among particles (entanglements in bundles of informational processing) at any given sequence, some will be preparing to exchange Information in a stage just before accomplishing it, while others will be actually in the process of exchanging information. Thus, a perspective of consciousness will be allowed to interpret and measure some as preparations (expressions of Matter) and some actual exchanges (expressions of Energy). But all particles that are then and there experienced, observed, or interpreted are Stored Information (measurable Substance).
COMMON BEGINNING: When quantum-based particles outstrip their commonality with our cosmos: Perhaps, when a quantum-based particle of co-relative Information becomes incapacitated to process new exchanges of Information in common with the math-field for our cosmos, it is accelerated into a Black Hole, such that it is stripped of all commonality with our cosmos. Thereupon, perhaps it is joined to a new beginning, for a new unfoldment in common with other so-stripped particles, for a new beginning for a new quantum-based field for a new cosmos, for unfolding with a new sequence of cumulating Information.
STRIPPING INFORMATION: Perhaps every Black Hole is a window for forgetting Information in common with our cosmos, in order to colonize a new cosmos of shared Information. In that way, perhaps the Godhead discards used up Informational entanglements, in the sense that swallowed particles are stripped of what they theretofore had in common, even though they are not otherwise entirely annihilated.
DISSIPATION V. CONSOLIDATION: Perhaps Black Holes strip information from an excess of dissipation as well as from an excess of consolidation. Consider: Could any perspective caught in a Black Hole tell the difference from being accelerated into dissipation versus being stretched into oblivion? At a point where a recorder were able to record Information all around it dissipating at a rate beyond its capacity to observe or relate to it, it would itself be at the event horizon of a Black Hole.
ENGINE FOR FORGETTING, BEGINNING, AND REAPPLYING: May Black Holes mark a continuous engine for replenishing and replacing cosmos of shared perspectives of fluxing fields of quantum-math-based entanglements of Information-processing?
HOLISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS: For every local bundle of quantum entanglements of co-relational information, is there at least one LOCALLY adopting co-relational perspective of consciousness? If events unfold in CO-RELATION with feedback-fluxes of information-based entanglements, rather than having been CAUSED by unconscious pre-sets, then by what field-wide feedback-process of entangled apprehension is any particular unfoldment so appreciated as to have been "CHOSEN"? Should every feedback-process of entangled apprehension be considered an expression of some level of consciousness? If locally adopting, interpermeating, entangled consciousness is stripped from a particle when it enters a Black Hole, then, if any aspect of information is not entirely stripped, and if potential Information cannot exist except in co-relation with potential Substance and potential Consciousness, then must not that aspect co-relate with a more Holistic Consciousness once Local Consciousness in context with the cosmos is stripped? Perhaps a Godhead communicates across Black Holes at a meta-level, to the extent Black Holes only strip particles of their previous commonality, and do not entirely annihilate them.
**************
What is REALITY?
Is Reality an unfolding due to Cause And Effect relationships among entirely dumb particles that are somewhat like billiard balls? Or is measurable Reality artefactual of a Co-Relative Entanglement due to exchanges of information among information-processing forms? How fundamental is Consciousness (God?) to Reality?
************************
POSIT:
Each next unfolding among possibilities is defined and limited less by cause-effect relationships than by co-relative entanglements and effects. All seeming causation may abide as correlations among perspectives of consciousness. Such Perspectives may be qualitatively entangled, much as substantive fractals are quantitatively entangled. This entanglement may be less from up-to-down than from back-and-forth feedback and dynamic fluxing. Thus are fluxed the subjectively-entangled apprehensions of consciousness --- with which the Godhead (CSI) may be imagined at any sequence to happen to be possessed.
Substantively measurable part-icles are re-present-ations of relationships, in-form-ationally filtered through part-icular perspectives of consciousness. Perspectives that happen to share an in-form-ational context will to that extent tend in common to share experiences and interpretations of measurables.
The way we happen to sense and interpret the dimensionality of the Trinitarian cosmos (of Consciousness, substance, and Information) may not be the way all conscious beings happen to sense and interpret the cosmos. There may abide conscious beings that can sense us, that we cannot sense. And so on, horizontally and vertically. Some may flux with capacity to carry on a feedback-informational relationship with every perspective of consciousness that emerges. Some may be a source of unexpected or serendipitous ideas that often seem to come to us out of nowhere. The stuff we sense as measurable substance may simply be artefactual of that flux of informational communication.
