(click title above)
.
Measurement Problem:
Suppose “appearance of physics” may rationally be considered a co-dependent result of a continuous synchronizing and re-normalizing of relations among perspectives of Consciousness (“observers”).
If so, to factor each perspective of Consciousness into each systemic sequencing of re-normalization, must not some Factor’er (God) be exercising capacity to evaluate and account for all layers and levels of perspectives of Consciousness?
Intuitively, must not God — by some supernatural means or holistic device of mathematical leveraging — know, perceive, or record at least all the information that each of us knows, perceives, and records?
.
NATURAL SOLVING:
THE HARD PROBLEMS ---
Is Nature “real,” or is Nature only appearance, derivative of Mind of God and Math?
Does God leverage power from Math, or does Math get leverage from God (or both)?
Does Consciousness account for Physics, or does Physics account for Consciousness (or both)?
Is Holistic Awareness secondary to competitions among Particular Perspectives, or are Particular Perspectives of Consciousness synchronized by the Whole (or both)?
Is “Free Will” responsive to a dualistically ambiguous Feedback Loop, such that the consciousness of holistic God and the consciousness of any particular Perspective of God are dualistically co-dependent, each on feedback of the other?
May a “Meta-Pause” for co-dependent feedback be implicated in the sensation of continuity, rather than discreteness, in one’s experience of present Time?
Is local free will exercised non-locally, in advance of thought, and only appreciated and rationalized in thought, after the fact?
Should Reasoning be adduced and applied top down, bottom up, or “simultaneous down-up”?
How?
****
MAN HEARING VOICE OF GOD:
God: I‘m here.
Man: Show me a special sign.
God: I cannot show you a sign, except in synchronicity.
Man: Then you’re irrelevant.
God: Not to intuitive empathy; look to the math.
Man: We’re scientists now; we look to empiricism.
God: Well, as scientists, how do you get something from nothing?
Man: We postulate, given enough space and time, that anything can happen.
God: But, where do you get this “space and time”?
Man: Same place you did.
God: Look, we’re all in this together.
Man: What you mean “we,” Kimo Sabe?
God: Putz!
Man: I know I am, but what are you?
God: Sigh.
TIME:
Illusions of variable twists on Units of Space (or, better, Units of pure Potential) are continuously presented to us. Such presentations are representative of sequential build ups of meta-girding algorithms. The mixing, building, and organizing of vertical and horizontal compartments of “daemon algorithms” sequentially builds new Information into our universal system.
Each Perspective that translates aspects of such build-ups into sensory perception will interpret a “continuity of chronology or Time,” regardless of whether “time itself” is discrete, stands still, or even exists.
Thus, in referring to each fundamental Unit that may be interpreted to perception in respect of a Fundamental Algorithm, it may be more parsimonious or elegant “To Metaphor” such Unit as a Unit of Space (or of Potential), rather than as a unit of space-time.
This is because time and space-time may be better conceptualized as “sub-derivative of the derivative” of the “unit of potential-space,” which itself is derivative of the Fundamental Algorithm. That is, the concept of “Sequence” in Organizations of Fundamental Algorithms would seem to be more fundamental than a concept of “time itself.”
SPACE:
What we perceive as “Space” may be conceptualized as a perspective or interpretation of representation of a given and limited number of Fundamental Algorithms, “as if” each iteration of such Algorithm represented its own "adjoining" Unit of Potential Space. In a more fundamental respect, however, the set sum of such Units of Space Potential may be considered as derivative of a single “Point of Meta-Mind,” imaging and interacting with one Fundamental, Seeding, Teleological Algorithm.
NATURAL SELECTION:
In a way, Natural Selection explains evolution like Gravity explains Physics: Things change; and things fall. And so, what do we know now that we did not know before?
Darwin explained natural selection in respect that, in every population of organisms (or population of populations?), there is always variation, some of which is heritable and advantageous to its possessors, and there is always pressure of population on the supply of food, which results in a constant struggle for life among conspecifics. In this struggle, those organisms which possess some heritable advantage over their rivals will be naturally selected.
Likewise, in every population of inanimate Organizations of patterns (or ideas, customs, or memes?), there is always some variation, some of which is preservable and “advantageous to its possessors,” and there is always “entropic pressure of Demi-Urge,” which results in a constant “competition for preservation” among conspecifics. In this struggle, those organizations of patterns which possess some preservable advantage over their rivals will be naturally selected.
Thus, those holonic organizations that have better local advantages will be favored. And, those organizations of (daemonic) algorithms by which such holonic organizations are presented will be coordinately favored. Thus, there emerges a kind of “natural selection” among imaged patterns of (inanimate) algorithms.
Thus, those (inanimate) patterns organized with the sympathetic resonances for better “anticipating” and surviving the synchronous actions of the Holistic Mind Substance will be the patterns made most advantageous to survive and replicate.
ASSUMPTION OF NATURAL SELECTION:
However, the problem with “Natural Selection” is that it assumes Evolutionary Change is fully accounted for by “Nature,” with no involvement or guidance from God (holistic source of Consciousness), or, at least, that science and Math can have nothing rational to say about whether or how God may play a role. In that respect, advocates of Natural Selection “assume what they only think to prove.”
EVIDENCE VIA MATH:
But, may math have something rational and worthwhile to say about whether or how God may play a role? For that, ought one to give more consideration to math and to the character of consciousness?
EVOLUTION OF CHOICE MAKING WITHIN DEGREES OF FREEDOM:
MIND OF GOD AND MATH:
Perhaps, innate capacity for sensation, perception, choice, will, and Consciousness (“God”) has been with us always, implicated in a fundamental defining relationship whereby Meta-Mind of God avails images of Units of space-time for being organized in patterns amenable of mathematical representation via a basic Algorithm, as such Algorithm interacts with Substance of Meta-Mind. (How does one “touch” or shape an algorithm in one’s mind, without physics? I don’t know, but some “substance” of God seems to do that.)
ABODE OF GOD:
For all we know, God may not occupy space or time in any way amenable to our conceptualization. Regardless, whatever the abode God occupies, God may have needed only the capacity to merge a “Fundamental Algorithm” with a “teleological seed” in order to define, limit and number the “degrees of freedom” that we perceive as Space, Time, Matter, Energy.
TELEOLOGICAL ALGORITHM:
Conceptualize one fundamental form of Teleological Algorithm, imaged and defined by Mind of God to seed, “replicate,” and limit its own “mutually exclusive and exhaustive number of indiscernible copies.”
BIG BANG:
Suppose, once God imaged such an Algorithm for being applied to meta-substance of Mind of God, such image sprang from “point of God’s Mind” to self-replicate to the limits of such Algorithm’s internal design, to explode in all directions
IDENTITY OF OTHERWISE INDISCERNIBLES:
Thus, each replicate of such fundamental Algorithm would be indiscernible in its relation to any other, as such. However, each would respect a same design, requiring that a fixed number of replicates shall occupy the “place of image in God’s Mind.”
PRINCIPLE OF MUTUAL EXCLUSION:
Conceptualize that no two replicates would be permitted to occupy the same unit of space-time as conceptualized within Mind of God. Thus, God’s “Demi-Urge” would unite to endow each replicate with capacity to “sense” and be aware of its neighbors, to react so as to exclude them from occupying its same unit of space-time.
DEGREES OF FREEDOM:
Conceptualize that each Unit of space-time so defined or presented by its (daemon) Algorithm or Unit would be subject to parameters of expression respecting how it would be sensed by its neighbors and, potentially, by all others. That is, each Unit may capacitate varying “degrees of freedom,” features, or aspects of density, inertia, mass, spin, charge, polarity, radioactivity, transference, or radiation, and yet remain “equal in algorithmic potential” with all others. For example, an increase in density would be mathematically offset by a decrease in space. And so on. Thus, each otherwise identical Algorithm would express a “discernibly different Unit.”
SET, NUMBER, AND SIZE:
So, there would be a pre-set maximum for the Whole of All of space-time to be occupied by the Sum each and every Particular Unit of such set. During expansion up to such limit, each Algorithmic expression of a Unit of space-time would “Compete” with its neighbors regarding how it would go about occupying and giving expression to its assigned Unit. For such competition, the Demi-Urge would necessarily press each daemon Unit to sense and react to its neighbors in their competing for position and expression within the total of space-time allowed for all.
FUNDAMENTAL SENSATENESS:
In respect of “principle of mutual exclusion” among Units, each Unit would necessarily recognize and react to and with its competitors. In such competition, each Variable Unit, having been precisely replicated out of one original, may be brought to press upon, compress, twist, spin, pull, oscillate, resonate, charge, accelerate, and synchronize with its neighbors or polarized replicates. That is, they would “sense” aspects of how they were variably expressed within their degrees of freedom.
ORGANIZATIONS OF SENSATENESS:
Each daemon Algorithmic Unit will recognize others with which it is or has been “in contact.” However, local Patterns of Organization of such Units may or may not recognize one another as such. What may capacitate a particular system of organized Units with potential to key or lock on any other, to ignore, neutralize, repel, attract, polarize, unite, merge, catalyze, react, change, replicate, feed, or procreate it? Why should any such pattern react as an organization, rather than merely as a random collection of individual Units?
Each Unit, as it expands its potential in any one dimension (such as in density, inertia, mass, spin, charge, polarity, radioactivity, transference, or radiation) may thereby restrict the synchronized range of opportunities or parameters for its nearby cospecifics to do likewise. Degrees of freedom for how each Unit relates to each nearby or polarized cospecific may be limited. Similarly, an Organization of such Units may be limited in how it may relate, as a pattern, to nearby Patterns. Thus, organizations of patterns of units of space may come to key or lock on one another, similarly as would individual Units of space-time. Thus, Organized Patterns may also come to “sense” one another, as co-specific patterns, to ignore, neutralize, repel, attract, polarize, unite, merge, catalyze, react, change, replicate, feed, or procreate with or upon one another.
