Implicated Incompleteness Of Quantitative Based Models About Substance

Dualism of the Quantitative and the Qualitative:  To live in Quantitative harmony with this universe that we share, it seems one must attune one's mind and senses to space-time (gravity) as the aboriginal Source, force, or Field, which itself just exists, but cannot be derivatively defined, yet avails all quantities in respect of which all other quantitative aspects of our beingness are derived, correlative, or measured.

Implicated Incompleteness Of Quantitative Based Models About Substance:

QUESTION:  Are our models about Substance necessarily incomplete, yet astonishingly helpful to measurably practical purposes?  If so, why?  Upon considering roles for Information and Consciousness, is this really so astonishing?

REGARDING FINITE BUT UNBOUNDED:  What does that mean? Does it mean our universe has a finite mass, but an unbounded "edge?" Or does it mean the universe has finite mass, but no edge, because its matter and energy ride along a sort of flat surface, like the surface of an expanding balloon? Problem with balloon analogy:   The more a balloon expands, the more it appears like a two dimensional plane when considered from a particular point of view. However, the view of galaxies in space is at least three dimensional, in that observers can see other galaxies not just along the surface of an expanding balloon, but in every direction that a telescope is pointed.  (So, the ballon analogy, like most models, seems valid for one way of thinking, but invalid for other ways.  Does a better model avail, that could be valid for all ways?)  Given that case, beyond the expanding sphere of space-time, would not the leading surface of the expanding universe constitute at least a three dimensional "edge?"

PROBLEM WITH FLAT ANALOGY:  From Physics Forum --- "flat" means that, on average, space-time is just about as round (spherical) as it is inverted (saddle shaped)?) The universe's "shape" isn't like a real shape, but corresponds to the average distribution of energy in spacetime throughout the universe. So, a "flat" universe doesn't correspond to flatness like a flat surface, but instead means that on average the energy distribution throughout a "flat" universe is almost the same everywhere when you look at the whole universe.

REGARDING SPACE IS FLAT:  The increase of distance measured between bodies and galaxies, given the relatively calculable age of our universe, may seem to violate a notion of the speed of electromagnetic radiation as being limited to a constant. However, such apparent conflicting observations may be reconciled by conceptualizing the matter in the light cone of our experience (our universe) as riding with an expansion of "the fabric" of space-time (sort of like dots painted on a regular grid on a balloon, expanding in distance apart as the balloon is inflated).

POINT OF VIEW AND FRAME OF REFERENCE:  The eye of an observer a distance away and outside the balloon may perceive the dots as moving apart from one another at the same regular rate, in all directions. However, an observer whose ("20 - 20") lens of perception is placed directly next to a particular dot will perceive other dots as accelerating away ever faster, the further they are from the dot chosen to avail the point of view. (Such an observer would perceive the same effect, regardless of which dot he were to adopt for his point of view.)

NOTICE: As each dot on a curvelinear "grid" on the balloon were separated under inflation by a unit of space from each nearest dot, it would likewise separate from each next nearest dot by two units of space, and so on. Thus, the further apart one dot is from another, the faster it will appear to accelerate in separation. The same result will pertain from the point of consideration of every dot, so that no dot is favored to say that any other is accelerating fastest from a point of consideration of the balloon as a whole. Thus, the dots dissipate further apart under inflation, while never converging. Such a balloon analogy may help illustrate some aspects regarding the accelerating distance between near and far dots, but it does so by imagining three dimensional space as if it were on a curved, two dimensional surface, with no communication between dots more than 90 degrees apart on the surface of a spherical balloon.  Our "real" universe, however, is at least three dimensional, not merely two.


GRID VERSUS NON-GRID:  If instead all dots were perceived to be moving away from the point of view at the same speed, then the balloon would more likely be in a steady state, not expanding, and the dots themselves would be moving on the balloon, rather than the balloon inflating. Alternatively, if the balloon itself were inflating, and the furtherest dots appeared to be moving away at the same speed as the nearby dots, rather than accelerating, then two events would be crossing: one, the ballon would be inflating, and two, the furtherest dots would be compensating by moving along the balloon's surface towards the point of view.  (Problem with balloon analogy:  See above.)

PROBLEM WITH SPACE IS FLAT:  "Space is flat" is not meant to imply that our universe is accelerating outward in the form of a large, flat disc.  Rather, the saying relates to the fact that light rays from parallel sources tend to remain parallel rather than to converge or bend back.   (Gravity from a black hole does not attract light photons, because light photons have no mass in themselves.  Rather, a black hole, because it bends the fabric of space-time, lays a path before light so that it, uncharacteristically, converges and does not leave the hole.  It is the distortion in space by which the light follows, that causes the light not to leave the hole.

