Thursday, August 27, 2009

METAPHYSICS OF KARMA

METAPHYSICS OF KARMA:

“Spooky action at a distance” may be perceived or measured in respect that each perception of action is entangled (or polarized) with a mirror side of a same shared Equation (or derivative of a controlling Algorithm). So long as thus entangled, no one “thing” can change in manifestation of appearance for its side of the equation except in mathematical simultaniety with its polarized counterpart of the other.

Each change that is manifested in how each unit of Potential expresses itself occurs in balanced, integral, quantum leaps. There is no physical expression of time or chronology “during” a quantum leap.

An Algorithm that constrains parameters for our entire physical expresson of “universe” may, in some respects, operate in respect of one granular series of quantum leaps. So long as that Algorithm exists, it may, in some physical respect, operate as “ground” for storing and preserving some sort of condensed sum of all information about a chronology of meta-choices, perhaps subject to evaluation by God as a holism.

Each unit “thinks” to “choose,” but only expresses the result of its thinking in quantum leaps, always balanced in relations among equations and their dependent derivatives and modes of simultaneous expression.

Any “gap” between quantum leaps may entail “meta-processing” of meta feedback between perspectives of the Potential, as in feedback between the perspective of the whole versus the fluxing condensate or sum of the perspectives of the parts.

Each choice occurs at a meta-level, then is expressed in Math, and then is translated and interpreted to the Physics of mortal perspectives of consciousness. In mortal “physics,” rationalization follows each choice: To rationalize the choice itself, and to live with and evaluate its consequences.

One’s physical form represents a “Placeholding Record” for the here and now, for preserving information about the life-path chronological-sequence of an interplay of choices being played out, in which one’s meta-perspective (Soul?) is a participant. In other words, the “Dualism” of (1) spirituality and (2) physicality is in respect that the appearance of physicality is artifactual of the preservaton of sequential information, since the original creation that we refer to as the “Big Bang” of our universe. Such Dualism represents a “fuzzy condensation” (or all cards to be face up on the playing table) for the reference of each meta-perspective that plays among all others that share our universe.

Our physical Brains (and cells) are placeholders that are shaped to record rationalizations that follow the (spiritually reasoned?) choices of our Minds. In changing the shapes of our “physics,” our spiritual-minds preserve information in order to “keep karmic score” for each succeeeding choice.

In “physics,” the karmic score is kept for various synchronizing, fluxing levels and overlays of perspectives of wholes and parts, the combining and interacting potentials of which continue to define the path of experience for each perspective. One’s physical brain correllates with the store of one’s information, as “ground” for inclining or prejudicing directions for one’s future of meta-choices.

Each Brain absorbs, records, or represents a Feedback result of each choice, “as if” each such choice were purely its own, as if each brain had its own separate Identity, which it identifies with the record of its physical manifestations.

Each particular perspective senses a complex interplay with other perspectives, yet lacks comprehension of the same detail of inclinations and purposes of each such other perspective. Each particular perspective may also Intuit possibilities of interplay with other perspectives that may be beyond its mathematical or precise correllaton or prediction.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is because there are so few specific moral principles that can be absolutely divined from logic or empiricism and applied to our rapidly evolving situation that it is so important to the assimilation of sustainable society that there be respect for the transmission of favorite sacred parables and traditions.

We become the avatars of our traditions. Without the backbone of traditons, we become prey for societies that do have backbone --- even if such societies are brutal, barbaric, or dehumanizing.

This is why multiculturalism is a leftist tool for undermining America. Gradual assimiliation is fine. But multiculturalism as has been practiced for the past 25 years is a receipe for the replacement of an America of creative individualism with an America of collapse into Marxist collectivism. This is the disaster of unexamined, unthinking swallowing of leftist intellectualism.

The situation has become so twisted that we now have professors and MSM preaching and rationalizing that those who oppose collectivism should not rationalize their positions. But this is about choices, and it is about those who have power to impose their choices over society. This is about collectivists vs. individualists, night vs. day, and superstition vs. enlightenment.

Personally, I do not believe the world is ready for secular-enforced, globalized traditions, nor do I believe the world is ready for American style individualism to fall. Nor do I think a world filled with Collectivists will muster the creative ingenuity needed to divert the asteroid that is out there that otherwise has earth's name written in its destiny.

Let's just hope we who rally to the side of enlightened individualism are on God's side and the side of unfolding history.

Anonymous said...

Spook,

I read some of your explanation about relating to an absolute.