Thus, the Holistic System of Units, as a Synchronized Set, must respect the limits and parameters as set by the fundamental Algorithm that defines each of its component Unit-Parts. Yet, even the Holism, as such, may have its own degrees of freedom, perhaps unbounded.
PLATONIC FORMS:
Plato, in talking about essential forms, was not far from a deeper concept of essential formulas, or math, relating not to “ethereal forms” in space, but to Algorithms within Mind-Wave of God, of which space-time geometry is derivative.
FEEDBACK CHOOSER:
How, then, would such Holism “choose” how to express ITSELF from among its (finite yet unbounded?) degrees of freedom? And, among degrees of freedom availed to each individual Unit-Part, how are the “choices” it manifests made? For every locus, level, and layer of organized Units for which degrees of freedom are availed, how are “choices” made, if not by a Chooser? For convenience, may one not just as well label such chooser as “Consciousness”?
REAL, EMERGENT, APPARENT, AND GUIDED “RANDOMNESS”:
If and when there is a Meta-Conscious Chooser, such may account for “guided randomness.”
If and when a perception, event, or thing is completely determined, then an uninformed observer may be misled to believe it entailed “apparent randomness.”
If and when preexisting conditions or forces bias the direction of an otherwise random mix, such may entail “emergent randomness.”
If and when a mathematical problem of probability is trivially posed, its solution for any particular outcome may entail “real randomness.”
If interactions among some fundamental Units entail “real degrees of freedom,” then it may be rational to intuit a Meta-Chooser,” as if God, absent higher intervention of consciousness, were to delegate finely tuned choices to be “decided” by “meta-random-number-generator-components-within-fundamental-algorithms.”
Otherwise, if “physics” has to punt to “randomness,” then what is IT that synchronizes the random choices? Who or what chooses how and when a choice-making function should “touch”? But for Mind of God, how could functions in respect of randomness have meaningful relation to any intelligent form of consciousness?
DEMI-URGE:
Meta-Mind, in conceiving the Fundamental Algorithm, has unleashed its Demi-Urge, revealed to us as an entropic explosion from approaching a kind of perfect order towards perfect disorder, i.e., approaching towards a complete dissipation of heat energy.
In trade, Meta-Mind may be acquiring ever more Information, in the form of ever more organization of Meta-Algorithms.
ORGANIZATIONS OF holonic hierarchies:
Each Organization of Units may be defined in respect of its own organizing principle. In (daemonic) mathematical representation, this would entail solving for an algorithm for representing the fundamental Algorithms which are organized under it.
Thus, compartments for containing sets of algorithmic units may be represented and formed, horizontally and vertically.
But no such a compartment of algorithms would ever be complete in itself. Even the Fundamental Algorithm does not subsist without being imaged with Mind of God. Higher algorithms that may encompass algorithms encompassed within algorithms also would not be complete in themselves. Rather, to be relevant, they would relate to neighboring algorithms with which to cooperatively function.
To “function,” such organizations of algorithms would need to be oriented towards “solving” some chosen problem, purpose, or choice.
Otherwise, however, each compartment of algorithms would not be imaged by God as a fundamental Unit, but as an encompassing Holon or whole set of particular sub-units. Depending on perspective, such holons may subsist horizontally and vertically. That is, each may be of separate particularity, within an even more encompassing set. And so on.
Thus arise hierarchies and kingdoms of holons, depending on an observer’s point of view, frame of reference, and intention of function. That is, depending on choice of perspective, there may be holons and perspectives of holons, regressively, “all the way down.”
Within our Common Universe, until burst by God, all holonic experiences may be enclosed and synchronized in respect of one most fundamental and encompassing Algorithmic Seed, which constrains and defines each Unit of space-time, as we perceive it, as well as all such Units and Perspectives of same.
All other algorithms for representing various perspectives of combinations and organizations of such Fundamental Algorithm would, ambiguously, be both above and below the Fundamental Algorithm. But the algorithmic organizations may be defined to relate to one another vertically or horizontally, depending on orientation, purpose, and perspective, i.e., that of which they are desired “to solve.”
Such organizations, orientations, and perspectives may build upon and interact with one another, in various fractal or fractioning ways, to account for all of our compartmentalized perspectives.
Such may be guided under Conscious, Synchronizing, Will of God, by leveraging and interacting Meta Substance to image and interact with permutations, associations, and orientations of the Fundamental Algorithm.
QUICKENING:
As algorithms become stronger in Organization for storing Information in Advantageous ways, they may become more separately independent and less energetically reactive. Information may increase, while Energy (reactiveness and physical change) dissipates.
Algorithms thus organized into Holonic Hierarchies may compete among themselves, perhaps until only two remain. Once down to two, perhaps one could not eliminate the other without “killing” all that defined itself. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8EibLa0FTE. Yet, any “truce” may be uneasy. If one did “kill” the other, what theretofore held the organization of Information together may be exploded in yet another “Big Bang,” to be based on a new fundamental algorithm or paradigm, “learned” out of the experience of the previous.
Although Numbers are infinite, the number of iterations of the basic Algorithm “touched” by God, for being layered, leveled, numbered, and imaged by God, may not be infinite. Rather, our “physical” universe may be measurably limited only in respect of its defining Algorithm, whose own derivation is derivative of interaction with God. Perhaps there is a measurably maximum potential size to the space of our universe only so long as God remains committed to imaging, and not replacing or re-mixing, God’s otherwise Fundamental Algorithm established for limiting, defining, and “Designing” our universe.
SOLVE FOR:
Unless an observer orients a mathematical formula within a holography to “solve for” something that is otherwise only fuzzily intuited to his perspective, then the formula, not subsisting in itself, would serve no function. But, each conscious observer is on a life path for interpreting representations and “solutions” about Reality. So, Consciousness generally will take a perspective of a formula and orient the formula to solve (or approximate) for some variable potential that is then and there of interest to that perspective.
Just because all Units (of space-time) may be “Equal In Potential” does not mean they are equal in orientation or in presently expressed Qualia (such as for respecting how or for what they are to be directed or put to use, to be applied to “Solve For,” or to present interpretations and representations).
An algorithmic function or formula for relating several variables, like a “law of nature,” is to be used and directed. Depending on context and orientation for how such function is employed, different variables may emerge in different values or relations.
Until an orientation or purpose (or Demi-Urge) is directed or chosen, the potential that may emerge from applying such existing function will remain “fuzzy,” unknown, unsolved for, unobserved, and “uncollapsed” --- perhaps not unlike the potential within a standing wave or a fuzzy “zero point” or a virtual void of a “unit of empty space.” Thus, a Unit (of space), as governed by its Fundamental Algorithm, carries much more potential than may otherwise be conceived for so-called “empty space.”
Perhaps, the reason I cannot travel to distantly represented stars is because I have not learned how to access their Meta-Formulas or “wormholes,” so that I would have to pierce a lot of in-between daemonic formulas to get to them.
Regardless, what is IT, which chooses how meta-formulas should at any locus be oriented to “solve for” the concerns of each perspective-observer?
Answer (?): Meta Mind, synchronizing and leveraging hierarchical power and compartmentalizing and delegating perspectives, choices, and functions by imaging organizations of a fundamentally conceived Algorithm.
FEEDBACK LOOP:
Existence of Meta-Algorithms is derivative of Meta-Mind imaging their fundamental aspects as if “touching” Meta-Substance. By mathematical imaging, God leverages and telescopes powers and consciousness of empathy.
God gets power from math, and math gets power from God.
Thus, “Nature” has an ambiguously metaphysical and physical aspect, i.e., substance of meta-mind (subjective supernatural) in feedback-concert with mathematical algorithms (objective nature).
FEEDBACK LOOP BEYOND LOGIC:
There could not be “Empty Space” derivative of Numbers were Numbers not derivative of a leveraging Consciousness (God), and were God’s power not derivative of God’s leveraging of Algorithms of Numbers.
“Free Will” may be responsive to a dualistically ambiguous Feedback Loop, such that the consciousness of holistic God and the consciousness of any particular Perspective of God (human being) are dualistically empathetic and co-dependent, each on synchronizing feedback of the other?
GOD’S EMPATHY:
May God (Mind-Substance) only be Conscious of the lowest image level of God’s Fundamental Algorithm, or is God aware of higher Organizations of such Algorithm?
Well, if God has capacity to image the lowest common Algorithm, there seems no reason to believe God would not have capacity to image effects of their competitive organizations.
GOD’S UNBOUNDEDNESS:
Consider the eerie associations and epiphenomena that have been produced out of “nothing but” Mind of God imaging Algorithms.
BASIS OF SPIRITUAL MORALITY:
Intuited Interconnecting Empathy.
GAME THEORY:
The “game” is about art, science, purpose, empathy. Empathy entails enlightened altruism. Pursuing enlightened altruism entails synchronizing competition and cooperation, artistic skill, anticipating augurs and strategies, competing to learn via game theory. Pursuing and progressing towards entertainment, happiness, fulfillment.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/the_myth_of_relativism_and_the.html:
trex said, "Next the so called wars of religion that happened during the reformation, if you look closely and honestly you will see rulers angling for lands and using religion as a cover."
Much truth. It's often said, "Shoot them all and then let God sort them out."
But what people often mean is, "Shoot them all and then let us rationalize how God will sort them out."
