Decision and Causal Agents

Decision and Causal Agents:

Mortals communicate in respect of discoverable, reliable laws for a system of physics, which regulates mathematically measureable fields and particles with regard to identity, indiscernibility, organization, form, symmetry, exclusivity, density, mass, energy, charge, potential, wave, velocity, and discrete transmutation of quanta. Trivially, the parameters for the math and the physics for that system “are what they are,” subject only to discovery and empirical confirmation. Bivalent logic can help us adduce accurate, non-contradictory measures of such aspects as are measurable. As to rigor, it has been said that “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.” (Ernest Rutherford.) There is also rigor in technological, engineering, and computing applications.

However, respecting social studies, apart from lies, damn lies, and statistics, what does rigorous science, math, or logic have to do with anything very much? For non-trivial social studies (such as political science and sociology), how often are survey questions skilled to “educate” the masses to pre-contrived results? How valid is it for such non-trivial scientists to rely on bivalent logic, as opposed to many-sided logic and common sense intuition and empathy? Why suppose it essential to make a good political or military leader that he be a skilled bivalent logician? Why suppose there is only one (“either-or”) proper way to skin a cat? How much confusion is generated in trying to fit inappropriate subjects, in inappropriate ways, to bivalent logic? Simply put, bivalent logic is inappropriate to empathetic decision making: when there is to be factored a role for free will; when there is to be factored not merely a state of being, but a state of becoming; when there is to be factored the uncertain skill or power to produce a particular state (“make it so”); when there is to be factored vagueness in the description of the state of being; and when there is to be factored an uncertain range of interests, utilities, and empathies within the context of a wider community.

Consider the singular Source that underlies our state of affairs. Why suppose it must be a monad? Why suppose it must be Either unchanging Or continuously or constantly changing? Insofar as IT it beyond our comprehension, why choose to infer that it is other than a one of a kind “changeless changeling?” Why choose to suppose God to be other than dualistic, like a two sided coin, one side (Spirit) having an immeasurable capacity to appreciate and express free will, the other side (Nature) having measurably limited capacity to record sequential feedback, neither side being able to abide apart from being connected with the other? Why confuse the two or suppose that the nature of God should know in advance the choices that are to be made by the spirit of God? As God functions as a measurer, God can know what can be known; as God functions as an appreciator, God can appreciate (value, choose, reward, reinforce, diminish, punish) what can be appreciated.

In conjunctive feedback, God can learn, even though not even God need necessarily know in advance of feedback to be appreciated what choices or synchronicities in design that God will implement. That is, as Spirit, God has capacity to avail us our separate perspectives for the empathetic appreciation of feedback from choices; yet, as Nature, God has capacity to avail us our physical ground of being, which is derivative of a meta-fluxing Field or aspect of God’s nature, in respect of which Information is presented and synchronized to parameters for our interactive communication. Physics is simply Information made inanimate within a meta ground of being. Thus, there abides conscious free will, but not apart from a conscious Field that provides our ground of being.

So, by what means may a perspective of free will “cause” a change in the information that is appreciated within the field that gives constitution to our common physics? Each episode of empathetic appreciation constitutes the choice that each perspective of consciousness experiences. The way a particle or perspective of conscious free will comes to appreciate that which it so chooses to empathize with is fed back to the Field, which filters and synchronizes like signals from every pertinent perspective, in order to translate for each sequential change in the ground of being that is presented to the appreciation of all. That is, no perspective of consciousness is a causal agent-in-itself to implement any change. Rather, every change in the physics that is presented in common to all is synchronized in respect of information and feedback that are accumulated from and among the empathies of every perspective of consciousness and the common Field of consciousness.

Our brains receive synchronized instructions a split sequence before they record the manifestation (conversion to physical information) of each decision that has already been made. That is, physics and physical causation are derivatives; they are after-the-fact storehouses of information, for which experience, communication, and feedback are represented or signposted as our “physics.” The separateness of our identities, experiences, and decisions are secondary phenomena, being derivative of the capacity of the common Field of consciousness to receive empathetic feedback from many coordinate perspectives.