REGARDING FLATNESS: 1) When thinking of space-time as one “thing,” analogize a notion of “flatness” of the universe as being like a flat trampoline, with deformations here and there that are associated with large clumps of mass.  2) When thinking of space and time as separate “things,” analogize “flatness” as the surface space of a balloon that is being inflated over time.  Of course, neither modeling the universe as a trampoline nor as a balloon can fit for all purposes.  Similarly, for some purposes, modeling particles as ever finer and smaller bits of matter becomes incoherent.  However, regardless of model or analogy used, the extent of  “flatness” found within the cone of our experience of universe seems to suggest an astonishingly degree of “fine tuning.” Why is the practicality of considering a model of a "space-time trampoline" so flat over such a distance?  And the "universal balloon" so evenly inflated in all directions?  Why would not entropy and random chaos produce a much more irregular and disordered "flatness," regardless of whether modeled as a  trampoline or as a balloon?

LIGHT CONE:  If space-time were to continue to inflate, or distant galaxies were to continue to accelerate away, may they not eventually exceed the speed of light in respect of their rate of separation, and thus slip beyond the experience of our light cone?  If so, would aspects of their mass still remain entangled with, or a part of, our universe, and would they still have some indirect effect on displacements of our space-time?  Could that be part of the explanation of Dark matter or energy?

FINELY TUNED MASS: A constant exhaust pressure, attached to an object, will cause it constantly to increase in momentum. But for the loss of mass on account of the burning of fuel, the increase in momentum would seem to increase the mass of the object. Suppose the momentum of the object continues to increase, so the object accelerates, the increase in momentum causes an increase in mass, but the increase is exactly offset by the fuel spent. Then the net amount of mass represented by the object would remain the same, even as the fuel it burns is discharged as oxidized material (which has its own mass). However, the oxidized material has a changed mass from what it had before it was burned; and part of its mass, released as energy, may be returned with the mass of the object being accelerated.

MASS AS A WHOLE:  Now take the system that encompasses the object, i.e., our substantive universe. If matter is continuously being accelerated outward, then the increase in momentum must be contributing to the mass of our universe as a whole, while the expenditure of energy that is not converted into material mass, but is instead generally dissipated and not stored in material form, would seem to indicate that, while the total mass of the universe remains constant, the material basis for it is being continuously dissipated as increasingly disordered energy, i.e., entropy.

PURE ENERGY:  Is it "really" possible that our universe could become completely dissipated into energy, with no manifestation of matter? If the balance of matter were not irretrievably being converted to energy, then would the material universe, as we perceive it, achieve only a static range, rather than a continuously accelerating "flatness?"

ENTROPIC DIRECTION OF CONVERSION:  Matter and energy can each be converted into the other, but the combined total of their mass remains constant. Something about the mass of our universe, whatever its constant quantity, is thought to allow our experience of space-time to remain "flat," so that the substance of our universe continues indefinitely to accelerate outward, and light does not converge.  (May loss of material mass be somehow compensated by an increase in Information?  To what end?)

FINE TUNING:  But why should any precise amount of mass (eventually all in the form of energy?) implicate a "flat" universe that is accelerating in its expansion? There seems to be implicated some outward force that, however slightly, overbalances all inward forces. In that case, a perpetual balance of (finely tuned?) outbound force would increase momentum of outbound particles, so that the particles would continuously accelerate outward, rather than collapse or remain at a steady, round-a-bout inertial orbit.

DARK SUBSTANCE:  Could dilemmas regarding "dark substance" relate to a gravitational effect, that comes from outside our light cone, on the space-time that is within our light cone?  In other words, may the cone we share for gravitational influence exceed and encompass the cone we share for light?  May some disturbances in space-time be qualitatively implicated as exceeding the speed of light?

FAVORED SIMULTANEITY BY REFERENCE TO UNIVERSAL PRESENT TIME:  If time for mortals does not exist, in itself, apart from space-time, then does "present time" not exist, apart from relative space-time?  (From Physics Forum --- space can't be discussed independently of time, since it takes time for anything to move through space.)

AGE OF UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE:  If, relative to ALL mortals, there is no measurably universal present, then one could not very well seem to say that the universe as a whole is presently "x" years old.  Rather, the most we reasonably could seem to say would be that, relative to our shared light cone, we experience the Information that is represented and availed to us as being derivative of x years.  That is, except by trivial like definition, we cannot say THE SUBSTANTIVE UNIVERSE REALLY is x years old.  What we CAN say is that the universe, relative to the shared experience availed to our light cone, is perceived by us to be x years old.  Insofar as our universe would seem to be a continuation of a previous prototype, barred from our perception or measure by a singular defining event (Big Bang), we have no means by which to say how old our universe "really" is --- except by arbitrarily defining substantive universe as not including any substance that may already have existed or in respect of which our shared events are singularly derived.