In these kinds of cases, the shooting was going to happen, it was going to be rationalized, and the easiest rationalization was religiously based. The religious rationalization was more a label for the cause than the real cause. So, I agree that war is hardly evidence that religion is evil. Rather, religion tends to be something each of us rationalizes to suit our own purposes, needs, or traditions.
Find a set fulcrum, and you can move the world.
Find a set moral referent, and you can relate all manner of guidance, communication, and rationalization.
But I doubt the worth of pure moral truth can be shown, any more than the worth of consciousness, in absolute logic or in objective empiricism.
Rather, I think moral truth, such as it is, may derive in respect of an empathy that devolves among all, each being a perspective of some (spiritual) Source of consciousness.
The hope of civilization, I think, is best placed in helping each of us to appreciate a common (absolute) Source, from which are derived our respective (relative) empathies. But, too often missed in such formulation is an imperative not to mistake any relative perspective of the Source for the absolute Source in itself.
I think decency and civilization tend often to be most threatened as groups of radicals, zealots, or jihadists come to assume or believe some mortal, holy book, manifesto, or law speaks Truth's literal, absolute commandment in all relative cases. Rather, if there is one absolute moral commandment, I think, in various formulations, it may be expressed thusly: Be empathetic!
So long as we resist demagogues who would split such a formulation into their own particular sub-absolutes, we may better guide our empathies in respect that there is an Absolute, around whose purposes each of us Relates.
Whatever flows from that, we live with --- which is not necessarily, in all cases, to say, “Live and let live.”
********
someone447 said, "Moral relativists do not seek to change every ones outlook to their own. Moral absolutists do."
Well, as a vaunted moral relativist, are you seeking to change everyone to the view that you are not seeking to change them to your view? If not, what are you doing?
I think the idea of a bright line choice between moral relativism and moral absolutism is a false choice.
Consider "God": Must God obey God's moral absolutes? Or, consider "Whatever-the-Mechanism" by which we seek to determine mores for mortals: Must that Mechanism be so pre-set as to be incapacitated to deal with unanticipated changes?
I think neither the idea of moral relativism nor the idea of moral absolutism can represent our unfolding reality, except as incomplete models or perspectives of it. Whatever our moral reality, it seems to consist of a fusion of moral relativism and of moral absolutism. Unfortunately, any complete analysis or detailed description of that fusion is beyond us. Yet, we seem not beyond being guided by it.
If there is a practical way to relate to such fusion, it may consist in this: Appreciate that there is a Source of absolute morality, in respect of which one can approach only from one's incomplete perspective, but for which each of us, in humble receptivity, nevertheless should approach. If or when we achive consensus thereby, perhaps we will better know it when we see it.
When do we suddenly unravel or disassimilate our cultures and civilizations? I think we unravel quite suddenly as we lose common respect for the notion of a Source of moral guidance and as we come to hate our traditional modes for conceptualizing or communicating in respect of such Source.
Too many "empiricists" are seeking to undermine respect for the idea of such a Source as being worthless or counterproductive, without identifying any enduring, worthwhile, or substitute reality, against which such respect is "counterproductive." Thus, we fall --- either to nihilistic relativism or to brute absolutism. Either way, restricting ourselves to such a false choice, we lose decent respect for human dignity.
********
PMK said:
"The point is that we might no longer have the luxury of being a lab for competing theories. It's less a choice between anarchy and tyranny and more a choice between freedom and tyranny. The Third Way (i.e., representative government of, by, and for the people) is a standard. Do we impose it everywhere or do we let tyrannies (in our eyes, anyway) continue to exist?"
I think I glimmer some of your concerns, perhaps in different words. I think America imposes everywhere its "right" to exist. But America need not micromanage or nation build.
Problem is, technology, instant communication, and advances in means for leveraging psychological control, advertising, and temptation are overwhelming so many traditional guideposts. So, I admit I am far from sure that my "formula" can work.
Rather, it is a work in progress, as indeed, is humanity. But for faith, I would not advance a Third Way. That faith is grounded in respect for individual human freedom and dignity. Because, if we lose that, what of humanity matters? (Here, I imagine the mouse giving the finger to the swooping falcon.)
******
"And what if the Third Way became the standard for everyone? Where does that lead to? Look at our history. We had one standard for everyone, in that people who came here were expected to learn English, do their business in English and accept the history of the United States as their own. It provided a cohesion that some saw as tyrannical and that multiculturalism has worked to break down. We went from the melting pot to the salad bowl to the mosaic. If we have government of, by and for the people, and the people choose to live in their own separate communities and have their own language television channels, do we let them (live and let live) or do we impose the single standard?"
Well, we have to make some impositions. I have difficulty imagining anything that is devoid of boundaries. Law is the other side of a coin of freedom. So, I think freedom and dignity are about managing evolving parameters. If there is a best, set formula for dictating or freezing our relations, I have not discerned it. I see the need for checks and balances. The harder problem is: How do we guide the necessary evolution of our checks and balances, while still preserving respect for human freedom and dignity? For that, I see no set, objective, or physical formula. Instead, I see hope in empathy, good will, intuition, and faith. But, we will neither survive nor flourish by relying solely on either empiricism (scientists -- totalitarianism) or on empathetic faith (artists -- moral anarchy). We need to integrate empiricism with faith.
****
"How high, or low, does it reach? If it's a single standard then who gets to choose?"
I think the single standard is the God working through each of us.
****
"Who will enforce it? Relativism seems the end result of freedom."
Each of us has no choice but to make choices, i.e., to apply our own perspectives of empathy, good faith, and imperfect intuition. We can aspire towards the "more perfect," even while knowing we are unlikely to achieve it while working from mortal perspective. We can navigate by Polaris, even while knowing we will not reach it.
****
"Look at Iraq. The Iraqi version of freedom still elevates Islam above all else. All their laws must conform to Islam. What do we do or say? Their way isn't our way."
Well, what can we do, but continue to reason together, hoping epiphanies will alight to each of us? My own hope is that all religious adherents, even Muslims, will eventually apprehend that God speaks to us only in synchronizing representations or artistic figures of speech. Personally, I think religious ideas, such as the idea of Jesus, can be miraculous and wondrous even if only as metaphors. In other words, I need not purport to "know" whether or not Jesus was a real person or "just" an Idea of God's. I think Jesus may have been a real person. Regardless, His message is vital.
The harder nut to crack is to to educate Muslims to appreciate limits to their holy book literalisms, instead to educate them to try to be more directly receptive to God, so as not to be so entirely dependent upon imams (or priests). I think that is our task. But I do not think we will crack that nut by pounding it with unceasing broadcasts of Western depravities.
****
"We hold the law above all else."
I don't. If our society continues to corrupt, law will not bind our center.
****
"As the world gets smaller one of these systems will have to give way to the other (or to a system not yet devised) or else we will have to decide to live and let live."
I think you are right that all systems must give way to systems not yet devised.
As frustrating as this may be to system-thinkers, it is also tied to our very freedom, dignity, and purposefulness. Soros is right about bubbles bursting to beget yet more bursting bubbles. Where he is morally deranged is in how he uses bubble-bursting not to advance human freedom and dignity, but to advance an appearance of moral anarchy to be in fact ruled by a totalitarian cabal. In other words, I "judge" (but do not "condemn") that the man neither has nor respects a spiritual faith. Such people exist, and they are extremely dangerous to any idea of a moral civilization.
********
Dr. Gregory Young said, "For instance, speaking of the most often quoted, (Mathhew 7:12) "Judge not, lest ye be judged," the greek for this usage is more correctly translated to mean "condemnation," generally meaning a form of judgement that knows no recourse, rebuttal, or open to mercy or excuse, being set apart and permanent, if not rigidly lofty."
I have often argued that Christians, as any one else, must judge, but should not pretend (in finality) to judge (or condemn) the soul of another. Substituting "condemn" for "judge," I think the point is made. Thanks.
********
Larrey: You state what I believe is obvious. Yet, explaining clearly what should be obvious is far from easy work for the untalented. Excellent article! If only everyone of consequence would read and understand!
****
PMK: "As the world grows smaller and more densely populated, we no longer have the luxury of living apart. Either we "live and let live" (another definition of relativism) or we decide on one standard for everyone."
****
PMK, you insightfully describe the concern, but, I believe (or hope?) you overstate it.
I don't believe the choices you list are all there are. We have a Third Way.
That is, we can try to devise means for coordinating the evolution of our parameters of tolerance for "live and let live" with our evolution of degrees of freedom allowed within our moral standards.
In other words, in empathetic faith, we can hope to modify and apply a method of checks and balances on an as needed basis.
But I think sustaining such faith will necessitate that our intution, empiricism, and logic lead us closer and closer to a more shared understanding or appreciation of Consciousness and its Author. I believe "Something" indeed is leading us to that. And, that is the great moral work before us.
I think you implicate that, with the sudden erasure of America's physical, cultural, and moral boundaries in the name of multiculturalism and political correctness, the world, to survive, must sink either into moral anarchy ("live and let live") or totalitarianism (one standard).
If so, I would agree. Indeed, insofar as Lib-Dems are erasing us to moral anarchy and Blueblood Repubs are erasing us to the rule of a cabal of totalitarians, our main parties are united in undermining America. Of course, this unholy allinace, whether intended or not, demoralizes hope for a Third Way (i.e., representative government of, by, and for the people).
And that is why I believe all folks of good will are now called, as never before, to a great work before us. For if human freedm and dignity are to be surrendered, the moral relativists will not have proved themselves right, but will have proved present civilizations unworthy.
Stop the spongers, socialists, and sociopaths!