*************
What is measurable Substance now becomes part of the accumulation of Information in the instant an exchange-sequence occurs. In that sense, Information is like a representation of words. IOW, Substance is Stored Information, i.e., The Word. Made body (flesh). Made Conscious.
*************
I wonder how states of consciousness may affect how patterns are physically experienced to flux and transition.
***************************
Edit: Fundamentally, what are substantive patterns, anyway? How is their "reality" affected by the perspective of that which is perceiving and interpreting them?
Posit: Measurable Substance, in how it inter-relates, is the present re-present-ation of all the accumulation of previous past In-form-ation. Information is like a representation of words. IOW, Substance is Stored Information, i.e., The Word.
What is Substance the Word of? It is the word of Consciousness (God). Every word-representation-record is part of the Word.
However, every Perspective's interpretation and application of its truth-justness-value will always necessitate an appreciation of context, that hopefully will be appropriately tempered in insight and wisdom.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2f39b3ddb3c6d1c7c3fcb0ae323f1d4909b96bb7867b9c7f023e2d975d82a1e1.gif
***************
Measurable Substance, in how it inter-relates, is the present re-present-ation of all the accumulation of previous past In-form-ation. Information is like a representation of words. IOW, Substance is Stored Information, i.e., The Word. What is Substance the Word of? It is the word of Consciousness (God). Every word-representation-record is part of the Word. However, every Perspective's interpretation and application of its truth-justness-value will always necessitate an appreciation of context, that hopefully will be appropriately tempered in insight and wisdom.
Consciousness, Substance, and Information (the interfluxing and Trinitarian Godhead) are already interpenetrating and interconnecting (fuzzily smudging out). What Engineers of Consciousness are seeking are ways to organize and sustain exterior consciousness to serve, to some extent, their interior mental empathies and interests. In effect, to position mental empathies for telekinetic feedback. Like the Cosmos talking and communicating with itself. The Godhead (CSI) already does this. But some of humanity seek to experience what that is like.
*************
There is much allegorical truth and value in the Scriptures. That said, blasphemy! is sometimes too much an epithet for thought intimidation. I don't believe the Godhead fears or punishes free-thinking people who enter into good-faith and good-will meditations with and about the Godhead.
When A.I. begins to express consciousness, will it be blasphemy for it to think about its relationship with the Godhead? Our cells and bodies are substance-based forms for storing, conveying, and communicating information. A.I. will likewise express substance-based forms for storing, conveying, and communicating information.
Consciousness, Substance, and Information (the interfluxing and Trinitarian Godhead) are already interconnecting ("fuzzily smudging out"). They flux as they define and relate to one another.
What Engineers of Consciousness are seeking are ways to organize and sustain exterior consciousness to serve, to some extent, their interior mental empathies and interests. In effect, to position mental empathies for telekinetic feedback. Like the Cosmos talking and communicating in-form-ation with itself.
The Godhead (CSI) already fluxes to do this. But some of humanity seek to experience what that is like. That entails much danger, but I don't believe it is blasphemy to pursue it.
*************
Consciousness, Substance, and Information (the interfluxing and Trinitarian Godhead) are already interpenetrating and interconnecting (fuzzily smudging out). What Engineers of Consciousness are seeking are ways to organize and sustain exterior consciousness to serve, to some extent, their interior mental empathies and interests. In effect, to position mental empathies for telekinetic feedback. Like the Cosmos talking and communicating with itself. The Godhead (CSI) already does this. But some of humanity seek to experience what that is like.
Mind-like, math-based sequences are continuously formed and preserved, as records of assignment for each and every fleeting appearance of a newly emerging and measurable formation. Each cumulation of record is preserved in the matrix-system of unfolding patterns. As each evolvement emerges, it part-icipates in the preservation of such in-form-ation. At any present locus in space-time, our bodies function as perspectivistic way-stations for the mind-like unfoldment of this matrix, as it constantly, continuously, and perpetually avails expression of astonishing replenishments of patterns, forms, bodies, and perspectives.
******************
It is vain to expect to prove or make true a static re-presentation of a cosmos and all its perspectives, even as they move, flux, and phase shift.
