RULES, INFORMATION, CAUSATION, IDENTITY, INTERACTING PARALLEL UNIVERSES, AND EVIDENCE

OF RULES, TRIVALENCY, MODELS, INFORMATION, CAUSATION, FIRST CAUSE, IDENTITY, GOD ABIDES, GOD CARES, PARALLEL UNIVERSES, META SYNCHRONICITY VS. MORTAL RELATIVITY, EVIDENCE

THE RULES: Why do reason and logic seem so powerful, even powerful enough to adduce that our material universe arose out of a singularity, if our universe is just a random, improbable bubble out of a void? May we adduce what is the character or nature of the void, or of the field that bubbled out of it? Is it worthwhile, meaningful, or usefully inspirational to refer to that holistic field as being partially, completely, or indeterminably material, immaterial, spiritual, conscious, or metaphysical? Is the essence of that field one of randomness, predetermination, or unfolding appreciation of consciousness (will?), as measured by a meta holism against a derivative and imaged sum of its parts? Must every worthwhile or meaningful concept regarding the essence of such field depend upon a conceptualizer’s purpose, point of view, and/or frame of reference?

Well, the logic, indeed, the very thoughts, that we share consist in whatever is prescribed and synchronized for being presented or expressed through us, in participation with a universe or field that we happen to share. From a quantitative point of view, the field is what it is. From a qualitative point of view, it tends to become what it quantitatively apprehends and qualitatively appreciates.

Regardless, why do so many of our relationships seem to unfold in such respect for logic, math, and reason? May it be that our situation seems coordinate with reason only because our situation is what the field that we happen to share is continuing to participate in prescribing for us?

To our reason, the field is easily considered to be "great." To the field itself, aside from its relationship with us and with its other particular points of reference, the field may simply abide as a beingness — while in its relationship with us, it ‘fields” — sort of like a noun-verb (or gerund). That is, as a noun changer, it apprehends its changing purposes in how it fields us. In that respect, its potential as “changeless changer” is what avails our meaningfulness, which is derivative of the relationship of feedback that is directly apprehended between the field as a holism and the field as it fluxes, forms, imbues, and identifies with its various and particular foci of reference (i.e., its qualitative points of consciousness and its quantitative particles of physical expression).

Given the imbuement of perspectives of consciousness, how else could they interrelate, communicate, or apprehend a common situation --- were they not synchronized in respect of the same adducible rules?

INHERENT TRIVALENCY OF CONCEPUALIZATIONS ABOUT THE RULES: Given a trivalence that is implicated in many of our explanatory models, how much of our bivalent (true-untrue) reasoning is based on vanity? Every attempt to explicate one's existential situation seems to be irreducible, except to various uncertain, inherently trinitarian relationships or analyses, such as relationships of: Wholes, parts, rules; Existence, representation, identity; Fields, particles, observers; Space, time, substance; Lines, points, grid leaps; Substance, representation, observer; Stored information, interactive information, radiating information; Reality, void, appearance; Reality, imagination, receding synthesis; Substance, immateriality, interface; Discrete, continuous, transcendent; Measurable, experienceable, metaphysical; Quantitative, qualitative, conscious; Determined, random, appreciated (chosen); Mortal consciousness, logic, experience; Rationality, rationalization, inexplicability; Incompleteness, inconsistency, incoherence; Exhaustive, mutually exclusive, fuzzy; Axiom, logic, entropic expansions of orbiting reasoning; East, west, going east by sailing west; Synchronous cause, sequential cause, associated artifact; Objective, subjective, emotive; Indifferent, caring, insane; Possible, manifest, unfolding; True, untrue, indeterminable; Known, unknown, unknowable; Believable, doubtful, trivial; Evidenced, intuitive, wishful; Purpose, perspective, context; Manifestation, conceptualization, interrelation; Essence, catalyst, transmission; Sensed, sensor, buffering medium; Focus, frame of reference, the beyond; Illusion, delusion, allusion; Information: Qualitative, quantitative, axiomatic; Information: holistic, particular, mediating; Space, time, information (whether stored as substance or as consciousness); Stored energy, stored information, consciousness; Disorganizing energy, organizing information, consensus of consciousness; Plausibility, practicality, perplexity; The trivial, the teasing, the transcendent; The here, the now, and the Twilight Zone, Etc.

We may seek meaning and fulfillment, but to expect to find them in mere conceptualizations, apart from the pursuit, seems vain.