Charles Manning said, "The essence of Pinker's claim is that morality comes from Darwinian evolution. Pinker thinks that many if not all moral principles are expressions of this evolved "moral sense," and therefore not a product of human reason. The moral rules derived from the moral sense he calls illusions, impulsive, or intuitive. He also presumes the validity of a utilitarian moral system. All this leads him to such some weird conclusions: incest is okay as long as performed by consenting adults in secret; Bill Gates is a better moral role model than Mother Teresa. I think the idea that evolution accounts for what passes as moral understanding – that right and wrong are internally related to survival of the fittest – has a strong hold on many people who consider themselves educated and modern."
*****
Pinker's formulation will remain inadequate and counterproductive until it factors not only that of which we are evolving but also that to which we should aspire to evolve. That is, Pinker needs to tackle not only that which may be helpful for "survival of the fittest," but also that which should become helpful to "survival of the fittest" --- i.e., to what sort of sustainable civilization should we wish to evolve? IOW, in respect of "natural selection," how should artifice (or "design"?) participate in a feedback relationship with nature?
For examples: I don't see incest, bestiality, reduction of families, or entitlement theories as sustaining (at least, not presently) to meaningful civilization, i.e., civilization consisting of citizens who are availed enough freedom and dignity to pursue, appreciate, and communicate their ever-changing knowledge, skills, and arts.
A decent, sustainable civilization needs means for defining and limiting counterproductive behaviors, while availing changing parameters of freedom. (Think of "God" as akin to a parent who answers unrelenting whinny "why's" of boomer children with words, "Because I said so!")
I think "God" seeks communion with an evolving, sustainable civilization. This is more in the vein of intuition, empathy, and freedom than in the vein of "science."
I think, were moral issues of the realm of "science," you could provide an objective definition of "moral validity." But I don't think you can. I am left with this: Morality has an absolute basis; but the "devil" of its meaningfulness is in the details.
If we wish to survive and flourish as a worthy civilization, we need means for defining checks and balances more amenable of particular applications than are availed under competing notions of "live and let live," "survival of the fittest," or fiat of dictators.
Rather, we need to factor feedback and participate to put flesh on practical checks and balances that can sustain human freedom and dignity. (This is a path our founders put us on. And, no, they were not primarily secularists!)
I don't see boomer-like complacency about incest, bestiality, reduction of families, or entitlement theories as sustainable. Nor do I view a notion (theory?) of morality that would "validate" such practices as "fit" or sustainable. Rather, I see such notions as dangerous, even evil. I think Contrarian Boomers (like Pinker?) need to re-visit their corners, until they re-think such notions. Egads!
If, a priori, we were to wish to sustain or extend human civilization, such as it is, in present configuration and environment, then Science and math may help guide us to a range of solutions. Each attempted solution, however, would be vexed.
First, the extent to which our existing environment may remain friendly to our aspirations would seem too irreducibly complex for us to expect to manage (as if all of mankind save its programmers should be kept under glass in some sort of steady-state lab). Second, even if a “steady state” of human civilization could be governed via a “scientific” or programmed solution, mankind would quickly become dissatisfied and bored with such a state of affairs.
Those disposed to think in terms of problems and solutions often ignore that, depending upon perspective and feedback, each non-trivial problem is also a solution and each non-trivial solution is also a problem. Such feedback-loop effects continuously drive new changes and choices, putting any non-trivial final solution beyond both science and religion. Indeed, the number of choices availed us, acting collectively in our responses to feedback, may be as infinite as time is eternal.
As we respond within our various feedback loops, in respect of What, then, do we rely upon to help us to manage, rationalize, and appreciate our choices?
Larrey noted: “Every statement of relativism leads, sooner or later, to a logical paradox that is very similar to what is known in philosophy as Russell’s paradox. Named after the British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, the paradox goes like this: Nearly all classes of things are not themselves members of the class. For example, the class of cows is not a cow. Nevertheless, if we generalize, and speak of a class as a class, then a class can be a member of itself. The class of classes is a class. (Picture the Russian matryoshkas -- those nesting dolls.) The question Russell then posed was: Is the class, of all classes that are not members of themselves, a member of itself? If yes, then no, and if no, then yes. Voilà! Paradox.”
IMAGINE SOME CLASSES OF NESTING FORMS:
(1a. Class of Consciousness?)
1. Class of Conscious conceptualizations of mathematical algorithms;
2. Class of conceptualizations of sensations of dimensional translations of mathematical algorithms;
3. Class of two dimensional forms;
4. Class of triangles;
5. Class of right angle triangles.
Thus, Classes 2 -5 are members of Class 1;
Classes 3-5 are members of Classes 1 and 2;
Classes 4-5 are members of Classes 1, 2 and 3; and
Class 5 is a member of Classes 1-4.
But, what Class is Class 1 a member of? (Is Class 1 a member of a Class of Consciousness? If so, what, if anything, is the class of Consciousness, as Consciousness, a member of?)
PARADOX:
As our “elites” search and communicate about notions of empirical certainty, they easily and often deceive themselves (and the rest of us) with “sleights of words,” merely by forgetting or omitting to mark switches from singular to plural, from parts to wholes, and from sub-contexts to more encompassing contexts.
It seems every one of us, as well as our shared sensations of “physics,” are derivative (and dependent for our reality upon) our relations within or to Something most high or encompassing.
That is, we seem to be of a set or class that Something encompasses, but IT, as a class in itself, seems somehow apart from our class.
If so, is IT absolutely in a class by itself, or may IT, “itself,” be a member of a class of similar things or Beings (Elohim)? (If IT were perfectly absolute-in-itself, how could IT relate to us at all?)
Can any Mind or Mortal Perspective of Consciousness, in logic, conceive a way to account for the existence of all aspects of “Russell’s Paradox”?
Per Godel, logic and math are “incomplete.” May science, empiricism, physics, intuition, purposefulness, and Consciousness likewise be “unclosed” to mere logic or math?
Must each perspective of Consciousness, to endure, be somehow receptive to inherit, invent, and continuously re-invent its own centering identity and moral purposefulness?
Is Consciousness, whatever IT is, a/the “primary-absolute,” in respect of which each of us relates, relatively?
May our common Source of Consciousness be “truly absolute,”or is IT only absolute insofar as we are entirely derivative of IT — regardless of whether IT may be derivative of Something else?
“IT” (God?) seems to be our common Source, in whose respect we have no choice but to make (moral) choices.
Trivially, if we have a common source, IT is our common source. If we do not have a common source, we seem prone to invent one, i.e., God, Nature, Science, Consciousness, “Blip from the Void,” etc.
Thus, from varying perspectives, we cluster in our little groups to investigate and communicate about our shared “Reality” and our (moral) purposes. Each leader of each group, imagining he/she “knows the way,” will often castigate the others, as being unfaithful to “the truth.”
For myself, I do not think mortals are availed of “a way” to solve Russell’s Paradox. Rather, I think, in practicality, we muddle about the “how’s” of things via the scientific method, even as we muddle about the “why’s” (or the “ought’s”) of things via mind-looping feedback and intuition.
*****
FEEDBACK LOOPS:
If, a priori, we were to wish to sustain or to extend human civilization, such as it is, in present configuration and environment, then Science and math may help guide us to a range of solutions. Each attempted solution, however, will always be vexed by its own shadowing feedback.
First, the extent to which our existing environment may remain friendly to our aspirations would seem too irreducibly complex for us to expect to manage (as if all of mankind save its programmers should be kept under glass in some sort of “steady-state lab”).
Second, even if a “steady state” of human civilization could be governed via a “scientific” or (“Obama’esque”) programmed solution, mankind would quickly become dissatisfied and bored with such a state of affairs.
Those disposed to think (or to Dictate) in terms of problems and solutions often ignore that, depending upon perspective and feedback, each non-trivial problem is also a solution, and each non-trivial solution is also a problem. Such “feedback-loop effects” continuously drive new changes and choices, putting any non-trivial “final solution” beyond science, religion, and moral purposefulness.
Indeed, the number of choices availed us, acting collectively in our responses to feedback, may be as infinite as time is eternal.
As we respond within our various feedback loops, in humble respect of “What,” then, do we come to meet and rely upon in order to help guide us to manage, rationalize, and appreciate our choices — if we wish, in good faith, to sustain viable, meaningful civilization?
I think "IT" consists in Something greater than Science.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/will_dems_goforbroke_with_obam.html:
Wall Scribbler
A problem for “moral scientists” and other commies to quantify and solve: Insofar as our Dem and Repub Congress, in letting no crisis go wasted, is blind to moral credibility, to what extent are we becoming a nation wherein Congress pretends to enact “laws,” while the rest of us continue to pretend to respect such laws?
To what extent is Congress pretending to pay us in the currency of laws, for which we are pretending to obey and work for such laws?
Commie Wisdom: When derelicts pretend to rule, black sheep pretend to obey; shut up and eat your rules; then go home and screw your children.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/the_myth_of_relativism_and_the.html:
Russian Matryoshka said:
IMAGINE SOME CLASSES OF NESTING FORMS:
(1a. Class of Consciousness?)
1. Class of Conscious conceptualizations of mathematical algorithms;
2. Class of conceptualizations of sensations of dimensional translations of mathematical algorithms;
3. Class of two dimensional forms;
4. Class of triangles;
5. Class of right angle triangles.
Well, there may be a cusp of insight here, such as if "class of conceptualizations of " were substituted in 3, 4, and 5 for "class of."
Even so, any effort to "nest" all physical forms within consciousness would need work, because: (1) The class of consciousness is not, itself, necessarily conscious (as Larrey said, a class is not a cow); and (2) the class of triangles is not, itself, necessarily conscious; and (3) apart from assumption, not every space-time triangular locus necessarily exists only in respect of some conscious mind.
Re "The conflation of Intelligent Design with Creationism is a canard perpetrated by neo-Darwinists to establish guilt by association."