I have taken the concept of a finite yet unbounded field of space-time as being contrived for neatly relating to a notion of our expanding universe as not depending for its reality on anything other than itself. IOW, the field of our univesre is conveniently assumed to be expanding, but not expanding into anything. So, your point about relating to a field that is assumed to be present for being expanded into will pass over the heads of those who subscribe to a notion that no such exterior field exists. They do not wish to consider or see "the man" they assume by their models is not there.

I do believe there is a unique, logic-defying (to mortals), immeasurable field, which I would call Potential (aka God), and which is an "absolute-relative," i.e., an absolute that has unique capacity to define and relate to us. (For example, I believe at least one absolute moral rule derives in respect of such Potential.) Regardless, I know of no way to apply or quantify such rule of morality in measurable respect to any particular, non-trivial situation.

Rather, what each of us can do is to try to make the best choices we can in respect of that which we may intuitively receive respecting such Potential. But, in justifying such choices, we will not be engaging in objective logic, but in rationalizing inspiration. This may be why beauty (or music) is sometimes conflated with truth.

It is also why a society that seeks to survive should not allow itself to be swamped with inassimilable multiple cultures.

Anonymous said...

Spook,

If memory serves, in previously discussing how to classify or address problems of “turtles all the way down” at the interface between moral issues and objective reasoning (i.e., “thinking”), Larrey mentioned that (1) a class is not a cow and (2) there is an inherent paradox in a notion of a unique sort of class (God?) that is composed only of a set of itself.

But may a set of Russian matryoshkas or nesting doll-like, hierarchical classifications be consistently and coherently conceptualized for categorizing all moral agents, by conceptualizing as if all of physical and moral nature were merely illusory byproduct of mathematical interactions among perspectives of “mind-stuff”?

If each of our life-path perspectives is completely defined by a “mathematical equation” that somehow “lives” to avail degrees of freedom for relating to the fluxing-sum-result of all other “living mathematical equations,” then may not a complete classification scheme be inferred to exist, within which each and every equation that “lives” within the classification-hierarchy is mathematically nested?

Were such a scheme amenable of addressing the above-referenced paradoxes of classification, as Larrey previously mentioned, It would seem an intriguing property of such a classification scheme.

A problem may remain, however: What supplies the fire for maintaining ignition of any such a hierarchical system of “living equations”?

See [www.youtube.com].

Be careful out there.

Anonymous said...

G said:
"ignition is not "maintained," combustion is sustained. Ignition ("begin" to burn) is a singular, momentary process, even if repeatedly repeated time after time, again and again. Ooh, more skullcap tightness!"

Well, not quite. If God responds to us based on quanticized feedback, then there may be incremental re-firings.
But if you prefer a notion of a Deity who starts the fire and then just watches it burn, I am fine with that. LOL!

You're not quite all that, buddy. Ignition was the word I wanted, in respect of a recurring relationship that is maintained. Each quanticized change can be likened to a re-ignition. Wise up.

Anonymous said...

User Zero,

Yeah, that Gagdad Bob fellow is interesting. Haven’t been to his site for awhile. About “Aether”: You may know more about that than I do. But isn’t there presently a debate among physicists about whether our universe may have been shaped in response to a collision between two separate membranes? If so, what separated the membranes before they collided, if not some form of “aether” — call it what you will? As a concept, may we really safely say that “aether” is discredited in relation to all models that may be of use for varying purposes?

As near as I can tell, it is not uncommon for physicists to apply math to potentials that they do not really understand except in respect of varying models, no one of which seems to unify to account for everything. Do you know whether “spin” applies to any real spin, or just to a quanticized math values that happen to work for certain formulas? Isn’t spin a measure of a kind of potential? If so, what is a complete model for such potential? Do we have one?

Some believe there really is a Higgs Boson (or Bosons). Others think we will need to revert instead to a mathematical function. Meantime, we seem to have incomplete models for relating to potentials, even though we find it practical to apply mathematical equations to such potentials.

If the ultimate nature of such potentials is unknown (or perhaps even unknowable), and the math we use to relate to such potentials is hardly “physical” in itself, then what is so controversial about using a shorthand reference for labeling the situation, i.e.: “(potentially) living math”?

As soon as one of sentience contemplates “living math” (or any sort of life), the concern arises: What should one do with it? And that leads to an irreconcilable feedback loop. That is, it leads to Rationalizing about what one should do with one’s ability to Reason. (At least “G” seemed to get that right. He must really be smarter than a 5th grader! LMAO. And “G” does seem fond of his dictionary. At least, he can spell check for typos – lol.

Well, this is an open book opportunity for anyone who thinks that merely by consulting a rigorously thorough dictionary they can pull us out of a loop for needing to transition back and forth among varying explanatory models. Especially for "thinking" about how to derive "ought" from "is."