TRIVALENCY, THE THREE BODY PROBLEM, AND HEISENBERG LIKE UNCERTAINTY: Our very space, time, and substance are trivalent in their relationships, each being defined, circularly, only in relative and relational respect of, and in terms of, the others, rather than as any fundament in itself. This poses something perhaps analogous to a three body problem: Insofar as our relations are trivalent, how -- in any complete, consistent, and coherent way -- can any merely bivalent-reasoning or equation-testing pierce the limits of the relationship of any two, while ignoring the relatively unwatched role of the other? How will a quantity or quality of precision of focus with respect to one not entail a loss of care of precision with respect to the other?  While any observer focuses on one point of view within a frame of reference, how can such observer simultaneously analyze or focus on the limits or role of any other, or on his effect on such other by choosing instead to focus on its leprechaun counterpart?  Given the cracked symmetry of a trivalent universe, without practical faith, to what extent should we trust bivalent logic?

INFORMATION: Information seems not to exist as a thing that can be discovered in itself, but rather as a potential that is subject to being associated with conscious experience, under rules, which depend for their determination upon a range of parameters, which depend for their determination upon how a perspective of consciousness happens to identify with and come within such information's relative field of influence. Information may even be converted to a perspective of consciousness, if it happens to become organized in a way that allows it to become identitied with an experience of a quality of apprehension in how other information that happens to come within its field of influence is unfolded to its experience. Thus, information may be experienced, processed, or stored in aspects of the quantitative, the qualitative, or the becoming.

CAUSATION: When considered deeply enough, Indifferent Gravity and Caring Appreciation (Will?), both, will seem commensurate with unpredictable apprehensions of perspectives of consciousness, unfolding along paths of the eternal present, tending to incline towards appreciations. Although appreciations may not be well considered as being entirely willed, neither are they predictable, and they do seem generally to affect how and where particles come to find expression within fields. Certainly, appreciations are important to meaningful consciousness. Indeed, if nothing that we can isolate, measure, or control is really causal, in itself, then both Gravity and Will --- depending upon one's purpose, perspective, and context --- may be as reasonably conceptualized as being causal (rather than merely artefactual) as anything else --- including the conscious apprehensions of participating, appreciative, and emotionally invested perspectives of appreciation.

FIRST CAUSE: Among meta notions, a notion of a first cause seems generally not helpful. Little of meaning, if any meaning at all, is accomplished by positing a first cause that created itself and everything else. However, other meta concepts may be helpful, inspirational, perhaps even, in part, fairly or rationally said to be evidenced.

There may be meaning and value in conceptualizing or modeling about an unpredictable (guiding?) dance of qualitatively appreciative feedback between a meta, parallel universe of a holism and our universe (being comprised of a sum of apparent particulars). So conceptualized, neither the holistic universe nor the universe of fluxing particulars would be the ultmate cause of the other, but would be a not-completely-predictable intuitor or appreciator of the other. The emotive quality of their relationship would be intuitive, rather than measurably predictable. Whatever the upshot, in our universe, we would rationalize the empirically measurable results as abiding consistent with whatever Rules we may discover that support their measuring. Yet, we would have no way to predictably control whatever the meta rules may prescribe or synchronize as the rules that we translate in practice.

We may recognize, in practice, that sequences of events synchronize, follow, and associate with various rules, however incomplete. We may recognize that our experiences of consciously synchronized interpretations lag a short time behind whatever combination of factors may have associated to avail each unfolding experience of mortal consciousness. That is, our conscious interpretations of our decisions, choices, and will are artifactual of decisions already made a split sequence before our brains have caught up to interpret them. Our brains are not the causes of our decisions, but the interpretors of them. So, how far back must we go, to get to "the cause" of each event that we interpret as unfolding before us?

Insofar as substance (matter and energy) is not its own cause, every standard model that tries to explain our conscious existence restricted only to terms of physically measurable substance is doomed to incompleteness, incoherence, and fluxing ambiguity. Each such model will necessarily resort to a catch all for ambiguities --- such as dark matter, dark energy, dark physicalism, meta branes, cosmological constants, etc.

Should we come to consider empirical or substantive "causation" to be only a practical concept, serviceable to particular purposes and contexts, but not serviceable to provide a unifying explication or standard model for how our universe functions?

IDENTITY: The only experience by which "I" receive information, in order to interpret a quality of consciousness, even self awareness, is feedback from information that is conveyed to me, apart from my self, which is organized into organic representations for the interpretation by or of my self. Similarly, perhaps the only experience by which God receives information, in order to interpret a quality of holistic awareness, is feedback from information that is conveyed to the holism, somehow apart from the holism, which is organized into synchronous representations for the interpretation of the holism. In that way, perhaps the holism is more than merely the sum of its parts, as in the special case of a meta class unto itself, that is not defined simply by adding its parts. In any case, it seems that consciousness --- whether particular or holistic --- may not be defined in respect of itself, but only in respect of the quality of its representational experience of events somehow interpreted as being apart from itself.