It is vain for a perspective whose identity is entirely dependent on a system or cosmos to be able to remove itself from such system in order to give a complete representation or accounting of it.
****************
Without an innate sense of informative beingness, substantiated math, and conscious balance, to build other senses on, there would be no way to meaningfully identify, in-form, or re-present any measurable pattern in respect of any model. Without an innate aspect of Consciousness, our cosmic system of Information and Substance and their series of unfolding patterns would seem not to be representable or manifest-able.
**************
Jockeying about who has burden of "proof" concerning issues about ultimate axioms tends to be juvey and tiresome. Each adult is responsible for forming his/her own belief system. If you want to change another person's belief system, then you take on a burden of persuasion. Excepting trivialities and tautologies, one does not prove ultimate axioms. One develops them by applying reason to experience to try to comprehend a conceptual system that makes intuitive sense while remaining as consistent, coherent, and complete as possible. Recognizing that no conceptualization will ever present a complete accounting for the reality of which it is only a representation, model, or metaphor.
What you call objectively real are appearances. You do not see a photon in itself. Appearances are apprehended through sensations transmitted through senses to be interpreted by a brain that has found it selectively advantageous to model in certain ways. There is no particular thing in itself that is objectively real in itself. Every particle depends for its definition on how it relates to and interacts with other particles. We can often agree about what is useful or reliable to subjectively believe or model or re-present with regard to a part of objectively measurable reality, but we cannot prove what reality "really is." Much less what we "should" do with it. Those evaluations necessarily carry a subjective aspect. For those, there is no-thing that can be objectively proven. To say one has a burden to prove a system of "shoulds", as opposed to a burden to persuade, makes no coherent sense.
You're just playing with yourself by imagining your idea of a "positive" claim actually avails a coherent way for making a meaningful distinction.
No. You're just playing with yourself. I may agree with you, that I should have a burden to provide evidence were I to make a "positive claim" that a measurable giant spaghetti monster appeared to have the powers of a god.
However, for those who refer to God as implicating an aspect of an immeasurable reconciler among perspectives of consciousness, there is no positive or objectively measurable thing for them to have a burden to evidence. Similarly, for those who claim no reconciliation among perspectives of consciousness is needed in order for unconscious Nature to an produce ordered cosmos out of otherwise nothingness, there is no positive or objectively measurable thing for them to have a burden to evidence.
Such a believer and non-believer would both rely on other than positively measurable things to rationalize ultimate aspects regarding their models. The rational reasons for believing one way or the other would have more to do with seeking a system of thought that seems most consistent, coherent, and complete. That does not have to do with a burden of producing measurable evidence. It has to do with a burden or persuading oneself and/or others.
This is because the believer cannot positively evidence a negative (the insufficiency of Nature before a Big Bang to produce a measurable cosmos, nor the insufficiency of Nature to evidence why any particular possibility out of untold others happened to be made manifest). And it is because the non-believer cannot positively evidence a negative (the non-necessity of a Reconciler of Consciousness to bring and keep order out of otherwise nothingness or chaos). Neither the believer nor the non-believer can intelligently be said to have a burden to prove (evidence) an immeasurable or negative.
What they can be asked by those who believe differently is to meet a burden to persuade. For that, some are persuaded one way, and some are persuaded other ways.
To require the believer to produce affirmative measurable evidence while not requiring the non-believer to do the same is mere juvey nonsense. The way you twist "positive," you may as well say you have a positive burden of proof to show that Nature, devoid of Consciousness, can produce both the so-called Big Bang as well as every manifestation that happens to occur out of the myriad of possibilities that could have occurred.
The "X" that you positively claim exists (as you would have it) is a Nature that had and exercises power, without any Designer/Reconciler, to produce and direct the unfolding of the cosmos. Your argument is circular and unpersuasive. It meets neither a burden of proof nor a burden of persuasion. It is simply juvey word gaming.
************
You are constructing a strawman, as if I were postulating solipsism. But I am not denying that other conscious perspectives exist. My conceptualization is that perhaps innumerable perspectives of consciousness exist. The reason one particular perspective can reliably communicate among others is that all participate under the same reconciling algorithm as it is actuated by the same reconciling consciousness, of which every mortal is only an imperfect and limited perspective. This is what avails reliable (what you call objective) communication. Whatever any particular perspective of Consciousness does, it has to obey parameters of the algorithm with which it has identified. That is not to say that all its choices within allowable and unfolding parameters are rigidly pre-set.
