God’s Habits And Arts:
God’s Present Time:
Perhaps, what presently synchronizes for God is not “time itself,” but all present and local perceptions of time, regardless of whether present time for some perspectives or persons may seem to be running faster or slower than for others.
As God’s synchronicity functions for a local perspective, God may factor all information then and there available to such local perspective, but need not then and there factor how light information from such local perspective, 40 years later, may excite some then possibly distant perspective.
For God, through my present perspective, to see and factor information that is 40 years old conveyed by light from a star 40 light years away presents no problem to God regarding time synchronicity.
Even so, God may appreciate or factor at local space-time point A that a mortal perspective will only receive light information 40 years later on account of the mathematical basis of an event presently taking place 40 light years away.
That is, God may presently deal with present choices availed among all parameters, through synchronizing functions of math, everywhere and everyplace.
God’s Present Interests:
The universal present structure of hierarchical levels and degrees of inter-functioning algorithms affords God adequate information in real time. God need not “time travel” to the past to retrieve information of interest about previous choices because such information, to the extent deemed of interest, is availed in the mathematical record of the universal present.
Final Cause:
Ultimately, there is no “physical cause” of each succeeding event. Rather, there is synchronous coordination of local perspectives of present experiences of choices.
From our mortal, holographic perspectives, we may augur some of the present tendencies of God’s artistic preferences. When such tendencies of God are of a base, common, fundamental character, they may as well be considered by us as if they were immutable “laws of physical nature,” even though physics exists only as an illusion, derivative of God of Math conjuring with math.
Because previous conjurings with math function as base for present conjurings, any present change or addition will necessarily sequence and merge on with the old. (That is, unless God were to decide to collapse or swallow base aspects of the mathematical ground of our apparent physics.)
Laws of Nature based on Mathematical habits of God:
So long as God preserves the continuity and flow for building, replicating, and mutating new algorithms on top of old, our mortal experience of the arrow of Time (chronological sequencing), the direction of entropy (of apparent physics), and the accumulation or record of informational experience are preserved.
But God need not necessarily be bound to such “laws,” except to the extent God’s consciousness remains habituated or invested in identifying with our ever-developing travails of mortal consciousness.
Artistic Cause:
Because God is the holism, there is no other holism to “cause” God to make the choices God makes.
Somehow, God appreciates and judges the holism of experience of all perspectives of consciousness and synchronizes choices for how they shall continue, based on God’s “artistically holistic interests.”
****
Information Guiding God’s Evolution:
Essence of God:
Some essence of God seems to interact with algorithms, to lend imaging (“illusory physics”) to functions of math. New mathematical functions are merged or built onto old ones, to complicate, add, multiply, divide, subtract, log, leverage, compartmentalize, reorganize, remix, reduce, dissolve, grow, and multi-task.
Preservation of Information:
Aspects of Information relating to old forms of mathematical functions are continuously carried forward to the present --- there to endure, mutate, devolve, or evolve.
Even if some such information may seem to be lost locally, it need not necessarily be lost beyond God’s capacity to reconstruct or remember, in respect of holistic perspective.
God’s Multi-tasking:
All the while, God may leverage math to leverage multi-tasking from and through variously translating perspectives of God’s essential self.
Thus, the Essence of God’s Substance may consist in meta-capacity to translate perspectives of images out of otherwise pure math.
Art Bound To Tradition:
Thus, the New need not be blind to the Old, nor free to just start anew, in chaotic happenstance. Rather, the New is constricted in that its mathematical operations must be based in some algorithmic way on previous sequences. Thus, a cumulative sequence is preserved, as a record of Information. Thus, choices are availed to the new, but must tie to the past.
Thus, God is about choices, always in the synchronous present, based on a record of mathematical imaging from the past. That is, the New is not completely Free or Random, but is tethered to the Previous.
Choices Bound to Art:
So, among possibilities for the new, how does God arrive at choice, path, or artistic purpose? Is it in respect of holographically random happenstance of eclectically artistic pleasure, or is it in respect of holistically synchronized choice and vision? Perhaps, both.
.
****
META’S:
Regarding Meta-Reality based upon the building of algorithms replicating upon algorithms, and so on:
As mortals, we do not have direct access to Meta-Source, Meta-Consciousness, Meta-Purpose, Meta-Conceptualization, or Meta-Math [problem of regressive “meta’s”]
I intuit or believe that some form of Meta-Source (meta-substance, or God), by imaging its meta-substance in respect of meta-math, underpins the “physical reality” that appears to our mortal experience.
I posit that some Fundamental Algorithm may function with meta-substance, replicating meta-functions upon meta-functions, and so on, so as to produce our Reality out of its own imaging of otherwise “pure math.”
I assume what we often call “laws of Nature” consist instead in a God imposed hierarchy of habits and reliable tendencies, being translated and presented to us out of nothing more than a hierarchy of algorithms inter-functioning with Substance Of Meta-Source (Mind of God).
This begs a question: To what extent may mortals participate in directing the change and flow of Reality, by imaging our own forms of algorithms?