As particular perspectives, we do not deal directly with the field as a holism, but only through a veil of interpretations of representations of qualities and quantities. Regardless, the field (God?) requires that we experience ourselves as attempting to interpret a quality of sense about our situation, and, in feedback, the field is qualitatively affected by the quality of sense we make, however imperfect --- regardless of whether we interpret the field as being caring, despotic, or indifferent.

GOD ABIDES: In meta-parallel space-time, God abides, in quantitative power, a meta-split-sequence before the parallel universe that avails the quality of our local observation and interpretation. The "eternal present" is a flux that bridges parallel universes:  field and particle; whole and parts; quantitative and qualitative; holistic consciousness and perspectives of consciousness.

Our consciousness has no causal effect, directly upon material. Rather, the effect of our consciousness is qualitative, upon God, as the Changeless Changer, somehow appreciating a quality in our apprehensions, and then factoring to guide our further unfolding.

Our direct effect on God is not measurable, because it is qualitative, not quantitative. Our prayers, apprehensions, and appreciations only affect the quantitative in an indirect way, and not in any way by which we can in complete accuracy measure any non-trivial interface.

While we may take pride in our technology and its increasing complexity and accuracy, there is no humunculus or little man of will who is driving our brains and bodies and making all our decisions. Rather, our brains avail a quality of conscious interpretation to decisions that have already been made a split sequence previous.

And this does not apply only to complex brains, but to every sort of organized, electrical, magnetic, chemical, nuclear, energetic, nerve center. For example, a mass of plutonium does not by itself interpret, decide, or know when it will next emit a radioactive particle. Yet, somehow, at some level, rules prescribe each emission, and it is only a practical "answer" to "explain" the "cause" as "randomness" --- as if there abides a separate, independent, synchronizing, indifferent, immaterial, metaphysical random-effect-generator.

Rather, if a random effect generator does abide, it abides not as an independently causal entity, but rather in a trinitarian causal relationship, consisting of a relationship with two other aspects of our unified existence. Such Trinity consists of The Rules, the Holistic Field, and its variously expressed Particles. The upshot is Consciousness (or consciousness stored as information) --- unpredictable in its unfolding appreciations, both at holistic level and at a parallel level of particular perspectives.

FREE WILL:  To be concerned whether such consciousness enjoys a quality of "free will" is to distract oneself from what is meaningful. Whether or not consciousness enjoys free will, it has no means of knowing, it has no choice but to function as if it does have morally responsible will, and there is no way to know or to certainly predict that it does not. In any case, feedback from the apprehensions and moral appreciatons of consciousness has moral effect for our unfolding pursuits of meaningfulness.

As to the unfolding of that which is measurably quantitative (stored consciousness), it will always follow rules. No matter that our consciousness may apprehend, or that holistic consciousness may deign to guide changes or redirections:  Each redirection will not be sensed by us as a violation of any physical parameter of The Rules, because each such redirection will always conform to the degrees of freedom that are availed by the parameters and rules that govern the unfolding interacton of all that is interpreted as quantitative substance.

GOD CARES: Quantitatively, I cannot show that any appreciation of my consciousness associates with, or participates to effect any redirection of, the unfolding of matter, because my consciousness always occurs a split sequence after each quantitative, substantive directive has already issued. Insofar as my particular perspectives are identified with locally interpreted quantizations, I can never be privy to the quanticizing decisions of the Decider of our localisms. At most, I only intuit that the quality of my consciousness has a causal effect, through God, i.e., through the feedback of my apprehensions in respect of that which does interfunction to guide the unfolding. (For example, I notice that many fields do not collapse to effect particular expressions, absent feedback with a participating observer.)

Why may God tend, in an immeasurably, yet qualitative fashion, to favor appreciations, prayers, and sacrifices? Perhaps, to lead us to a higher quality of feedback? Would God then favor those who are dumbest, yet most passionate and brutal in their religious inclinations, or those most intuitive and receptive to a general feeling of empathy (Golden Rule)?

Intuitively, God wants us to evolve and progress, to intuit a field of holistic caring, and to inculcate that sense of caring among ourselves, as particular perspectives of that holistic consciousness. This may take beingness and cultures through a progression of forms, until enlightened culture is eventually brought forth.