Anonymous said...

User Zero commented about:

> As soon as one of sentience contemplates “living
> math” (or any sort of life), the concern arises:
> What should one do with it? And that leads to an
> irreconcilable feedback loop. That is, it leads
> to Rationalizing about what one should do with
> one’s ability to Reason.

Does it necessarily lead to rationalizing, per se, or does it lead to exploring (thinking?)? To me, there is a subtle line between the two, which becomes clearer as one sees the difference Larrey is discussing here. That difference is as crucial as recognizing the difference between an F6 and a Dm7 chord - they use exactly the same notes, but depending on the melody and other factors, they evoke two completely different emotions.

*****

Well, a lot of things go on simultaneously, and then reactively, on and on. Whether one is conscious or only instinctive in a choice, or not, one is always in a choice-forcing milieu. To fail to make a choice is merely to let your environment turn your attempt to make a non-choice into a choice. This happens whether you consciously think about it in any respect.

Once the die is case, and you get the feedback, then you deal with it. You wonder whether you were lucky in having done nothing or whether you should have done something else. You reason and rationalize at the same time. You reason (think?) to try to submit the situation to principled examination and judgment. Once you reach a judgment, whether it was principled or not, you rationalize (intellectualize?) how to live with yourself for having reached it.

But I suspect both processes often go on simultaneously. (Sort of like inducing and deducing. Insofar as both processes often go on at nearly the same time, I sometimes prefer the term "adduce.")

The key may relate to principles. Some human principles seem to be innate (sort of like absolute?), at least in most non-psychopaths. Others are emotionally or habitually conditioned, sort of like cultural tastes, or traditions that carry "subtext" meanings.

Regardless, a sentient being practices correlating experiences and choices with evolving principles. I think, when one stretches one's principles with no good or sufficient reason, then one may be said to be rationalizing (intellectualizing).

Generally, a Conservative member of a reasonably well functioning society will put the burden of persuasion on those who advocate for any significant "change." Oddly enough, change artists (liberals) seem prone to believe the burden not to submit to their changing whims is on those who are their society's producers (Conservatives). And Conservatives too often let liberal profs get away with teaching their students to intellectualize in this way. In effect, we have allowed the children to upend onto their parents the burden of persuasion.

Anonymous said...

User Zero said:
It's actually much worse. And connected - in an odd way - the health care debate. Most conservatives pursue compromise all too readily when it comes to other adults - adults who may be intellectually and chronologically mature but who are clearly morally immature.

****

Much sense. Another element: When Conservatives may be even a little inclined to hold change advocates to the burden of persuasion, those most often seeking change (Liberals) have most learned how to substitute crisis, by arguing that there is no time to waste so that the case should not be required to be proved in any detail.

Conservatives are learning and fighting back. But we are playing catch up ball.

Anonymous said...

Spook,

Some suggest that “I AM THAT I AM” is a mistranslation for “I WILL THAT I WILL.”

Regarding Complex Systems:

I think the idea of Natural Selection is in recognition that a System that is able to recognize and replicate traits will tend to replicate those individual traits that are most compatible with a general direction of the System.

But this begs questions: Why does any system exist at all? How is it that the System that does exist has capacity to recognize traits, or to choose a general direction? How is it that the System can recognize and replicate individual traits that acquire sentient capacity to appreciate the existence of the System as a System that is able to recognize and replicate traits and choose a direction for their expression? How deep does such capacity of the System to recognize traits extend? Does it extend deeper than what we perceive as our “physics”? Does it extend to our (epiphenomenal?) inclinations, interests, dis-interests, emotions, and empathies? Does it “feed” on our empathies and moral choices?

It is only because of an innate capacity of Something about the System that the notion of Natural Selection is not entirely trivial. Otherwise, one may engage a sort of neologism for triviality and frivolity, as “trivolity,” or even consider “trivolous poetry,” such as:

NATURAL TRIVOLITY:
Whatever survives is what survives,
And we shall call it the fittest.
The fittest is what survives,
Surprise, Surprise!
My boy, you’re one of a genus.

Suppose every particular perspective of the System as a whole exists only in respect of an Algorithm for nesting a hierarchy or chain of incrementally fluxing, mathematical equations. If so, one may suppose that the “reason” any one among them can avail a perspective for recognizing or affecting any other relates to Something imbuing it with capacity to recognize whether each such other falls under or outside of the direct command or influence of its own chain or sphere of math.

But it would seem that all such mathematical chains must fall under control of the one ultimate Algorithm. The reason all subsidiary equations organize under the one system-controlling Algorithm may be because they are all being driven or animated by the same Potential, expressing itself in varying particular perspectives.

If so, the Potential (aka, “God”), by definition, would seem to have capacity to organize perspectives of parts of itself subject to mathematical relationships that underlie their capacities to recognize one another as friend, foe, or indifferent.

There may be a sort of trinity of feedback factors: (1) A Potential, with (2) capacity to organize itself in perspectives with capacities to recognize one another, leading to (3) capacity in the Potential to reflect upon and recognize aspects of itself from perspectives of particulars.

If so, how may one fairly describe this general situation, if not as one being directed or led by “mind-stuff” (aka, God)?

If so, why would any such a God generally devalue an Individual’s opportunity to promote a culture that honors those who seek to find their own way for appreciating such a situation? Why suppose God would wish to sponsor a general “moral principle” for suppressing human brainpower into dogma, pravda, and mantra-regurgitating (intellectualizing?) religious and secular collectives?

May Marxism and Religious Extremism be serving as meme-foils, to help define the System’s direction and purpose?

Anonymous said...

Shooey said, "am i even in the ballpark?"

I think so, but it seems to be a ballpark of infinite and eternal possibilities.
God is the absolute.
God wants "something."
Parts of that something is integrated in our genes.
The other parts we're searching for.

An interesting thing about the "word made flesh" is that "the word" seems necessarily to be mathematically based.
Living math may offer a measuring aspect for relating to the living word.
"Living math" seems to be reasonable shorthand for a notion that we have freedom within, and only because of, mathematical parameters --- which may be imposed by nature, man made law, or ultimately, God's ongoing involvement and design.

Anonymous said...

Spook said, "The church and many others have promoted and do promote the idea that God want's us to clean up and run THIS world,... it isn't and never has been the point. This is school, nothing more, not meant to BE saved at all."

This point I do not dispute. I sometimes say we need to promote a decent civilization that is sustainable. When I am more thorough, I add a neologism: We need to promote a decent civilization that is sustainable and "Surpassable."

We (and our world) are always transitioning towards something surpassing.

The rub that is beyond my kin is whether even God ever gets to the end of it.

But that is beyond my pay grade. I find guidance in looking to what is needed to promote a decent civilization that is sustainable and Surpassable, but not in any simple, arithmetic sense. Rather, to hope to avail context towards that which is "surpassable," one needs to be in humble and good faith receptivity to the higher math of the higher Source.

Apart from convenience of reference, the name by which that Source is called is not so important. Indeed, one can be committed to IT, even while deceiving oneself into believing one is a pure empiricist, pure physicist, non-spiritualist, atheist, pagan, secular humanist, or environmental zealot. But I think those alternative names often lead folks to lose essential aspects of humility. They know little, but intellectualize loudly, as if intellectual intimidation and militant shouting should replace or substitute for truth, knowledge, or goodness ... and thereby remake them into elite know-it-all's.

Alas, pride (in knowing it all) goes before a fall.

Anonymous said...

Spook says, "We are here ALONE within ourselves...."

Well, I believe God is alone in being God, but not alone in having our perspectives as company. Insofar as we are mere perspectives of God, in a way, we are each alone and yet each a part of all others. You are a bit like me, of the same essence, but operating from a different mathematically assigned perspective. The reason this is not Solispism is in respect God's infinite genius for recognizing cracks in the mathematical symmetry between the Whole, the Sum of the parts, and the individual Parts.

*******

Spook,

Re: "Choice" does not appear in the general form of the mathematics, it will appear in the utilization of the mathematics"
and "God is the stuff math is made of"
and "Math is only half the model."

Can't much argue with that.
Other than to suggest that higher kinds of math may facilitate recognition of degrees of freedom.
Depending on perspective, we may model these degrees of freedom as random, generally directional, or coincidentally remarkable.
Regardless, the living math implicates a Mathematician.
That Mathematician is not ruled by the math of our universe, nor by the entropic direction of our universe.
The capacity of our universe as we know it may not even measure as a blip in relation to the capacity of the Mathematician.
The ultimate quality or limitation (if any) of the Potential of the Mathematician is unknown (and perhaps unknowable) to us.
Only some of the possibilities of IT's mathematical capacities are manifested before us.
And those possibilities will continue to manifest into "surpassage."

Mathematical empiricism relates to the half of the model that pertains to our narrow spectrum of "physics" (measurable science).
Intuitive respect for the Potential that manifests the math pertains to the half of the model that relates to moral choices (soft science).

We need and use both models.