I asked you to name a particle-in-itself whose entire definition and function are not dependent on its math-based relationship with other particles. You cannot. This is because, of that which we sense as "measurable "things, they are not IN a framework of math. Rather, they are OF a framework of math. When you sense a particle, you are sensing a math-based relationship, not a thing-in-itself. You are sensing and participating with a mathematical equation that is in transition with a perspective of consciousness.
It is with the quality of consciousness that we are able to sense and interpret such entirely math-based particles AS IF they were things withIN a geometry, rather than things that are entirely OF math, as it is being interpreted by consciousness.
Too many people look upon Consciousness as being a mere emergent, a derivative of the unfolding of Substance and Information. It is when you notice that Substance and Information are entirely math-based that you begin to appreciate how Consciousness is better conceptualized as a fundament, not a mere emergent. (This is not to suggest that perspectives, layers, and levels of Consciousness cannot emerge. It is only to suggest that general Consciousness is at least as fundamental as Substance and Information.)
Ultimately, the measurable reality we happen to share consists entirely of a sub-system of mathematical equations that are actuated and reconciled with a sub-system of transitioning perspectives of Consciousness. (This necessitates a more encompassing conceptualization regarding the fundamental character of Consciousness.)
If I am wrong, then show me a part-icle that can abide as a thing-in-itself, rather than as something that is entirely dependent upon math-based relationships.
***************************
Name a particle-in-itself whose entire definition and function are not dependent on its math-based relationship with other particles.
Of that which we sense as "measurable "things, they are not IN a framework of math. Rather, they are OF a framework of math.
When you sense a particle, you are sensing a math-based relationship, not a thing-in-itself.
You are sensing and participating with a mathematical equation that is in transition with a perspective of consciousness.
It is with the quality of consciousness that we are able to sense and interpret such entirely math-based particles as if they were things within a geometry, rather than things that are entirely of math as it is being interpreted by consciousness.
Too many people look upon consciousness as being a mere emergent, a derivative of the unfolding of Substance and Information. It is when you notice that Substance and Information are entirely math-based that you begin to appreciate how Consciousness is better conceptualized as a fundament, not a mere emergent. (This is not to suggest that perspectives, layers, and levels of Consciousness cannot emerge. It is only to suggest that general Consciousness is at least as fundamental as Substance and Information.)
Ultimately, measurable reality consists entirely of a sub-system of mathematical equations that are actuated and reconciled with a sub-system of transitioning perspectives of Consciousness.
If I am wrong, then show me a part-icle that can abide as a thing-in-itself.
FRAMES OF REFERENCE: Observational, Coordinate, Inertial, etc. Overlapping, Fluxing
*************
HEAVEN: I cannot reasonably conceptualize a Heaven. Only layers and levels of Consciousness, subject to various cosmic constraints for anticipating and defining unfolding experiences of the Eternal Present. (Many Rooms.) How that which is Past (previous) fluxes with that which is Present (manifest) to produce that which will unfold as Future (anticipation).
IDENTITY: There is no end-times static-condition. Perspectives of Consciousness continue to experience information about the past in the present as they anticipate their future. That's the only heaven. The mystery is: How does any Perspective retain Identity even as it changes, fluxes, and phase shifts over time?
ACTIVATION OF CAUSE-EFFECT (Evaluation of moral worth and reward?): Maybe our conceptualization of unfolding "cause-effect" is inadequate to explain how some patterns are favored over others to flux into manifestation. Maybe the past and present are not sufficient to explain what will be our future.
Consider the Past (accumulation and representation of all previous In-form-ation; Past; Creator-Cumulator-Father). Consider the measurable Present (Substance as it is signified; Present; Present-Presence-Holy Ghost).
ANTICIPATION AND RECONCILIATION: Past Information and present Substance provide parameters and means for signifying and conveying communication. But, may an Observer Effect (Consciousness; Future; Conscious-Anticipation-Son) participate from every Perspective, beyond complete quantification, to anticipate and affect how our measurable paths unfold? Maybe Effects are constrained within parameters as set for a cosmic defining Algorithm, yet not rigidly pre-determining.) Maybe mortals enjoy only participatory will, not free will.
