Re: “an equation which shows that the "amount" of non-locality is determined by the uncertainty principle” / “Why doesn't nature allow even stronger non-locality?” See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101118141541.htm.
Re: Energy also has mass. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
Hmm. Well, might mass just be a store of energy, and stored energy just be a store of information? Is mass like a signpost, derivative of the interfunctioning of perspectives of conscious apprehension of information?
A difference between the simplest chemical or physical reaction and the response of any organism would seem to be this: In preparation for each sequence with which an organism (animal, plant, micro-organism, or cell) is to act, it will, at some level, “rationalize” or represent a decision about that which it is next to do, and such “decision” will have been made a split sequence before its brain, nervous, or capillary system will have conceived or represented the decision. IOW, no decision is made purely at the level of the brain or body of an organism or a perspective or particle of consciousness. Rather, every decision is bound up with the entire synchronizing context of the potential of a field and its sub or particulate expressions.
This begs a question: At what point does even a chemical or physical reaction become the organized response of an “organism?” Are substances that have capacity to decay radioactively “organisms,” so that a “decision” is made a split sequence before any particular radioactive atom experiences a decay? Is there some algorithm that connects to govern, such that each reaction, apprehension, or choice -- upon feedback between the universal field and each and every particle -- is universally synchronized with the eternal present? May that algorithm be an aspect of the very ground of being that is availed by an encompassing Field of consciousness?
Does a Nature algorithm limit choices for individually experienced relationships among our perspectives of the here and now, and does another algorithm (“God” algorithm?) avail means by which choices are universally synchronized throughout our domain?
To suppose there abides a meta-synchronizing algorithm would seem hardly distinguishable from supposing our holistic situation is expressive of “free will.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Are organized and disorganized information inter-convertible, so that the total amount of information within the universal system, as it abides at any slice of space-time, always limited by a same constant? Can the totality of the conservation of matter and energy be alternatively translated as explicating a limitation in the capacity of our universe to store and manipulate information?
For us to have meaningful access to any holistic algorithm that is postulated to synchronize the universal interchange of information at any given sequence, would we have to have capacity to test that algorithm? But how could we test it, even in a purely mathematical experiment, without by each test injecting a new factor that would alter that which we wish to test? To have capacity to use such an algorithm in order to test it, would we have to have capacity to step outside space-time, to make and test for predictions? Would we have to have capacity to make choices that would effect universal causal changes? Would we have to be that which avails space-time? Would we have to be God to Godel?
I suspect there abides such a meta-algorithm, which gives expression to what we may sometimes call random chance and sometimes call free will. If so, that meta algorithm is beyond our measurable comprehension, yet synchronizes to cause changes in holistic events. I suspect an inferior algorithm also abides (the Nature algorithm), by which we can measure parameters for any given local changes in those parameters that are measurable. The first algorithm relates to why or how each so-called individual random event is actually chosen, caused, or determined. The second algorithm relates to how to measure and statistically predict those parameters that can be rationalized locally.
Even though consideration of the first algorithm should perhaps, as Hume suggested, be committed to the fire insofar as its consideration is useless to our empirical purposes, many believe, not unreasonably IMHO, that its very consideration avails morally assimilating purposes.
If all that manifests as massive signposts of a formula that avails parameters for experiencing and communicating our ground of being is coordinate with a single shared formula or algorithm, then to have meta means to "nudge" that formula would be to have means to communicate information instanteneously across all of that which is availed as our space-time, with no non-meta way to explicate the cause empirically or mathematically. If there abides such a meta-algorithm, may it, itself, abide in coordinate levels of meta meta algorithms? If God empowers the highest algorithm, are there intermediating levels of meta algorithms, "nudgeable" by layers and levels of Elohim or Angels? Even though not measurable, predictable, or controllable by mortals, may mortals, via intuition and empathy and appreciation and prayer, power or affect or appease the sympathies of meta beings and interests that do have such power? May attitudes of humility, sacrifice, appeasement, and propitiation be efficacious on any level? Is Pagan spirituality so entirely apart from belief in a spiritual God or Field of Consciousness? How can or should a civilized society be taught to respect its notions of spirituality, meta math, and shared empathy within a single Field of consciousness, which fluxes in regard for variously competing layers and levels of artistic interests and communications? How should we regard the better angels of our local Elohim?
Post a Comment