Well and truly said!
Re "The turd in the punch bowl is free will. If man is created with free will, as believed by Judeo-Christians, then God is precluded from intervening in human affairs. Thus, a personal God is a difficult circle to square."
Indeed, it is hard to imagine that God should be preoccupied with overseeing every nit, bit, and quanta of every decision or event. Yet, the idea of an idle Deity seems beset with its own problems. Perhaps, Mind of God is something like Fundamental Consciousness, able with algorithmic leveraging to compartmentalize sensations among perspectives and to image delegation of oversight and decisions through a medium of fluxing heirarchical levels and layers (holonic elohim?) of mathematical functions for representing irreducibly small units of Pure Potential. Still, that sort of speculation hardly "squares the circle."
Regardless, in matters legal, it seems often more important that justice be seen to be done than that justice actually be done. Perhaps, in matters moral, it is more important that God be respected than that God be proved.
Re "We now know that the world is mostly probabalistic. We can make predictions only to within some degree of certainty."
I wonder how much we kid ourselves by rationalizing our probability calculations after the fact. I suspect the higher the level of consciousness of self, the less any such self consciousness has capacity to make such probability calculations about its choices before their being made. I suspect evaluating whether an event is considered to be chosen vs. determined may to large entent depend upon whether the evaluation is made before or after the event. Of course, one making an after the fact evaluation from a perspective of empirical analysis will necessarily rationalize as if the event had been determined by Nature all along.
Re "The way that we attempt to understand these problems is to observe many different manifestations of their behavior. The more observations, the more predictable is the system."
But to quantify the increase in probability --- aye, there's the rub. And so, resort is often made to force of personality: So let it be written, so let it be done.
Zac D said:
"Eventually science will explain these Gaps and when it does your God will have nowhere else to hide."
I doubt it. If the most fundamental, irreducible unit or "building block" is something like pure potential, constrained only to fluxing parameters, then the possible permutations and combinations of patterns upon patterns indeed would be infinite (as would also the responsibility for choice making).
IOW, science will simply avail ever new potentials on top of new potentials. Your "science" is just a rear view mirror image of God in action. Enjoy the view, but hang on to your seat.
Re "That is why ID was created. ID is not even a theory though. Ok. It can't be tested with the scientific method."
Assumption is hardly proof. I suspect I know myself better than you. I have never viewed Genesis as more than a wonderfully poetic series of figures of speech. And Jesus instructed mainly in parables. I have never felt a need to rationalize as if Genesis were literally true. ID is posited as a possible accompaniment to Consciousness as a way of considering some of the mind boggling improbabilities that avail our sensations of physics. You may just as well assume multiverse theory was "created" merely to disrespect God.
BTW, can the scientific method be used to test the validity of its own origins? How is the scientific method anything more than a series of after the fact refinements of rationalizations? Can you use it to inspire, prescribe, or forecast a future that is specific to humanity as a whole?
I doubt either ID or non-ID can be scientifically tested. Rather, choosing which to believe has more to do with experience, intuition, and consideration and analysis of component consistencies and probabilities. Limiting one's point of view to a notion of "our universe," the low probability of higher level consciousness evolving based on undirected chance is mind boggling. From the point of view of preferring not to respect a notion of anything higher than the scientific method, one simply postulates multiple universes --- as many as it takes to make the math work. Interesting technique, sort of like Three Card Monty, but not very testable.
Dawkins' emotional bias against ID renders his objectivity suspect. Try reading from a wider range, to see what fits for you, in respect of your seeking of completeness, consistency, and coherence.
Re "Dawkins raises one of the most interesting points when he asks why are we so quick to cast aside notions of Zeus and the flying spaghetti monster, and fairy tales, yet we embrace a thing like God when we have just as little evidence to conclude its existence."
Not interesting at all. You wrongly assume theists are unaware of, and uninterested in, Occam's Razor. Remember, Occam was a monk, i.e., a spiritual thinker. Avoid rabbit trails by raising your sight.
Re "Dawkin's exclaimed the best scienctific tool for working on ultra unvierses is natural selection."
You are using the words "natural selection" under an assumption, with no means of proof, that nature's course is entirely undirected, except possibly secondary to an indifferent primal force, big bang, or Deity demi-urge. You only assume such primal urge has no interest in its creation, and that positing such an interest has no value. I may agree with you that positing such interest has little or no scientific value. But, in respect of moral value, I think intuiting and communicating about such a Source as not being indifferent to our development does empower and enhance our experiences, efforts, and communications about moral meaningfulness. And I do not agree that we would be "morally better off" without god notions, nor do I think Dawkins, science, or history demonstrate any such a thing. I sense his hubris, but not so much his wisdom.
Re "Hell, It could even turn out to be a superhuman designer but, if so, it will most certainly not be a designer that just popped into existence, or that always existed."
I've heard the "nested god" arguments before, about gods within gods. Larrey touched on that in his last article. But I would differentiate between a series of superior beings vs. the fundamental source of consciousness and pure potential. If such a fundamental potential exists, I have not happened upon how to touch IT's face or comprehend its character, nature, or limitations. I am not sure any mortal ever will.
Apart from religious like faith among scientists, I have not seen any explication by scientists to avail rational reason to suppose science will lead us to a way to do that. Perhaps we will reach a best explication at some point. If so, it may have more to do with a demonstration of mathematical consistency and intuitive faith than with any empirical replication of the big bang. If we ever do achieve such a model, I suspect it will integrate a high regard for consciousness as a fundamental, co-dependent aspect of some irreducible unit of pure potential. In any event, any such a model will not free us from our existential angst: How to derive ought from is.
Re "Einstein: "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." "
Agreed, in respect that no particular religious basis or dogma is necessary. But some basis is. While Einstein refers to "sympathy," I may prefer "empathy." Regardless, this begs questions: Why "should" we have or respect empathy? With what forums should we inspire or leverage empathy, and towards what civilizing purposes?
Whatever one's "basis," it may just as well be referred to as one's "personal religion." A key problem remains: A decent civilization needs to assimilate values, so that values are respected not just by individuals, but are also shared and respected by societies.
Re "What Dawkin's is saying is the Probability that God almost does not exist is scienfitically Evident."
Well, are his probability calculations peer reviewed; do his definitions, procedures, measurements, and calculations stand up to peer review; does he play bait and switch with his definitions (is he rigorously clear about what he means by a "selfish gene"); and is his method generally accepted in the scientific community?
Re: "Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.""
Well, each of us is a citizen, with a vested interest in our country. We have a Constitution and our country was founded in considerable respect of Judeo-Christian values. Apart from that, most of us are interested in what is fundamentally necessary to sustain a decent, viable civilization. In our judgment, the weight of experience and history suggest we should exercise caution before tampering with long held traditional family values.
In relying on experience and history, we are not so different from scientists, relying on empirical experience. Surely, you are not supposing mankind should be better ruled by some sort of more rigorous empiricism, as by putting us under some superior being's glass, biosphere, or Roosevelt'ian experimentation?
You may just as well turn the challenge around: Who are rad -libs and multiculturalists to try to force the country to adopt open borders, state raised children, usurpation of traditional family values, entitlements to whatever gangs may assimilate to agitate for special rights, detailed invasions by big brother in all manner of details for regulating speech codes and individual enterprise, condemnation and pillaging against property and wealth owners, and the surrendering of borders and national defense as sociopaths abroad accumulate power and military bases.
An answer is, we all have a god-given "right" to agitate or petition about our grievances. A better question is, which positions shall prevail? Conservatives do not much care what you do in your bed room, to which god or purpose you pray, or what language you speak. We do care when anti-god types think we must tolerate all manner of affronts and entitlement claims in the public square. And we do care when anti-god types try to teach "as science" that there is no basis for moral purposefulness.
Re "if indeed they lie beyond science, they most cenrtainly lie beyond the province of theologians as well."
What about the value of empathy? Does it lie beyond the province of everyone who is not a scientist? You have no choice but to make choices. As you do, I very much doubt that you first calculate the scientific worth or validity of each choice. Perhaps your position it that you do not really make choices, but that you just happen? Well, then, why get so lathered against religion?
Re "Watch his speacial he counters her nonsense."
Is Dawkins your God?
Re "Anyone who would title their book "Darwinian Fairytales" has lost all creditablity."
When you read the book, get back to me.
Re "from a gene-centric perspective, the sole implicit purpose is to benefit themselves."
Are you comfortable with that as an explanation?
Re "- Some biologists have criticised the idea for describing the gene as the unit of selection, but suggest describing the gene as the unit of evolution, on the grounds that selection is a "here and now" event of reproduction and survival, while evolution is the long-term trend of shifting allele frequencies."
Well, they are back-tracking from viewing the gene as some sort of purposeful (intelligent) designer.
And they do so by switching unit of evolution for unit of selection.
Have you not noticed the bait and switch?
But what is unit of evolution, if not a triviality?
They may just as well say, "That which evolves, evolves."
If evolution has no teleological purpose, what about yourself --- do you have a purpose here?
Zac D —
Whew! Someone really lathered you up. I would say you are one, purpose-driven puppy!
Not sure why you brought in the QM stuff. Have you seen anyone here questioning the mathematical reliability of QM?
Re Ought from Is:
I see the point of ID as offering a basis for rationalizing empathy. Did you yourself not accept empathy as a valid moral basis? Do you distinguish empathy from sympathy? What I mean by empathy relates to capacity to intuit an aspect of “I” in “you.” This seems a bit different from Einstein’s advocacy for sympathy. For example, I would not ordinarily see much good in acting on sympathy for “the devil” (although Jagger’s performance is entertaining).