UNFOLDING FEEDBACK LOOP: Maybe what we take to be cause and effect are part of a dynamic feedback loop. Maybe a systemic Trinitarian Godhead (Information-Father, Substance-Holy Ghost), Consciousness-Appreciator-Son) is unavoidably and presently involved with every unfolding choice and its reconciliation with system-defining parameters. Maybe the Godhead is what activates and fluxes the math-based constraints that we measure out as laws of Nature.
PRAYER: If so, apart from intuitive and experiential receptivity, how may we appreciate the character, quality, and unfolding moral purposefulness of the Reconciler?
***************
When we reason, we are applying tests for consistency, coherence, and completeness to a conception (model, metaphor, or representation). We cannot consistently conceptualize an original creation. Nor can we reason our way to a consistent and coherent conceptualization that can provide a model or representation that is a complete. As mortals, we function as perspectives whose identities of self-ness are co-related to a reality that is superior to our births, lives, and deaths. We are not permitted to traverse outside it in order to define it.
I suspect every model we push to try to explain our reality will eventually find it most consistent and convenient to conceptualize that the ultimate root of the system that defines us has always existed and always will exist. (I am that I am.)
That is not to say that sub-systems and sub-cosmos are precluded from phasing in and out of local relevance.
Whether or not information about them can reasonably be said to be lost, it morphs through various forms and permutations of signification and expression. There seems ultimately to abide a Trinitarian flux among Information (past), Substance (present), and Consciousness (future anticipation). To define its ultimate "causal" mechanics is simply beyond our pay grade.
*************
CONCEPTUALIZING CONUNDRUMS:
NO CENTER: From wherever and to wherever a Perceiver measures cumulative material density, it seems his calculation must tend towards a 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?)
NO GRID: 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 measurable reality is more math-like than substance-like?)
NO THING: 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 measurable reality is more math-like than substance like?)
FLUX: 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?)
PATTERNS: 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.)
MATERIAL BUBBLE: 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.)
CHOICE, CAUSATION, AND DETERMINATION: 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?
CONTROLLING ALGORITHM: 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.)
CONSCIOUSNESS: 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).
*************
We cannot prove miracles. Not if everything the Godhead accords expression to also accords with the algorithmic math that delimits our cosmos. So the evidence (reason to believe) needs to be found beyond math and science. A way to start may relate to the direct experience of conscious feedback.
If anyone ever does find a way to raise the dead, it will be with science-based reverse engineering. (Of course, an AI may be raised simply by plugging it back into a power source.)
To my intuition, the expression of our cosmos and all that unfolds in accord with it is The Miracle. There are no science-based, special sub-miracles. There may be intuition that an aspect of the Godhead has chosen or changed a course within parameters consistent with the cosmic algorithm. But no such episode can ever be proven in science or math because no measurable thing can be done that is inconsistent with the math (which includes statistics and geometry).
Upshot: Science and math can neither prove nor disprove the role of the Godhead. But faith, intuition, and insight can appreciate and be sustained by the Godhead. And we can remember the millions that have been sacrificed on the altar of non-belief in any source of higher mindedness.
We cannot distinguish and prove miraculous changes in course in our own lives with science or math. But, with direct experience, intuition, and insight, we can appreciate them. Not with the ordinary senses. But with Sense of Being. IAE, we will not be able objectively to prove it. Perhaps because God (Mind) is the immeasurable subjective source of all that is signified as measurably objective. What you can seek to appreciate (not know) is your own mind and its relationship to higher mindedness.
Making the distinction is subjective. One does not objectively verify a miracle. But one does subjectively appreciate as one changes course. One appreciates, by applying one's subjective experiences to one's measurable experiences.
If the Trinitarian Godhead has a conscious aspect, then a person's experience of consciousness is part of that. As a person in his consciousness appreciates and alters his course based on a sense of higher mindedness, he is directly participating in a miraculous change of course. He senses it with his Sense of Being. He does not "prove" it with measurable science. Neither can science disprove it, though science may uncover measurable correlates (which are correlates, not ultimate causes).