I assume we may eventually draw close to the Fundamental Algorithm. But, until then, using only inferior and partially true algorithmic models, may we ourselves thus change some of the landscape of our underlying Reality? In other words, could our deployment of false algorithmic modeling bend us towards a self-fulfilling Reality?
There may be a kind of inferior or derivative truth in such a notion. This may be why advances in mathematical modeling often seem eerily to coincide with unexpected advancements in technological possibilities.
However, false algorithmic modeling can also easily lead us to build on false foundations, eventually to disastrous collapse.
Perhaps, the way to account for this is as follows: It is not directly the false algorithmic modeling by mankind that changes the “habits” of God (or “laws of science”). Rather, even our false modeling is under-girded by a meta-true, meta-system of algorithms. As that system of replicating algorithms, i.e., the meta-system, is directed to build up and express choices and changes in courses or phases, so also will it account for the incomplete and false algorithmic modeling at our mortal level.
In other words, changes we make in our mortal modeling are not necessarily unaccompanied with choices being synchronized or made at the level of Meta-Modeling.
Regardless, our problem is not to reduce God (or Meta-Consciousness), but to reduce what can be reduced. That is, our problem is to PROGRESS towards reducing a NQTOE, or “Not Quite Theory Of Everything.” It may even be possible for us to reduce to the Fundamental Algorithm for all parameters, save and except the spiritual parameter of Conscious Choice Making. That is, human conceptualism will remain limited in respect of the meta-function of God.
.
ART, SCIENCE, SPIRITUALITY:
Limits of Rationality and Rationalization ---http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsmD2ujZiRo; http://www.princeton.edu/~smeunier/JonesBounded1.pdf.
Gnostic Blake --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7EM6KUdAU0&feature=related; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJu9dX5bzPk; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkt2asdpUeE&feature=related.
Art of William Blake --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHZB1v77egE&feature=related; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWJbKVNuoXI&feature=related.
Blake and Paine --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tikLELXGoWU.
1 comment:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/intellectuals_and_philosophy_v.html:
Larrey said, “A tradition that spans millennium and refuses to die is more likely to be rational than the latest fad.”
Well, this may depend as much on subjectively chosen point of view and macro vs. micro frame of reference as on objective empiricism or logic.
Spanning millennium and refusing to die have been “macro traditions” for: Breeding choices among mutations, “unfair” choosing among allies, admiration of brutes, discriminatory conspiracies, artifices and enslavements, wars and measures of power, symbols of status and measures of virtue.
That some chosen ways for describing micro traditions may be randomly subsumed or even carried forward for long periods of time in respect of enduring macro sponsors may not necessarily make them “more likely to be rational” as opposed to “more likely to be rationalized.”
IOW, I am not sure you can define “rational” in a non-trivial way that is free from subjective valuation. An atheist may say, after all, that some things necessarily will just so happen to endure.
Re: “In this paper I am concerned with how we might be able to determine whether or not a specific tradition is rational. I am not interested in theological speculation.”
Well, whether a tradition is “rational” relates to whether it serves a worthwhile purpose. Purposefulness often relates to moral choices. Moral choices often relate to “theological speculation.” I am skeptical that one can “tell God to butt out” of a discussion about what sorts of traditions are “rational.”
To limit discussion to that which is purely rational (or correct?), divorced from rationalization, would seem to be to limit discussion largely to that which is mathematically (or self-reflectively) trivial.
Re Objective Rationality:
Perhaps, a test for those “traditions which are rational” may best integrate both subjective and objective aspects. Perhaps, to evaluate those traditions which are (objectively?) rational (or able to be rationalized, subjectively?) may be to evaluate which among them will best serve (conserve) civilizing stability, while availing (liberal) room to grow. For that “test of rationality,” one would be receptive to look for moral objectivity to “God,” but to one’s own subjective intuition to rationalize it.
****
Zac D said:
" I did not make the claim that God exists or doesn't exist. Therefore, the budern of proof is not on me either way but is on the Author. It is my belief that one can not prove or disprove a negative, for now. Something you ID creationist have not figured out. However, everyone with an ounce of intelligence will pretty much agree a personal God doesn't exist. Therefore, what you base your belief on is wishful-thinking, you read books by other creationist who try to sound logical but once their reason is examed they just aren't. I suggest you read Dawkin's "THE GOD DELUSION" or Sam Harris's "The End of Faith". These books have done more than enough to remind me why I am skeptical and not a blind believer in God."
****
Re Burden of Proof: We are all burdened, in that we have no choice but to make choices. But every choice is accompanied with contemporaneous feedback, with which we evaluate, rationalize, adjust, and choose our subsequent course. (If time can be likened to an illusion, this may amount to something like Consciousness, whatever that is, thinking in perpetual nowness through sequences being chosen among already extant algorithms.)
Re Personal God: Actually, a fair number of folks think there is a personal god, i.e., themselves.
But I do not think "I" (whatever that is) am God. Rather, I suspect a Source of God Consciousness experiences perspectives, one of which happens to be through "my" perspective. Seems "personal" to me.
