EXISTENTS

EXISTENTS: In itself, a thing may exist or it may not. Most of the particulars that we call “things” do not exist of themselves. If they have an “essential” source or basis, we cannot find or describe it. Yet, it is commonplace that we find applications for “relative things.”


THEORIES: Theories based on mathematical formulas do not exist in themselves, but in how they may be applied by consciousness. Theories express ideas with which we tinker as we grope for ways to manipulate information, as we communicate about grounds by which to pursue meaning and fulfillment. We have no guarantee that our theories will remain useful or that the very ground beneath our ideas (and our feet) will not shift or be obliterated in respect of a more powerful or intrusive synchronizer.

TWO CO-DEPENDENT EXISTENTS: To the intuition of my consciousness, there are two main existents. All other “things” seem to inferior, in that they derive from them, but neither of the two main existents seems to exist without the other. Such two existents are:


(1) Perspectives of Consciousness; and (2) A feedback Web (Field of Empathy or Meta-World-Wide-Web?) within which each and every such perspective is confined to synchronizing, limiting, mathematical parameters.

STORED MATHEMATICAL INFORMATION: Could fundamental packets of energy (or of stored energy) consist of nothing but bundles (bits?) of mathematical relations (Information), availed to interact within a web? If so, of what would such a web consist, and what sort of feedback mechanism would fire or drive the packets to interact? Must each packet interact in synchronous feedback with all others, both in particle form and in wave form, in respect of a holistic, common, outward-driving (entropic?) force field?

THINGS: But how could any “thing” be imagined or modeled to exist in nothing but packets of pure, mathematically-formulated information? How could any such a thing recognize, sense, react with, or change any other such a thing, in order to interact with it? And what would fire or drive it to do so?

META-POTENTIALS: Suppose various and similar perspectives of consciousness exist. To relate to one another, synchronously, must they somehow have parameter capacities to unlock, add to, subtract from, or reconfigure the variously stored potentials of information that we call “matter” or “particle-packets?”

INTERPRETING INFORMATION: We do not discover or change any material existent “in itself.” Rather, we discover and change stored parameters and potentials of mathematically based information, which we interpret and model as “matter.”

FIELD RE-NORMALIZATION: Somehow, the quality of observation, choice making, and feedback enjoyed by each perspective of conscious will is factored within a synchronizing web that requires re-normalizing obedience to mathematically determined limits. This process for renormalizing of feedback may be likened to respect for a web of empathy.

FIELD OF EMPATHY: Conscious Free Will is availed, subject to parameters allowed in respect of the renormalizing function of the web of empathy. A meta-field of empathy may be named or conceptualized for denoting a mystery, i.e., an unknown means by which a Source (God?) assigns parameters of free will or potential to each perspective of consciousness.

SYNCHRONIZING AND GUIDING DECISIONS: In synchronizing among all such choices made, the Field of Empathy “decides” which particular expressions or results are “most fit” for enjoying further survival and/or replication. The Field of Empathy decides which sequences should be availed, in order to pursue its unfolding quest to appreciate, communicate, and carry forward meaning, beauty, and fulfillment.

UNPREDICTABILITY OF SELF: I cannot sense, measure, or predict the math of my own perspective or exercise of Will. However, what I take to be my expression of Will may be highly predictable to units of consciousness operating from other perspectives and with greater access to information that is beyond me. And I may be able to predict the behaviors of perspectives of consciousness that are inferior to my own.

MATTER AS INTERPRETIVE BYPRODUCT: The byproduct or consequence of that predictability, at a step removed, may be what avails us to pretend to act AS IF “matter” were an existent, independent of relations among perspectives of consciousness.


LEVEL OF FACILITATION OF CONSCOUSNESS: What facilitates my sensation, interpretation, or translation of “matter” may be a Field of Empathy (Holy Ghost?), which avails my apprehensions of predictability respecting higher and lower levels of consciousness of others.

LEVELS OF RECOGNITION: Depending upon the meta level of each perspective of consciousness, and the bundles of mathematical parameters that avail feed back to its apprehension within the Field of Empathy, each perspective may to some extent recognize and communicate with others.

FELT MATTER (“INFORMATION STORED FOR SHARED ACCESS”) IS BYPRODUCT OF SHARED ILLUSION: Every perspective of consciousness entails a meta aspect, which seeks to feel, recognize, or communicate with other perspectives. All perspectives share a meta desire: that there be such laws of math for translating feelings and desires so as to facilitate recognition and communication among perspectives. There is a byproduct effect: particular perspectives operating within a web of perspectives indirectly sense the web which encompasses them by sensing appearances that feed back within it. Those “things” which we feel, perceive, and measure are symbols and storehouses for sequential communication of shared mathematical information. They are byproducts of a meta desire that is shared by each and every perspective of a Field of Conscious Empathy that has meta potential and capacity for feeling feedback.

EVOLUTION ENTAILS A STANCE, NOT A THEORY: I don't quite get how evolution is a "theory." Does it measure or predict anything, specifically? I get that it says: that which is "most fit" to survive and replicate tends over time to dominate in surviving and replicating. What I don't get is how that is much more than a tautology. After all, no matter what happens to survive and replicate, anyone who believes causation is closed to conscious will and ruled entirely by material cause and effect will simply say, "Well, that's what was most fit."

A materialist looks at material creation and says the existence of material interconnections in and of itself "proves" there is no further involvement by any creator. A believer that the universe is not closed to the influence of conscious will looks to creation in a different way. But I don't see how material loving scientists can "reasonably expect to prove" that of which they only rationalize backwards, towards what they have become prone to assume.

If conscious will exists not purely derivative of material cause and effect, then no matter how it may influence whatever patterns come to be expressed in material interactions, one can often rationalize an interpretation that suits one's purposes. One who believes Free Will is real, even if subservient to a synchronizing consciousness, can simply rationalize that whatever choices any conscious expression of will makes must work within a math that applies to all.  Alternatively, one who believes free will is purely derivative of math-ruled interactions of Matter can simply rationalize that whatever appears to constitute an expression of will is purely an illusory byproduct of material cause and effect.

If choice between such beliefs were a matter appropriate to a "scientific theory," then one or the other of such stances would be falsifiable. If neither choice of belief is falsifiable, then we are not dealing in a realm of theory, but in a realm of world view about morality. Simply put, proponents of one outlook intuit and believe there is moral responsibility for exercises of conscious will, and proponents of the other do not. As to which view one "should" have, does it not appear that materialists face a fundamental problem of cognitive dissonance?