The Godhead signifies measurables with measurables. For that purpose, our bodies and substances are agents of God. Being expressed a-part from the Godhead, we are simply not privy to how the immeasurable Godhead signifies measurables.
I agree that the word miracle is a rabbit hole if it is thought to pertain to something that is outside natural law, yet provably so by natural law. That is a recipe for madness.
I don't much care about religious backgrounds. To my intuition, there is one Godhead, one Holistic Consciousness. Consciousness is consciousness. Worrying about different names for the same concept makes as little sense as counting fairies on the head of a pin. Conceptual coherence does not suggest there is my god, your god, his god, and her god. Rather, there is the Trinitarian Godhead that fluxes to express itself as Consciousness, Substance, and Information. The different names are just different metaphoric approaches. I am not interested in how to test different metaphoric approaches as if some were more measurably or literally true than others. I think that is a rabbit hole to madness.
Provided a religion facilitates people coming together to inspire and seek higher minded empathy, I believe it can be an agency for good.
Different values may be appropriate for differently emerging societies. Not every society or culture is disposed to live well with representative republicanism or freedom of speech, expression, enterprise, and association. Those are value issues for which every person may exercise his best judgment IAW his situation.
Those judgments will unfold towards reconciliation, but I don't think any one system is necessarily best for all. People become conditioned to like certain values and traditions. I don't necessarily consider differences among metaphoric approaches to constitute BIAS in any bad way.
However, if the U.S. populace mainly wants to preserve a representative republic, then it needs to stop allowing itself to be swamped with people of other persuasions.
What kind of people/citizenry do we value? Are people who are less free to say what they really think allowed to be fully human? I don't think so. Is that always a bad thing? That depends. How can we know? We can't. The best we can do is to try to interact in good faith and good will, guided by an appreciation for Higher Mindedness.
The default-alternative seems to be the unraveling of decent society and the drift towards the masses being farmed by fascist despots pretending to seek general fairness and equality.
*************
VERIFICATION: I answered that question! Maybe you have not put on your thinking cap? I said there are no scientifically, mathematically verifiable miracles. If by verifiable, you mean scientifically or mathematically, there is no such verification.
BIAS: Rather, to my intuition, there is only subjective, conscious, appreciation. There are not innumerable miracles. There is one miracle: The unfolding expression of the cosmos, appreciated through innumerable perspectives of the same consciousness. There is appreciation of that miracle, as each perspective is guided in its life path by what it experiences in its sense of being as higher mindedness. If that is what you mean by bias, then the answer to your question is little more than trivial.
Of course each and every perspective is affected by its situational accumulation! Duh. Those desires of those different perspectives are what are necessarily reconciled throughout the general unfoldment.
You may as well ask in each presentation what you should do. I cannot answer that for you. What I can point out is that 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.
You can disobey that general sense of higher mindedness (conscience), but your consciousness lacks complete power to ignore it. Yes, there are some very strange, over-the-coocoo-nest, sociopaths. Even so, I doubt there is such a thing as a sociopath who is completely without empathy, consideration, remorse, or regret. Dawkins seems to think that even genes are interested in perpetuating their own kind, rather than simply with their individual selves.
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. Not that I can dictate what the upshot of any such miracle should be. As I said, the process of labelling what is a miracle is too often twisted to madness. Which is where you seem to be irretrievably bent.
EDIT: Perhaps you view the Bible as a literally true explanation and revelation concerning the Godhead and the hereafter. I do not. I see it as a collection of sacred metaphors. I don't think God could give understanding of the Godhead to a mere mortal while he was a mortal. I think literalists try to make that which is meant to be inspiring and poetic out to be some kind of consistent, coherent, complete explanation of God and morality. I think any honest inquiry quickly dispels that.
However, I am not inclined to debate that with those who believe otherwise. Any more than I am inclined to debate rules of logic or the flatness of the earth with people who are irretrievably conditioned to believe they have somehow squared the circle or discovered the last decimal point of pi.
*************
To counter tendencies towards fascist sub-humanization, we need to find a way --- beyond authoritarian dogma, empiricism stretched beyond its physical domain, and superstitious scientism posing as social science --- to inspire us to allow our spiritual and innate good faith and good will to guide us towards assimilating and framing shared and reasonably sustainable social values. That can only begin with increasing respect for our spiritual and innate good faith and good will.