The culture we experience as progressing on earth may have a counterpart, in respect of God's rules for holistic reconciliation. That is, the quality of our apprehensions may play a role in how heaven unfolds. Intuitively, the quality of cross that we bear is made meaningful or comprehensible in that it is also borne by God.

PARALLEL UNIVERSE: Each of our particular perspectives of consciousness is inferior to a synchronizing holism; each apprehends changing manifestations a split sequence after each change has already been decided, determined, and synchronized. The experience and quality of moral consciousness that identifies with, and melds with, our local substance (bodies and context) lags a split sequence behind the holism that may be conceptualized as participating in the synchronization of all that is locally measurable with respect to our bodies.

Rationally, God may be conceptualized as participating in the deciding of each quantitative synchronization a split sequence before our local consciousness apprehends. Thereafter, God would respond to the feedback that is the emotional quality of our subsequent apprehensions. For moral precepts, it may be worthwhile to consider the Holism as if it were the Decider of our Localisms, while we Localisms are perhaps an accumulative factor for such decisions. (Insofar as the Holism does not entirely predict the Localisms, and the Localisms cannot predict the Holism, may each attribute a synchronizing effect or will to the other?  Does God listen to us?)

To better appreciate meaning in the unfolding, eternally fluxing present of our universe, ought we to conceptualize or apprehend an ambiguous, unpredictable, qualitative interface between two parallel universes --- a universe of the whole (God?) and a universe of the sum of particulars (mortals?)? Intuitively, may a parallel universe of meta time synchronize with an unfoldment of information and decisions, in synchronously discrete units, each of which precedes our locally interpretive apprehensions? Perhaps, all information we receive is buffered, so that we can experience local interpretations that are varying, yet remain consistent with it.

META SYNCHRONICITY VS. MORTAL RELATIVITY: While sequences in changes in Information are preserved in synchronous and instantaneous quantum leaps, the EMR by which Information (stored or radiating forms of dormant consciousness?) is often represented and conveyed to each active observer or perspective of consciousness is interpreted by each perspective as riding EMR that is delayed, by curvature in space-tme context, to a speed that is kept to a standard relation, relative to each observer's locus.

Particles are not real in themselves, but are placeholders, condensed relative to perspectives of consciousness, for facilitating the storeage, transmission, and communication of information in a way that is synchronized throughout the universe we share. Each perspective of consciousness receives only such placeholding representations and particles of information as are consistent with the Rules that govern the transmission of information. No perspective of consciousness receives all information that is stored in the fields. However, each perspective interprets meaning out of such sequences of information as it receives and as it assesses that others are receiving.

At holistic level, Informational changes operate in meta sequences that are directly synchronized and instantaneous. However, in how such changes are received by local perspectives of consciousness, they are synchronously buffered, so that each perspective will apprehend a consistent and local interpretation.

THERE IS EVIDENCE: It is measurable, intuitive, and logical that decisions are first made at a meta synchronizing level, and are only thereafter adopted by local bodies (brains), with which consciousness is identitifed.  We become conscious of such decisions only after such decisions have already been made.  Thereafter, such decisions are manifested, marked, and stored in such objective, placeholding physicalisms as our brains. In that way, we experience and sense the placeholding of each new beginning of each new event, contemporaneously with each new perception of each new physical unfoldment.  (When I say "we" and "perception," I am referring to every level of perception at every locus within the space-time of our shared universe.) Every placeholding change in physicalism is associated with every change regarding the experience, potential experience, or unfoldment of information to a perspective of consciousenss at some level.  In that way, each discrete tic in the synchronization of space-time is its own "big bang" or miraculous singularity --- AND OUR EXPERIENCE AND PROOF OF SUCH META SYNCHRONIZATION IS UBIQUITOUS.

NOTE THAT A QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION IN ADVANCE OF A QUALITY OF LOCAL APPRECIATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT REGRESSIVE:  To note that the decisions of a brain are made in advance of the brain's own consciousness is to beg a question:  Is the brain's appreciation of its own consciousness made in advance?  Intuitively and perhaps definitionally, no.  Actual experience of a quality of consciousness would, by definition, be contemporaneously simultaneous with its actual experience.  While the quality of consciousness lags behind the quantitative sequence that avails it, it does not lag behind the quality of its own quality.  As to one's appraisal of the quality of one's consciousness, that is a different issue.  One's consciousness of such an appraisal would lag behind whatever the quantitative sequence that avails it.  Thus, if God somehow apprehends the quality of a mortal's consciousness, such apprehension by God either lags behind the mortal's experience, or is contemporaneous with it, but is not previous to it.  IMHO.