As I see it, the point of ID is not, in a purely objective sense, to derive ought from is. The point is to enhance means for appreciating, gathering, and communicating in a civilized way as we decide, together, without force of Statist Dictate, among paths we should choose. Not too hard, is it?
Re “The principle of morality is empathy; how we interpret our feelings of empathy in order to make a coherent system.”
Ah, a point of agreement. (Perhaps much of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule can be understood to command thusly: Be empathetic!)
Re “You have ZERO evidence to back up your Basis.”
You have an interesting view of “evidence.” Is there not plenty of evidence that consciousness is, that it functions to make and/or rationalize choices, that it has no choice but to make choices, and that it seems able to communicate, however imperfectly, between perspectives?
Perhaps you mean to say I have no objectively quantifiable formulation. Well, with that I agree. But then, what would be the point of consciousness, if it “knew” precisely everything it had to do and yet remained unable to alter its course? In other words, isn’t self-consciousness inherently beyond complete quantification?
Re “I understand the philosophy of science better than you. The theories in science (not to be confused with the FACTS) are always changing due to new evidence.”
Well, you are right, that the theories and models are always being fine tuned (although I think you are somewhat greedy in your philosophy of expecting to fill each and every gap). But I am not sure you appreciate so much about philosophy of physical “facts.” I grant, during this phase that we now share within our common existence, our identities are co-dependent on what appear to be certain “natural laws.” And, so long as we retain our present mortal coils, it indeed does appear that we will remain bound under some such laws, superior to others. However, apart from that, I am not so sure there are many non-trivial “facts” that are objectively independent of point of view and frame of reference.
Re “You can't peer review "God's existence" either way. Because there is no scienfitic evidence to peer review. Thus, If God is not scienfitically evident what is even the need of a peer review?”
Yet, you presume ability to quantify probability that “God” does not exist? Curious.
Re “There is a difference between wanting to establish a "theocracy" and having a "interest in your country".”
Apart from Statist-Libs, who here has advocated for a theocracy? I agree that Statist-libs, by tolerating inassimilable numbers of Muslims, are, whether they appreciate it or not, in effect advocating and leading us to Sharia law. But this is not the Conservative position. As Roy said, if you want to see the Conservative position, check out www.kirkcenter.org.
Re “Like for instance, the myth that America was founded on Judeo-christian values when it couldn't be anything further from the truth. Yes Judeo-christian values existed but our country wasn't founded on it.”
May depend on your definition of “founded.”
Re “What are these traditional family values? ... You people should chill the F-word out and show some F-word tolerance toward the Homosexuals.”
We don’t think your notion of “tolerance” leads to a sustainable civilization. Rather, we view much of the Statist-Lib agenda as anarchic, destructive, and in fact intolerant of civilization. As I said, we are quite tolerant in that we don’t much care what you do in your bedroom. But we would appreciate it if homosexual protesters could please tolerate our sense of public modesty and decency and refrain from parading and defecating in public streets in front of our children.
Re “This fascination you have with the word "EXPERIENCE" seems to keep being defined quite vaguely. To me it sounds like something personal you witnessed which has caused your illogical senses. Sounds subjective rather than Objective, lacking all proper syntex as well. Why on earth would I suggest 1984? Now your just trailing off onto PARANOID ROAD WHICH LEADS TO ALDOUS HUXLEY'S "A BRAVE NEW WORLD". “ etc....
Sorry, this rant makes little sense — either scientifically or intuitively. Focus.
Re “lastly, I would like you to consider abandoning the bible for philosophy, and instead rely on secular morals and ethics.”
Well, my morals and ethics are secular and do have secular purposes, i.e., they are meant to sustain viable, surpassable civilization. And some forums, among others, I would invite you to participate in, for helping to lead us to that, are forums that recognize a real basis for advocating empathy. But you seem hung up on some notion that all God believers are 7 day creationist believers (not that there is anything wrong with that).
Re “I agree with the war on terror. (or as I like to call it the war on Jihad) Infact, I know how to debate against modern liberal and muslim propagada very well on this subject. It is one of the subjects I've studied the most aside from 9/11 and physics. I agree with preventing a Canadian/Mexcian open border agenda. (though I probably have better thoughts on how to go about it than the build a fence herd.) I do not think 9/11 was a inside job, because SCIENCE HAS DISPROVEN THE TRUTHERS JUNK SCIENCE COMEPLETELY INVAILD. You can compare yourself to a "truther" at any time. I do not agree with entitlements of any kind. I agree with government leaving the free-market/private sector almost entirely alone. I would love for Alinksy-types to come to my door if you get my meaning.”
Good on you!
Re “Your view is very harsh toward Homosexuals and I don't agree with that anti-civil-rights stance for the logical reason I already stated above.”
Again, I do not much care what homosexuals do in private. I am quite sure I would love and accept any child of mine who was homosexual. My concern relates to how we should best promote and sustain a viable civilization. Apart from providing decent protection, I see little reason why governmental resources should be used in any way to promote homosexual activity. Even from a natural selection standpoint, I see no particular reason why government should advantage the selective increase of homosexual tendencies.
Re “That's not a theologians job, It's a humanist job.”
How so? If God exists, in some way, we are all unavoidably “theologians.” Does a “law” to “be empathetic” naturally exist? Is it scientifically objective? Does it need forums for inspiring basis for assimilating viable civilization? Do you call such forums “scientific”?
Re “Wait until nanotechnology catches up with humans and creates post-humanism.”
So, is empathy a job for humanists or for post-humanists? What does human vs. post-human necessarily have to do with God? Instead of “human,” when I think of God, I prefer to think of God in respect of “perspectives of Consciousness.”
I certainly do not pretend to prescribe or know what should be the preferred form for civilizations of perspectives of consciousness in years to come. But I do think God wants us to participate and reason together as we continue along earth’s path (and beyond).
Re “without religion or God on our brain we'll make right, correct, moral, ethical, common sense choices much better and clearer, without reling on the static and concepts that divide men.”
Read more history.
Re “I don't even know what God is. But I do know you don't ethier. You just rely on a ancient book written by men which has brain washed you into, without any shred of evidence, believing you know what God is.”
Not so much. My intuition of “God” is rather parsimonious in some respects, i.e., some meta-thing, substance, or mind that sources and/or drives our perspectives of consciousness (whatever that is). I suspect there exists a fundamental unit of potential for fluxing parameters, which seems to be measurable in various respects and from various points of view. Yet, it seems to me to have capacity to compartmentalize, associate, and combine in order to express various fluxing and overlapping patterns.
Such patterns seem often to associate with capacity to sense, react, and relate to one another, across various levels. In a way, reactiveness, sensateness, instinctiveness, subconsciousness, consciousness, and self consciousness may all be aspects or perspectives of “consciousness,” some giving expression to more degrees of freedom than others.
I speculate “God” may have capacity to experience each perspective of consciousness. But I assume such may be beyond mortal proof or comprehension. Yet, I intuit a real basis for the validity of a moral injunction: “Be empathetic.” I sense you do, also. Even though, for some reason, you wish strongly to resist calling your basis “God,” or “religion,” or “spiritual,” or “non-scientific.”
Re “understand that the selfish gene is really not selfish at all.”
True, that.
Re “ Think of the selfish gene like you think of consumers/businesses in the Free-market.”
Not true, that.
Re “There are many biological camps when it comes to the fact known as Evolution: i.e. Natural selection is just one camp, however, there are other camps of explaination for Evolution as well.”
(And macro, micro, and meme evolution. Good luck with a scientific synthesis.)
Well, it is a fact that things change to our perceptions. But do they change because of paths consciously chosen? Or is consciousness so purely epiphenomenal (or after the fact rationalized) as to play no role in evolution at all? If evolutionary change is co-dependent on consciousness, why quarrel with “God”? (I think consciousness does play a role, via feedback appreciation.)
It appears that various patterns may emerge out of interaction among parts of a system of irreducible units of pure fluxing potential --- meaning units whose real beings we may not sense in themselves. (Is a quark conceptualized as occupying actual space, time, or space-time --- or, is it only a placeholder-concept for being assigned numbers to make mathematical formulas and measurements work? Do we have the least idea what a quark “really” is, in itself?)
I suspect we only measure relations among patterns insofar as their resonances happen to be amenable to being translated to the perception of our senses (or our means for enhancing our senses), from our limited resonances, points of view, and frames of reference.
Beyond our limited points of view, what may be the real, entire character or capacity of such units of pure potential, or resonating combinations or system thereof? Of that, my physical senses perceive and know not --- yet my intuition often seems to sense, “spiritually,” albeit not in measurably predictable or reliably replicable ways.
In respect of intuition, I believe a Source interconnects each conscious being, such that each conscious being experiences, at some level of identifying or bonding empathy, a perspective of a higher, unifying Source.
I think such Source itself may be “conscious.” As to rigorous empirical testing or proof, such seems not particularly important, so far as I am concerned, given that such Source fulfills a purpose for helping to inspire moral empathy merely in respect of its potential beingness. If “evidence” be needed of infinite potential, it may consist in mathematical inference of infinity of potential universes. (Of course, such “evidence” may be willfully or differently interpreted, depending on how one begins with one’s inferences or biases.)
From such potential, I believe much of merit can be inspired and derived for guiding the evolution of purpose and civilization among humans --- who seem generally to need and benefit from moral guidance that in fact can be, and often is, availed in respect of such Source.
I suspect physicists and mathematicians will continue to leverage various approaches to such units of pure potential, thereby leveraging their here and now powers over what they perceive as their “absolute physics.” But, I do not believe a mere mortal perspective will ever entirely exhaust or even come close to “filling the gaps” for all possible approaches, usages, and purposes of such pure potential.