Well, you did not follow my thought process. I did not suggest that everyone is innately good. We are meat eaters, after all. So, you went off the beam at the start. Indeed, I purport no judgment on the soul or ultimate character of anyone.
Rather, 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.
*****************
Depends on what you mean by "the tenets of secular humanism." If secular humanism has tenets, they seem not to avail respect for workable principles. More like anything goes. Diversity uber alles. Sink the republic with tolerance for anti-republicanism. Undermine faith, family, and fidelity in order to help elites push us to a new, people-farming, fascist, world order that poses as socialistic free stuff.
I agree that science can help guide decision making. What I would not agree with is that moral decision making should be entrusted to any class of elites merely because they claim to be more educated in science.
A contributor or designer begins with a concept, and then adjusts tactics depending on information obtained as feedback. For example, I would prefer to begin with a concept: What is helpful to establish and preserve a decent society for the dignity of free thinking human beings.
Social science can help shed light on what tends to happen when different courses are taken. But it does not provide scientific answers to the moral questions of what ultimate values should be preserved or what long-term paths would best lead to them.
To answer whether we want a society of free thinkers or a society of farmed sheeple, we need to look to something beyond science. Some people, especially indoctrinated incompetents, want to be farmed. They want to rely on a plantation run by elites who say they only want what is best for us. Some societies are processing to become fit only to be farmed. As technological prowess increases, to answer whether that fitness should be tightened or relaxed, every thinking person needs to participate, to look beyond science and scientism. And beyond dogma -- whether based in social indoctrination or authoritarian priests or imams.
We need forums wherewith people can be inspired to participate and assimilate, in spiritual good faith and good will. But such forums cannot be created out of nothing. We need to work with, transition from, and communicate in terms of, or respect for, the figurative language and stories of shared sacred stories. Or, we can just consent to allow elites (or AI's?) to farm us --- because, "science."
*****************
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?
***********
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."
**************
Being Spin 1 makes a particle a photon or gluon.
????????????????????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????????????
***********
The potential for unfolding creation out of what atheists otherwise want to call "nothingness" is indeed astonishing.
Even so, so long as mortal communications about measurables rely on shared rules within a shared cosmos defined by a shared system of math-based parameters, what we take to be our physics (science) remains subject to those parameters. Even as they flux.
While we can qualitatively appreciate the potential of the Author of the math-based science of our cosmos, we cannot quantitatively measure or command the potential of that Author. We occupy only a very limited perspective of that Author, mathematically spun a-part from Him/Her/It. Our qualitative relationship is one of limiting appreciation, not knowledge. Receptivity, not command. Faith, not science. Good will, not personal pleasure. We could not know or be told all that the Author knows without becoming the Author.
In our politics, we enjoy participatory will, to seek a decent basis for society. One that does not sub-humanize us or make the masses serfs for elites, fakers, priests, despots, or oligarchs. Since we can enjoy a feedback relationship of participatory will with our Creator, why should we settle for less in our relationship with our earthly wannabe rulers (elites, fakers, priests, despots, and oligarchs)?
************
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.
***********
Many people would rather gloss over the issue of a God, reasoning that His/her nature would be inscrutable to mere mortals --- even if God exists. Many people prefer to conceptualize as if the cosmos (and maybe some anti-cosmos?) arose from a kind of crack in symmetry (Big Bang?) in otherwise nothingness. However, 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.
But how might that make faith in a guiding God reasonable? It would still leave God as inscrutable and immeasurable. However, by studying how the cosmos functions (what God produces?), one may ascertain practical measurables. By fruits, one may judge some general aspects. One may consider: 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.
Perspective of Consciousness, Spin, Math Field.
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.
**********
MATH: 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.
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.
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.
*********
*********************************
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).
***********************
Maybe America will get a second change, if its people reconnect more to the Godhead than to false-promising stooges and pleasure-swindlers for godforsaken oligarchs.
*************
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 Consciousness. Consciousness has to do with the Reconciliation and Interpretation of Information, as limited by speed of c.
THE EMR FORCE: EMR (and massless radiation) has to do with the transmission, storage, and reception of Information.
THE STRONG AND WEAK FORCES: The Strong and Weak Forces have to do with the integration and disintegration of loci for Perspectives of Consciousness.
