I just got Ed Klingman's book, Gene Man's World. As I read it, I will be pondering aspects of his hypothesis regarding gravity and considering whether the following could be postulated, less for empirical testing than for making consistent and coherent sense.
What leaps out (!) is his insight that will is first and foremost the will to defy gravity. The question begged is: Unless conscious will is somehow "physical" (even if only at an immeasurable level), how can it interact to redirect any thing that is physical?
I am trying to bridge this gap by building on the concept of lensing -- defying or redirecting without affecting measurable limits. In that, I begin with baggage and postulate:
Gravity:
To make manifest a universe, gravity, wherever it is expressed, must there be lensed through local perspectives of consciousness. Local expressions of consciousness express Will (or capacity to lens, focus, resist, or redirect gravity), with no measurable change in the general potency of the cumulation of gravity before or after each such lensing. Each level of accumulation of gravity, regardless of how arbitrarily selected for measure, simultaneously implicates a coordinate level of lensing by local expressions of consciousness.
Consciousness cannot manifest universe without simultaneously undertaking to effect choices about the lensing of gravity. While universe abides, there is no choice but to make choices. To feign to fail to make a choice is itself a choice, i.e., a choice to invest in experiencing such results as will unfold in respect of surrender to other perspectives that happen to share the frame of reference. To feign not to choose is to choose to experience results of one's not choosing.
The universe cannot run on autopilot. Various perspectives of Conscious Will -- in sequences of feedback -- may surrender dominance, but all will necessarily, to some extent, remain intimately invested. So long as we abide, we lack capacity to blot out all caring for the cares of others -- regardless of whether such caring is expressed in positive or negative empathy (i.e., spiritual reinforcement or interference, sometimes called love, admiration, practiced indifference, envy, jealousy, and hate).
Gravity is that aspect which mediates feedback and communication among our perspectives of consciousness. Our consciousness lenses gravity and can measure lensed effects of gravity, as if they were apart from consciousness, without altering net energy of gravity. It is in how we cumulate in giving expression to our wills that signs of our interactions with gravity are objectified in how we communicate about that which we take to be our physics.
The physical existence of quarks (and all that can be built with them) is contemporaneously derivative of (or associated with) local perspectives of consciousness in their cumulative lensing of gravity.
All lensing that carries any capacity for being communicated depends upon a shared investment in a common system of mathematical parameters for defining and limiting that which Will can lens with gravity.
Quarks are apparent and mathematically measurable (at least statistically) byproducts (or byassociations) of cumulations of local lensings of gravity. They avail means of reference for local perspectives of consciousness to communicate regarding their vestments in local reality, both motively (intuitively and empathetically) and measurably (empirically).
Something like the notion of a Higgs Boson would seem to consist in a mathematical constant (as opposed to a physical particle) that limits our universe in respect of that which is cumulatively (massively?) measured and lensed, directly or indirectly, by such perspectives of consciousness as happen to have been invested to respect such constant.
We do not enjoy separate consciousness, free will, and separate bodies, except as separate perspectives of one conscious will. It is a meta trick of the feedback and lensing of imagination that God experiences our perspectives as if they were separate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
From A.T. -- @Conservative Optimist, re: " I can honestly say I'm now an agnostic."
Absent proof, I don't know how one can be a believer without simultaneously being a doubter. I sense two sides of one coin. I doubt the conundrum is resolved by resorting to analysis of "probabilities." (Show me the mathematician who claims to have a knockdown proof that the idea of a higher guiding Consciousness is "probably" wrong.) That said, it soon becomes slippery to comprehend what one would mean by avowing to be an atheist. Is one avowing capacity to prove there is no higher, guiding Source? If so, is this like consensus science of Warmists? Or is one simply striking a pose, for dramatic or militant effect? Just how much that is "religious" does an avowed atheist wish to discredit? Does an avowed atheist wish to discredit "higher atheism" (i.e., higher moral values that are not dependent upon a notion of a higher, reconciling Consciousness)? Does an avowed atheist offer a civilizing substitute, perhaps in the vein of rule under elitist atheists who know best?
I believe there are evidence and arguments to support belief that a guiding Consciousness abides. Some of those arguments may lead to empirical testing of a fashion. Some may consist in analysis regarding which precepts seem to be most complete, consistent, and coherent. The most cogent analysis I have found is in Klingman's work, referenced above.
Regardless, each person's resolution may consist more in the vein of psychological or wilful inclination. One tends to be intuitively and empathetically receptive to the idea of a higher Guide, or one tends not. As far as evidence, I think it abounds. But evidence ought not be confused with proof. If there were "knockdown proof," then it would seem proper for those elites who run the collective to become thought police for correcting us -- either to believe or not to believe. Which is probably why the Founders considered it best to establish respect under a Bill of Rights for freedom of religion. (Of course, that begs another question: What is "religion?")
Some crave certainty; some crave purposeful empathy. Robotic collectivists crave machine certainty; independent libertarians crave the feedback of empathy. Some hope that when their consciousness flickers out, they will never be bothered by consciousness again. Others expect that, consciousness, having invested in them once, may well invest in them hereafter. These concerns will “resolve” in the acting out of Will, not by empirical or logical demonstration. Indeed, one may speculate whether, if there is a God, even God could “know” whether there may a superior or an end. So these are subjects of hope, faith, intuition, insight, and empathy. Logic and math will not “prove” them, one way or the other.
Depending upon purpose, context, point of view, and frame of reference, it may be that logic and math can be applied equally well, empirically, to model as if any one of three non-unify-able approaches to our beingness were superior, such approaches being: (1) Determinism – that beingness is primarily like a preset and winding down clock; (2) Randomness – that beingness is essentially like a random expression of leaping, fractal patterns, competing to demonstrate which shall at any point or segment of space-time manifest as most fit for survival and replication; (3) Free Will – that beingness is byproduct of a dance of empathy among perspectives of conscious will that condense from a commonly objectify-ing and fundamental field of Consciousness.
Collectivists tend to prefer models 1 and 2. Those who disdain collectivism may tend to prefer model 3. Surprisingly, it appears that math can be applied for model 3 that is fully as consistent and reliable as math for the more mechanistic approaches under models 1 and 2. An advantage of model 3 is that it need not implicate that consciousness and will are mere artifactual epiphenomena, as opposed to fundaments of reality. Moreover, model 3 may implicate an approach to “Hume’s Guillotine” that is beyond the other two. (While model 3 may not facilitate a unification of 1 and 2, may it, subject to permutations among holistic and particular perspectives, avail capacity to substitute equally well either for 1 or for 2, as needed? Compare online animated silhouette of a woman spinning gracefully.)
Regardless, it appears that the side for collectivists desires to follow the Borg into mindless, unconscious, mechanistic anomie, while the side for libertarians may hope to participate in promoting empathy among like inclined adventurers. The Big Brother Borg of Marxism and Islamism wants to smother and stuff empathy into a materialistic, indifferent, strictly regulated hive. The side for Independents may want to seek a meaningful relationship among and with the Field of Consciousness.
Mere science and logic will not resolve this perennial, competitive state of affairs. Rather, zombie minds may well be set against libertarian minds, in perpetuity. Choose your side (if you can).
(*A Libertarian who believes in a Field of Consciousness and the value of preserving civilization for empathetic interaction therewith is, to my lights, a "Social Conservative.")
Post a Comment