Essentially, each relational experience or resolution of an “ultimate particle” is expressed as a stand-in for a common unit or numerical value, which is assigned to mark or measure relations to a single Algorithm by which each of us, in order to exist as a perspective of our Creator, consents by living to be governed.
Except in relation to such Algorithm and potential perspectives of our Creator, no such particle exists in itself. No such particle can be measured in itself because it has no existence in itself. No particles-in-themselves associate, combine, react, or organize to sense or produce higher organizations of patterns, matter, things, characters, or consciousness.
Rather, all higher organizations, patterns, sensations, and perspectives of Consciousness are markers of relations imaged by Holistic Consciousness (God) in respect of one Algorithm (Nature).
The common numerical value, however, of each ultimate particle in respect of parameter ranges in which each may find expression in relation to the Algorithm, may eventually be derived --- when the Algorithm is resolved.
For measuring purposes, there is a common, smallest possible unit value for correllating with parameter ranges for aspects of the expression and sensation of differentiable, exclusionary patterns. Although we cannot directly measure the potential of each perspective of consciousness, we may indirectly represent, trace, or "lens" markers of each such perspective's recent interrelational history or sequential path.
Although consciousness "is," we cannot directly measure it. But we can measure parameters for its smallest markers of mathematical inter-association and perspective. Eventually, we may relate such measurements to a unifying Algorithm, which rules parameters, but not choices, for all perspectives of consciousness that associate with our universe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Re: TOPS ---
(Someone please let me know if it is bad form or preferred not to address or revive old threads.)
To me, regardless of labels of “spiritual” vs. “scientific,” it seems of interest to consider to what extent we may enhance our powers and communications, both of facts and of empathies, by adducing models and then continuously improving them in respect of empirical evidence and mathematical consistency (reliability).
However, regardless of model, one probably begins, consciously or “subconsciously,” in respect of assumptions about what can be adduced about our initial creation and how we ought to choose to interrelate and behave in respect of it. For that, I doubt there is a mathematically, objectively provable “best” political or social system or civilization.
Rather, we seem somehow to make choices and then rationalize them and perhaps try to inspire a following or culture. But, I have not seen how such process should be considered to be entirely religious or scientific. Rather, I suspect trying to make a bright line distinction between what is religious (or spiritual) and what is scientific (or empirical) may impede our efforts to integrate a best model for unifying “is” and “ought.”
IOW, we have neither an ultimate, objective, scientific explanation for how consciousness (or anything) came to exist, nor for what choices or purposes consciousness should apply itself towards. Perhaps we will eventually have a complete and objective explanation for consciousness. But I doubt it.
Rather, I think there is a feedback aspect to consciousness, so that consciousness is at least co-equal with math (and science) in such a way as to defy complete accountability. If science is fundamentally inadequate for providing a complete accounting for consciousness, then how shall we inspire civilizing cooperation among empathies, if not in respect of some intuited Source (or purpose) beyond mere empiricism?
Putting aside the hereafter to consider only the here and now: Does not the power of conscious choice-making seem necessarily to have a spiritual aspect, beyond complete subservience to parameter-limiting science?
Some folks think science will soon fill all gaps. I doubt it. Rather, I suspect consciousness "somewhere" will shrug and, in some parts of the universe of possibilities, just keep bootstrapping ever more refined and powerful models and science. I doubt we are anywhere closer to achieving all potentials of consciousness than we are to counting to infinity. If we think we are, I suspect we are giving science a religious power it does not have.
*****
Pope Meanderings:
Ever feel like a T.S. Eliot stuffed man, coming out of a foxhole to do a straw jig, trying to “prove” to a jury how to equate mental anguish on account of death of a loved one with a dollar value?
I recently read Don Stoner’s fascinating article at www.geocities.com/stonerdon/Who14pdf.pdf. I need to read it several times more. In one part, he talks about how to use any false premise to prove “I am the Pope.”
Well, that’s sort of how I’ve often felt about much of the law. It often seems man-made law is mainly artifice for helping to focus empathies. But, as a society comes less and less to share underlying empathies, it becomes harder to appreciate how mere law could hold it together (notwithstanding assurances of secular rationalists).
If I understand correctly, Don suggests “is” is derivative of “ought,” rather than the other way around. Well, isn’t that consistent with what juries (and other deciders) generally fathom what they ought to do — and then find means to rationalize and make it so? If so, law (Constitution?) becomes an afterthought for clever rationalization (and media greasing, at least, once binding empathies, mores, and traditions become no longer shared).
Maybe, as we become more and more enamored of diversity, each of us can come to move about as our own little pope. That is, unless there is Something which centers us, as well as the Pope.
Post a Comment