Re Wishful Thinking: You might be presuming everyone is mainly fixated on an afterlife. But I doubt they are. Many are more fixated on trying to appreciate that Source which is working through them, as well as on trying to preserve opportunity for such Source to work through the minds of their children within a relatively free and decent civilization.
To my intuition, it seems not unlikely that God seeks to enhance a civilization whereby many perspectives can seek such appreciation in relative freedom, as opposed to mind numbing Dictate, whether in the name of King or Collective.
Re God Delusion (aka, Dawkins Butterfly on the Wheel): Suggest Mary Midgley [en.wikipedia.org]. Also Berlinski, in The Devil's Delusion.
Re God purpose: Consider that a prime purpose for intuiting and rationalizing faith in an empathetic Source, as opposed to mere indifferent and random Science, may be less about numbing minds to dogma than about a process for bringing minds together to appreciate reasoned empathy and creative purposefulness.
Re Skepticism: It's hard to be skeptical of one's deepest intuitions, even for a skeptic. Dawkins and Harris have their own god beliefs for trying to derive "ought" from "is." But they're whinny and inconsistent about admitting it. And I don't see much movement among Churches (forums) of Dawkins for inspiring moral well wishers in the vein of "come, let us reason together." But I do see elitist posturing and primming.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/intellectuals_and_philosophy_v.html:
"How do we challenge them? ("Read the Bible" -- I hear that from conservatives sometimes -- but that doesn't work because most on the left don't believe in the Bible in the first place.)"
Challenge them to provide their biblical and definitional alternatives. See David Stove's Darwinian Fairytales, p. 274: "So I would like to know what the "respectable translation" is of "genes are selfish."
The left does not act purely out of skepticism. Rather, it has its own underlying "true beliefs"; they just go unstated. Make leftists state or at least recognize their underlying beliefs. Friday, Laura Ingraham challenged a leftist agitator to state even one thing she would do to help enforce the border. The agitator had nothing. Just the "comprehensive solution" talking point. At their core, Leftists are empty or anarchic in moral basis for advocating among tough moral choices.
PMK said,
“Just because our traditions have a rational basis doesn't mean we should cling to them. By opening ourselves to new ideas we could realize just how right our traditions really are. Intellectuals and liberals don't always reject tradition out of hand. Sometimes they look for a reason to keep it. That reason is not always forthcoming. If our traditions are sound, we would have the answer when intellectuals and liberals ask us why the tradition is or was a good one. "That's the way it's always done" shouldn't be enough for any of us.”
Yeah, that’s a problem: To which traditions should we avail presumptions of moral validity?
All communication depends on a contextual “grammar.” Good grammar respects conventions (traditions), while incitement to new thinking (revolutions) may well disrespect old conventions, paradigms, and grammars. For examples: One does not very well communicate with a neologism without first providing definition or context. Nor does one very well preserve freedom for revolutionary thinking without also preserving traditional laws (or habits of man) for defending freedom of expression. Nor would one very well experiment to find new ways to direct physics were there no reliable natural laws (or “habits”) of nature.
Aside from rush of endorphins, not all new thinking is good, worthwhile, or of truth value. But, truth value may not be readily apparent, absent endurance and experimentation. A trivial truism is easy: Traditions are sometimes worthwhile and sometimes they are not. But the devil is in judging when a tradition is no longer worthwhile and how feedback should move the burden of persuasion.
Mankind is rapidly approaching artificial capacity for suddenly changing, upsetting, or destroying all that has heretofore naturally undergirded traditional civilizations. Yet, with this power, we are sorely challenged to know what we should do with it. That alone calls for caution.
Meantime, I doubt there are “objectively true answers” to what mankind should do with our power. I suspect, unless we find ways to respect and leverage moral empathy (i.e., “God”), our remaining time may be short. I suspect Dawkins, et al, are pouring gas on a lit fuse of anarchic moral confusion.
Perhaps, insight regarding which traditions are “worthwhile” (and which are not) may be enhanced by considering their sponsors and their purposes. Clearly, some traditions are sponsored by small minded, sociopathic persons inclined to evil.
If we can evaluate which of our traditions have been advanced in respect of leaders of civilizing decency, experience, vision, empathy, and well thought out purposes (as opposed to leaders of little practical experience that is not over balanced with airy doctrine), we may incline to spot such traditions with presumptions of moral validity. But America will no longer so incline once it compromises and surrenders its borders.
As for those traditions which seem neutral in moral content, one should think twice before presuming to offend or monkey with traditional (or “bitter clinging”) sensibilities --- lest one unleash unintended, nettlesome consequences.
To act as a social conservative is to defend and respect traditions of one's society, absent good reason not to. But, as one's borders erase, one's laws become incomprehensible, and one's society becomes more multicultural, it becomes ever more difficult even to identify one's society, much less to defend and respect its traditions.
Yet, some traditions will survive and emerge. Thus, a question becomes ever more insistent: With which traditions should one align, in order to strive for their survival (or surpassage)?
As things stand, the chance for peaceable resolution among competing societies of social conservatives is being swamped by an inassimilable tide of immigrants across America's erasing borders. Apart from seeking doped up highs secondary to their usages of populations as guinea pigs, our present leaders are morally at sea.
Post a Comment