If we ever do find a unifying, exact mathematical fit for how the physics of our present universe translates to the experience of resonances occupied by our present form of human mortality, I suspect such fit will be in respect of algorithms for representing interactions among one, most irreducible, unit of fluxing potential.
Problem is, such calculation may say little about how such unit of potential may relate to consciousness, were it to operate from a form or point of view of an entirely different, perhaps superior, resonance.
Yet, such calculation may eventually say something “relatively absolute” about what sort of traditional parameters we may need to sustain, in order to preserve survivable resonances for our present form of biological civilization.
****
From http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/there-more-things-heaven-earth-horatio:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Measurement Problem:
Suppose “appearance of physics” may rationally be considered a co-dependent result of a continuous synchronizing and re-normalizing of relations among perspectives of Consciousness (“observers”).
If so, to factor each perspective of Consciousness into each systemic sequencing of re-normalization, must not some Factor’er (God) be exercising capacity to evaluate and account for all layers and levels of perspectives of Consciousness?
Intuitively, must not God — by some supernatural means or holistic device of mathematical leveraging — know, perceive, or record at least all the information that each of us knows, perceives, and records?
Spook said, "We're not moving through the field quite so much as it's the field flowing through us. "
From mortal standpoint, it's hard to see how much that is new, meaningful, or even existent could be expressed or derived were there only one lifeless, inanimate, unconscious, unfluxing thing.
With two things, you may get an exclusionary principle, which seems not altogether unlike a form of "sensation," or very primitive representation of consciousness.
I don't see how one imagines a meaningful universe, unless it is endowed in association with at least some primitive form of potential consciousness.
In our universe, it was thought quite odd when Einstein first showed how the speed of light is a relative constant (or "relative absolute").
Now, we find we can make accurate calculations by taking the speed of light as being always "re-normalized" as a same constant to the experience of every observer from every mortal perspective (in otherwise "empty" space-time). We now take that as a given, even as we wonder about its implications.
Why, how, and what is IT that re-normalizes the speed of light through space to a same constant for every observer? Well, it is modeled that neither space nor time "really" exist, but something called space-time, which is taken to be "curved" in such a way as always to support g and c.
Well, what maintains this "curve"? And what determines choices among degrees of of freedom availed within it? Is the determination of every event delegated to some heirarchical function for generating random measures and events? If so, who or what generated such function, and to what purpose?
Something else is re-normalized, in respect of "the measurement problem," illustrated with Schrodinger's Cat. How waves collapse to give expression to experiences of particles seems to be affected by the presence of an observer, almost as if the wave "sensed" the presence of the observer.
It seems quite a lot of our reality is re-normalized to allow us to interact as if we were independent observers sharing a common physics of relative constants.
Copernicus showed how we are not the center of our solar system. But I wonder how much of what is presented to our perception is re-normalized to cause us to view our position within our universe as being relatively centric? It's not like we are permitted to fly or peer to, or beyond, any end of space. After all, space does not really exist --- only space-time. Apparently, when Cosmologists speak "as if" our universe really could be calculated to be 13 or 18 billions of years old, they mean that only in respect of our local frame of reference. Apparently, our universe, as some sort of thing in itself, is "not really" x billions of years old. Because, you see, time is only a stubborn illusion.
If time is an illusion, and we live and perceive only in a perpetual present, perhaps each 0f us experiences consciousness of sequences only in relation to Something that is perpetually moving through, or solving, choices within an algorithmic sequence.
In other words, the "moving field" of which you speak may be artefactual of (1) Source of consciousness ("God") moving through (2) an Algorithmic function ("Nature").
At some point, I think advancing of physics will necessitate consideration of a role for a fundamental unit of potential consciousness.
Thus, we may enhance insights regarding our limitations, from our mortal points of view, as related to such Potential. But I would not conceit to tell such Potential what it, itself, can and cannot do.
Rather, I would tend to, and defend, my own garden, and unite with similar tenders who would likewise defend theirs. For that civilizing purpose, I would seek to communicate and preserve good faith through a medium of reasoned respect for niceties of tradition.
Spook says, "Whatever God thinks, IS the reality. So, just like "every particle must be smaller than the field but bigger than the gaps in the field", if there is a range of emotion, Love, hate, curiosity, all the whole gamut you can think and beyond, GOD has examined it to completion, it is part of His reality."
****
We must both be skimming Sheldrake.
Consider ---
Lag Time:
For the particular expression of my brain/body, there is a lag between the time a sensation within a wider field or holography is received vs. interpreted and between the time an intention is made vs. appreciated.
Consider [www.innerexplorations.com]:
“In morphogenesis a morphogenetic field surrounds an already organized system which becomes the germ of the higher level system to come, and the field is probably associated with this germ because of their similarities in form. This germ develops under the direction of the field which is not yet filled out or completed, but contains the final goal in virtual form, and directs the activities of the seed system so it realizes that goal. "(M)orphogenetic fields differ radically from electromagnetic fields in that the latter depend on the actual state of the system - on the distribution and movement of charged particles whereas morphogenetic fields correspond to the potential state of a developing system and are already present before it takes up its final form."”
Feedback Effect:
If events are preset for the receipt by a particular physical brain of sensations and intentions, then is the influence of any particular brain or of its consciousness of any relevance, apart from being epiphenomenal byproduct?
Yes! Because the rationalized appreciation of a particular observer-brain will be factored as the wider field continues to respond and cause particular expressions of physics to emerge.
That is, conscious appreciations and decisions by observers affect the give and take path of causes, decisions, and, hence, of evolution. In other words, neither particular change nor evolution can proceed apart from factoring of consciousness (i.e., intelligence).
Ghost:
There is no "ghost in the machine," because soul is fluxing in the holography. The machine merely veils, modestly, a perspective.
Eternal Present:
For an observer, the “present” consists of a mathematically circumscribed negotiation between whole and part, field and particle, mind and brain. The negotiation facilitates sensation of continuity in time. Whole and part may be conceptualized as solving (moving) together through a choice-offering algorithm. Those enamored with science can solve towards the algorithm.
Free Will:
“Free will,” of course, is not entirely free, but participates via feedback as decisions are presently made within afforded degrees of freedom. The role for God (and for moral choices) relates to coming sequences for the future; the role for science (aka, “God’s respect for stare decises”) relates to the record of preceding sequences of the past.
From holistic standpoint, it is pointless for a mortal to conceit to judge or condemn the past. But it is vital to consider how one intuits that lessons from the past should be applied towards the future. (“Intuit” is used in respect that one does not know, nor could one know, in respect that the only accurate model for the world of the present is the world of the present, of which no one mortal has complete knowledge.)
Tradition:
When we have respected tradition, we will have expressed “God’s respect for stare decises.” As we change a tradition, we may cherry pick “facts” and rationalize our intuitions, perhaps leading towards God’s changing of laws (i.e., facts on the ground, sometimes called law, physics, or science).
Wisdom:
Being receptive to God, one may better appreciate, serve, and tend to fulfill one’s role or purpose.
Spook said, "Dlanor, I think I understand you to be saying that for a number reasons, you see that there must be some conscious-flux flowing through the system? Right?"
I intuit there is. I think there is evidence for it. I don't (yet) find the logic to be compelling, in the sense of "must." I mean to stay curious about it. Regardless, I don't believe proof beyond good faith intuition is needed. I don't think express belief in God is needed for one to be moral or to take a responsible voice in helping a civilization navigate how it adjusts its traditions. I think a rational based belief in God tends generally to be helpful. I think such a belief will more likely help a civilization weather challenges, without need for so much intrusively detailed governmental dictate.
But I think empathy is necessary. And I think empathy can be interpreted as implicating a belief in something beyond both ego and science, regardless of whether the empathetic one (i.e., someone otherwise blindly devoted to science) even appreciates it. I think dogs can make empathetic, moral choices, whether or not they "expressly" intuit any "God" above their pack or master. Actually, I think empathy is perhaps nearly pervasive, however diluted it may be at some loci.
But empathy is not necessarily love. One who hates himself, seeing himself in others, may easily hate others also. Mostly, I think God's empathy is about love. But I think God can have a temper, also. When hatred is rife in the world, watch out!
See [mog.com]:
I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment
I could be you
Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is
To see you
P.C., when learned out of love and experience, may be fine. When the State dictates it, not so much. I would rather that one who dislikes me say so, than stab me in the back at night. I would rather that a candidate for President say more about what he actually believes, than that he contort it out of calculated p.c.
See [mog.com]:
You got a lotta nerve
To say you gotta helping hand to lend
You just want to be on
The side that's winning
****
For Roy:
Old 1966 side find, from when Bob Dylan was young, at [www.interferenza.com]:
"I have to think of all this as traditional music. Traditional music is based on hexagrams. It comes about from legends, Bibles, plagues, and it revolves around vegetables and death. There's nobody that's going to kill traditional music. All these songs about roses growing out of people's brains and lovers who are really geese and swans that turn into angels - they're not going to die. It's all those paranoid people who think that someone's going to come and take away their toilet paper - they're going to die. Songs like "Which Side Are You On?" and "I Love You, Porgy" - they're not folk-music songs; they're political songs. They're already dead. Obviously, death is not very universally accepted. I mean, you'd think that the traditional-music people could gather from their songs that mystery - just plain simple mystery - is a fact, a traditional fact. I listen to the old ballads; but I wouldn't go to a party and listen to the old ballads. I could give you descriptive detail of what they do to me, but some people would probably think my imagination had gone mad. It strikes me funny that people actually have the gall to think that I have some kind of fantastic imagination. It gets very lonesome. But anyway, traditional music is too unreal to die. It doesn't need to be protected. Nobody's going to hurt it. In that music is the only true, valid death you can feel today off a record player. But like anything else in great demand, people try to own it. It has to do with a purity thing. I think its meaninglessness is holy. Everybody knows that I'm not a folk singer.
....
Carelessness. I lost my one true love. I started drinking. The first thing I know, I'm in a card game. Then I'm in a crap game. I wake up in a pool hall. Then this big Mexican lady drags me off the table, takes me to Philadelphia. She leaves me alone in her house, and it burns down. I wind up in Phoenix. I get a job as a Chinaman. I start working in a dime store, and move in with a 13-year-old girl. Then this big Mexican lady from Philadelphia comes in and burns the house down. I go down to Dallas. I get a job as a "before" in a Charles Atlas "before and after" ad. I move in with a delivery boy who can cook fantastic chili and hot dogs. Then this 13-year-old girl from Phoenix comes and burns the house down. The delivery boy - he ain't so mild: He gives her the knife, and the next thing I know I'm in Omaha. It's so cold there, by this time I'm robbing my own bicycles and frying my own fish. I stumble onto some luck and get a job as a carburetor out at the hot-rod races every Thursday night. I move in with a high school teacher who also does a little plumbing on the side, who ain't much to look at, but who's built a special kind of refrigerator that can turn newspaper into lettuce. Everything's going good until that delivery boy shows up and tries to knife me. Needless to say, he burned the house down, and I hit the road. The first guy that picked me up asked me if I wanted to be a star. What could I say?
....
It's not that it's so difficult to be unspecific and less obvious; it's just that there's nothing, absolutely nothing, to be specific and obvious about. My older songs, to say the least, were about nothing. The newer ones are about the same nothing - only as seen inside a bigger thing, perhaps called the nowhere. But this is all very constipated. I do know what my songs are about.
....
People who want free minds sometimes overlook the fact that you have to have an uncluttered brain. Obviously, if you get your hair on the outside of your head, your brain will be a little more freer.
....
I haven't lost any interest in protest since then. I just didn't have any interest in protest to begin with - any more than I did in war heroes. You can't lose what you've never had. Anyway, when you don't like your situation, you either leave it or else you overthrow it. You can't just stand around and whine about it. People just get aware of your noise; they really don't get aware of you. Even if they give you what you want, it's only because you're making too much noise. First thing you know, you want something else, and then you want something else, and then you want something else, until finally it isn't a joke anymore, and whoever you're protesting against finally gets all fed up and stomps on everybody. Sure, you can go around trying to bring up people who are lesser than you, but then don't forget, you're messing around with gravity. I don't fight gravity. I do believe in equality, but I also believe in distance.
....
People who can't conceive of how others hurt, they're trying to change the world. They're all afraid to admit that they don't really know each other. They'll all probably be here long after we've gone, and we'll give birth to new ones. But they themselves - I don't think they'll give birth to anything.
....
I'm not fatalistic. I smoke a lot of cigarettes, but that doesn't make me fatalistic.
....
The only thing I can tell you about Joan Baez is that she's not Belle Starr.
....
But LSD is not for groovy people; it's for mad, hateful people who want revenge. It's for people who usually have heart attacks. They ought to use it at the Geneva Convention.
....
There doesn't seem to be any tomorrow. Every time I wake up, no matter in what position, it's always been today. To look ahead and start worrying about trivial little things I can't really say has any more importance than looking back and remembering trivial little things. I'm not going to become any poetry instructor at any girls' school; I know that for sure. But that's about all I know for sure. I'll just keep doing these different things, I guess."
*******************************
Now, who can argue with that!?
Larrey said,
"One of the implications of my proposal is that the whole process of tradition is like a really really long scientific experiment -- sans double blind controls, peer review, etc."
Yeah. I believe scientists (and their wannabes and groupies) do a lot of preliminary fact gathering, much of it not particularly measurable, then devise a plan for taking various measurements (often failiig to identify all significant or controlling variables), then see what patterns seem to emerge, then hypothesize and test for replication and control-ability of such results. IOW, in early stages, they are "sans double blind controls, peer review."
IOW, the scientific method, in practice, is not strictly ground up, fact gathering, inductive. I would call the back and forth process more one of "adducing" from the evidence than one of inducing or deducing.
Yet, when "non-double blinders" rely on experience and history as evidence to muse about and share insights, many scientists and wannabes suddenly rush to condemn such experience and history as not being evidence, not being scientific, and in fact "without a shred of evidentiary support" (even as they cherry pick their own renditions of history). Someday, I should list all the crap I get that is supposed to pass as "science" while cross examining so called scientific advocates, excuse me, I mean opining "experts" (or men of the scientific cloth).
When we are making big choices (i.e., voting for President), based on world view, regarding a world that is its own model, none of us, not even Al Gore, can conduct accurate double blind experiments. That is, we have no choice but to rely on experience, judgment, intuition, and character.
Yet, when a theologian does this, Brights and their Groupies especially wish to condemn it. Unless, that is, the theologian identifies himself only as a humanist. (I wonder to what extent a hidden factor is being over weighed, i.e., UU's and Humanists' being reliably sympathetic to gay marriage?)
Is there a scientific, Latin term for over greedy presumptuousness? Apart from "AlGorWarmism," I mean.
Spook said, "We're not moving through the field quite so much as it's the field flowing through us. "
From mortal standpoint, it's hard to see how much that is new, meaningful, or even existent could be expressed or derived were there only one lifeless, inanimate, unconscious, unfluxing thing.
With two things, you may get an exclusionary principle, which seems not altogether unlike a form of "sensation," or very primitive representation of consciousness.
I don't see how one imagines a meaningful universe, unless it is endowed in association with at least some primitive form of potential consciousness.
In our universe, it was thought quite odd when Einstein first showed how the speed of light is a relative constant (or "relative absolute").
Now, we find we can make accurate calculations by taking the speed of light as being always "re-normalized" as a same constant to the experience of every observer from every mortal perspective (in otherwise "empty" space-time). We now take that as a given, even as we wonder about its implications.
Why, how, and what is IT that re-normalizes the speed of light through space to a same constant for every observer? Well, it is modeled that neither space nor time "really" exist, but something called space-time, which is taken to be "curved" in such a way as always to support g and c.
Well, what maintains this "curve"? And what determines choices among degrees of of freedom availed within it? Is the determination of every event delegated to some heirarchical function for generating random measures and events? If so, who or what generated such function, and to what purpose?
Something else is re-normalized, in respect of "the measurement problem," illustrated with Schrodinger's Cat. How waves collapse to give expression to experiences of particles seems to be affected by the presence of an observer, almost as if the wave "sensed" the presence of the observer.
It seems quite a lot of our reality is re-normalized to allow us to interact as if we were independent observers sharing a common physics of relative constants.
Copernicus showed how we are not the center of our solar system. But I wonder how much of what is presented to our perception is re-normalized to cause us to view our position within our universe as being relatively centric? It's not like we are permitted to fly or peer to, or beyond, any end of space. After all, space does not really exist --- only space-time. Apparently, when Cosmologists speak "as if" our universe really could be calculated to be 13 or 18 billions of years old, they mean that only in respect of our local frame of reference. Apparently, our universe, as some sort of thing in itself, is "not really" x billions of years old. Because, you see, time is only a stubborn illusion.
If time is an illusion, and we live and perceive only in a perpetual present, perhaps each 0f us experiences consciousness of sequences only in relation to Something that is perpetually moving through, or solving, choices within an algorithmic sequence.
In other words, the "moving field" of which you speak may be artefactual of (1) Source of consciousness ("God") moving through (2) an Algorithmic function ("Nature").
At some point, I think advancing of physics will necessitate consideration of a role for a fundamental unit of potential consciousness.
Thus, we may enhance insights regarding our limitations, from our mortal points of view, as related to such Potential. But I would not conceit to tell such Potential what it, itself, can and cannot do.
Rather, I would tend to, and defend, my own garden, and unite with similar tenders who would likewise defend theirs. For that civilizing purpose, I would seek to communicate and preserve good faith through a medium of reasoned respect for niceties of tradition.
Spook said, "Science has built a model that at basis is a bunch of dead rocks making discontinuities in a field that has no essential presence at all. A void with rocks in it."
There seem to be difficult problems in reconciling objective science with subjective observers.
It will be interesting to follow the extent to which scientists may measurably reconcile physics with consciousness.
Zac may think such is do-able (or perhaps that such has even been done).
If so, his explanations don't explain much to me (perhaps because he's so smart I can't understand him).
I speculate one approach may entail a notion of a fundamental unit of fluxing potential.
Thereunder, math may be applied to different approaches for considering such unit.
But, I doubt any model will ever fully explicate all the potential capacities of such Unit, or of its combinations or sum.
Traditions for empathetic respect vs. traditions for authoritarian rule:
Pound for pound, when it comes to winning Nobel prizes in science, whose population is mightier than Israel’s? Whose populations are among the weakest? Why is it that one society riven with traditions produces the best scientific minds, while other societies riven with traditions produce hardly any? In one, its members feel free to talk to God; in others, members feel hidebound so as not to question at all what their leaders interpret as the commands of God. In between, we find societies fomenting traditions for banning or ridiculing questions about God. Maybe that can tell us something about God, as well as tradition.
"That's mighty good shootin' there"
Ideas come. From Whom? Listen.
That's what Francis Collins does.
See [scienceguy288.wordpress.com]:
"... our friend C.S. Lewis “If there was a controlling power outside of the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts in the universe, just as an architect cannot be a wall of the house he designed. He (or she) could only show himself inside ourselves as an influence trying to get us to behave in a certain way, just as we find.”"
Post a Comment