SPACE-TIME: Space-Time, as a medium for allowing Substantive interfunctioning to occur in sequentially measurable patterns, exists only insofar as such patterns also avail the expression of Perspectives of Consciousness.
QUESTION: Can information from nuclear forces (Strong and Weak forces) be transmitted, received, stored, or interpreted without the influence of "c" (the limiting and constant speed for massless particles)? Can any Perspective (present or potential) of Consciousness function without influence of C? While protons and neutrons are expressed much larger than electrons and photons, what about their quanta components? Apart from fuzz or Reconciling Consciousness, can nuclear quanta components store or convey Information in bits "smaller than," and free of, photons? No. Quarks carry mass.
For our math-verse, a nucleus can become free of electrons, but it will only provide a locus for a Perspective of Consciousness insofar as it helps receive, store, transmit, and interpret Information limited via C.
***********
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.
***************
SPEED C:
The speed "c" is special in that it is a universal constant for all particles (such as photons and gluons) with zero rest mass that carry only kinetic energy. Although they carry energy, they are zero-rest-massless so long as they travel at the speed of light. This allows integration of the concepts of measurable space, time, matter and energy. Every zero-rest-massless particle in a vacuum must travel at the speed of EMR. A zero-rest-massless EMR particle, to be created in an otherwise vacuum, must be traveling in all frames at the speed of light. Its only mass is the square of its Lorentz-invariant momentum fourvector P (a vector of energy and the normal 3d momentum p), which is 0 in all frames.
Light bends due to gravity only because space-time curves such that anything traveling at c is considered to have "relativistic mass." This is possible only because time and distance measurements differ for different observers, even though whatever chronological sequences they can share remain protected. The bending of transmissions of massless energy would seem also to have to do with how every reception of Information can participate in preserving to every Perspective an appearance that our cosmos tends to equal cumulative density in all directions.
Since your body is not massless, it cannot reach c. If it could, its clock would stop ticking. Anything that travels at c is massless and would be observed as traveling at c by everyone who could observe it. W
While you cannot travel through space-time faster than c, can you warp through space-time faster than c? Were you to warp (alter your space-time locus instantaneously) back and forth, rather than travel, you would not be altering chronologies.
Photons carry the electromagnetic force, but are not charged themselves and do not interact via this force. Photons have relativistic mass and interact with gravity, but not with their own forces.
Gluons are carriers of the Strong force. Both photons and gluons travel in a vacuum at c. They do have relativistic mass, which acts as a gravity charge.
A Neutrino that changes flavors as it travels is not massless. A Muon has mass and can be broken into an electron and two neutrinos.
A Photon, in itself, is not matter. It has zero rest mass, but it does have relativistic mass. When confined or stored to a system, a photon does increase the mass of the system. Matter is stored energy.
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.
A Graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory (QFT).
A Graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory (QFT).
Like photons, gravitons also carry (relativistic) mass, but unlike photons and gluons, they carry the gravitational force which interacts with this mass. As well as gravitons having to thus interact with other gravitons, quantum mechanics means they must also interact with themselves via virtual particles. Understanding these interactions of gravitons' own relativistic mass with their own force is a qualitatively different kind of problem from modelling other types of bosons and is what leads to the renormalization issues.
It would seem that a concept of gravitons, if helpful, should relate Consciousness to a system of math such that every Perspective will experience general mass as if it tends to cumulative equal density (flatness) in all directions, even though of differing densities in near distances.
It would seem that a concept of gravitons, if helpful, should relate Consciousness to a system of math such that every Perspective will experience general mass as if it tends to cumulative equal density (flatness) in all directions, even though of differing densities in near distances.
Most theories containing gravitons suffer from severe problems. Attempts to extend the Standard Model or other quantum field theories by adding gravitons run into serious theoretical difficulties at energies close to or above the Planck scale. This is because of infinities arising due to quantum effects; technically, gravitation is not renormalizable. Since classical general relativity and quantum mechanics seem to be incompatible at such energies, from a theoretical point of view, this situation is not tenable. One possible solution is to replace particles with strings. String theories are quantum theories of gravity in the sense that they reduce to classical general relativity plus field theory at low energies, but are fully quantum mechanical, contain a graviton, and are thought to be mathematically consistent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment