BEYOND THE DOORS OF INFINITY AND ETERNITY

PERCEIVING BEYOND THE DOORS OF INFINITY AND ETERNITY:


PURSUIT OF INFINITY: Our “physical” universe is potentially infinite, because its only measure comes from feedback relationships, i.e., levels of consciousness. The physical universe does not exist in itself, but only in an availed potential. That is, it exists only insofar as its seeds are relationally experienced, as feedback. For the feedback communication that occurs among relational perspectives, the universe, beyond its signposts, does not have physical existence that is in itself measurable.

INTERACTIVE METAPHYSICS: A meta holism may be thought to avail our relational perspectives. With it, we have no measureable relations by which to mark or represent that which it does avail to relate to us, as our physical universe. While our universe, as it relates to us, is comparatively measureable, it is not availed with any physical means with which to relate any complete measure of any part of it.

RELATIONSHIPS IN MATH: While something like a notion of a Higgs Boson may apply, I doubt it will be found to be physical in itself, but only as a mathematical relationship that happens to be shared by all perspectives of consciousness within the universe that God happens to make apparent to us in common. The Moon “is there” only because God avails it so, contemporaneously and synchronously with our forms of experiential consciousness. Even so, to the extent any point of view is taken or shared within a frame of reference, mathematical constants are availed for the measurement of, and tinkering with, aspects of parts of our apparent universe.

INFINITY OF POSSIBILITIES: Aside from that which appears to us to be physical, the universe of possibilities consists of meta limits of math. Such limits become manifest as “physical” only to the extent the identity of at least one mortal consciousness comes to interpret or invest in their experiential unfolding. The notion of a Higgs Boson will be found not to represent anything that is “really” physical, but only a mathematical function that operates for “Something” that is metaphysical, i.e., not physical. That which we experience as our measureable physics depends upon, and is entirely derivative of, tricks of math that are systematically related to varying perspectives through one meta holism, i.e., God. God is the "ultimate territory," i.e., the State of our Becoming. God does not depend upon our individual perspectives of consciousness, but pours us forth.

CAUSATION, WILL, PRAYER, AND EXPERIENCE: On a spiritual level, that which “causes” events to unfold appears to consist in a “State of Becoming.” True, aspects and sequences of the unfolding of events can be compared and measured in respect of one another. But the State of Becoming out of which they unfold cannot. Our measurable physics seems less causal and more epiphenomenal to how the State of Becoming unfolds. In broad parameters, our willful actions do not control the State of Becoming. But, in specific relations, it seems the feedback of our wills to the State of Becoming does affect it. Prayers are answered, even if not in precise, measurable ways, even if not as we would have preferred, even if not as we would have willed – were we God. Simply put, God (“State of Becoming?”) is more than the sum of us.

CONSCIOUSNESS AND PURE MATH: We cannot access pure, holistic consciousness. But can we access computer functions that holistic consciousness has already written and availed? If so, have some Beings or Perspectives already accessed some such computer functions, at different levels? Can we glide through computational wormholes, to communicate among different levels? If so, to do so, what baggage must we give up?

BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS CONSIST OF COMPUTERS, CRUNCHING FEEDBACK: In chemistry, is each atom really a “physical” entity, comprised of: space-time-matter-energy, four fundamental forces of physics, and/or combinations of building blocks thereof? Or is each atom more like a place-holding, relational representation for a mathematical function, which obeys system parameters as imposed by a kind of meta-computer? If so, is the meta-computer or its Author “conscious?” Is it meta-empathetic or relational to human perspectives and feedback?

PHYSICS: Does physics “really” represent anything more than a placeholder for the relational exchange of ideas (representations) among perspectives of various levels of feedback of consciousness? If some physical “thing” is not, then: “Is” it not, or is it “not?” Well, “it” is in consciousness, even if not in physicality, even if, in consciousness, it is treated as (or thought to be) “not.” Is the logic of Beingness “trivalent,” i.e., consisting in appreciation of that which “is” (Jesus?), that which “is not” (Holy Ghost?), and that which (ambiguously) “is or is not” (in a fuzzy State of Becoming)(God)?

SOCIOPATHY: Something (or some aspect) of the animal brain seems to be easily conditioned to find it convenient to ignore feedback, to spread pain, sometimes even to worship pain. Submitting to worship a tyrannical concept of God (or of “the Planet”), one easily comes to believe oneself an authorized agent for imposing tyranny, even unspeakable horror. Pain in others becomes impersonal to sociopaths. Feedback from middling classes is not to be respected. If anything, imposing pain whets sociopaths’ appetites to impose more. Orwell expressed much truth. It seems confusion about the priority of reality --  between that which is physical and that which is spiritual -- regiments or contributes to mass sociopathy.

PURPOSE: Is it part of God’s purpose to lead us in experiencing the freedom, dignity, and self realization that comes with reconciling power by trumping it with empathy?

Is it part of God’s purpose to lead us to a civilizing system over a machine system, i.e., to a self sustaining, self surpassing system for organizing a civilization to facilitate decency and freedom of expression and enterprise among its citizenry? Well, if so, how is any nation of an educated citizenry within a constitutionally checked and balanced republic of laws that much different from a self suiting, self surpassing, centrally coordinated control of the collective? Answer: Within a decent republic, the feedback goes both ways (within a checked and balanced system of laws, vs. a despotic system of elitist control over the collective). On the other hand, within a middle class where freedom is not protected by checks and balances, there tends not to be feedback, but only the flush down of tyrannical power.

FEEDBACK: Human freedom and dignity, i.e., civilized fairness and decency, requires that everyone receive a reasonable hearing, without fear of undue torture or corrupt bribery. It requires that no one be made so powerful as to have the “right” or heedless power to impose undue humiliation on any other. There will always be feedback. The issue is: What is to be its quality? To whom will/shall it avail fulfillment?

THE ULTIMATE CHECK AND BALANCE:  Without a society's assimilation of contours for a philosophy that affords decent respect for a higher Source of moral purposefulness, no mere contrivances of legalisms can long protect human freedom and dignity from base animal urges.