CONVENIENT RESORT TO MODELS:  Notice how Quantity Reductionists (aka atheistic empiricists and scientists) often resort to convenient models, then, when noticing how such models are always incoherent when pushed beyond a convenient use, simply rationalize by saying, after all, they are only models, i.e., figures of speech.  Yet, notice how often Quantity Reductionists complain when Quality Intuitionists (aka moral philosophers) do much the same, i.e., explicate religious texts as figures of speech.

MODELING FOR CONVENIENCE VERSUS MEANINGFULNESS:   Both with tools of math and logic, one can test to what purpose and limits various models and analogies may serve as accurate or worthwhile concepts, both in terms of mathematically quantifiable degrees and in terms of logically qualified categories. (Since categorical logic is easily availed even by persons with no particular specialization in math, priests for Quantity Reductionists often sniff that non-mathematicians are simply incapable of understanding their language, and therefore not qualified to critique their models.)
However, it seems one can --- mathematically, logically, and/or intuitively --- adduce the purposes, points, and edges at which various models or ways of thinking tend to become meaningless, noisome, or inapt conflations of wholes, parts, and points of consideration.  For example, Quantity Reductionism becomes obviously noisome when inappropriately drafted to try to support some grand theory regarding qualities of morality.

MASS FROM POINT OF CONSIDERATION OF UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE:  Does it avail any worthwhile model to consider that the Substance of the universe constitutes a system, which stores energy?  From the point of consideration of an individual photon, it is often modeled that it has no mass, but is a form of pure energy.  If numerous photons could somehow be conceptualized as being confined to a box, presumably they would be conceptualized as stored energy, thus contributing to the mass of the box.  Thus, may it be worthwhile to any purpose to conceptualize that photons, as energy stored to the substantive universe, contribute to its mass?

INAPTNESS OF QUANTITATIVE MODELS TO QUALITATIVE POLITICAL AND MORAL CONCERNS: Even were a unifying TOE for physics possible, it could hardly provide a precise solution for how to derive "ought" from "is." Insofar as a quantitatively precise guide to the "ought" issue is not possible, yet we have no choice but to make choices regarding that issue, we necessarily turn to qualitative models in order to rationalize and guide our choices.

FUNDAMENTAL INAPTNESS:  Many blinkered enthusiasts of Quantity Reductionism deride all models that pertain to moral and political figures of speech.  They tend especially to deride imaginary renditions of perhaps a most fundamental of religious metaphors, i.e., the face of God.  The most fundamental of metaphors for Quantity Reductionists seems to consist in a notion of a most fundamental point "particle," sort of like a tiniest bit of charged dust --- only not.  Logically, is not the notion of a fundamental point particle, when pushed to try to serve a complete theory of all of measurable Substance, charged with its own inherent incoherence?  At the point of considering the interfunctioning of beingness with choices to be made by consciously self aware beings, would it not be reasonable and worthwhile to consider how a model for a trinity of relations --- among (1) Conservable Substance, (2) Recordable Information, and (3) Conscious Self Awareness --- may enhance our Quality Intuitionism?

INTELLIGENT MATTER(?): How could mere illusions of continuous patterns (or models?) of relations “fill in the gaps” to sense and recognize one another, in order to relate to one another, as patterns holding Information, to store Information? Can mere patterns, simply as patterns, model one another as patterns, in order to be interpreted as CONTINUOUSLY taking notice of and interacting with one another, or must some trinitarian aspect be entailed? Intuitively, it would seem there must abide some singular, qualitative kind of orienting, pre-set of Information and Conscious Will (Will on autopilot?) that continues to be functioning, without which there would be no continuous filling in of gaps or shared appearance of patterns. Shared pre-sets must abide, subject to some mathematical function (Virtual Higgs Boson?), by which each pattern that is availed capacity to manifest or to store Information is also availed with an appearance of mass, in order to be subject to being recognized (signified) for interacting with one another within our common cone of experience.

REGARDING POINT PARTICLES:  Notions of Higgs bosons (or Virtual Higgs?) and other "point particles" may better be related to mathematical representations of some Aspect, whose fluxing quality can only be measurably apprehended in respect of point of view, context, practical purpose, and choice of model by which to “fill in gaps” with appearances of continuity — which are not otherwise real.  There is a qualitative separation that occurs between experiences of quantum gaps that fill patterns with continuous illusions (like the movies?).  Is this byproduct of subconscious PRE-SETS (of a holistic meta Source), or is it byproduct of  CHOICE SETS (made subsequent to feedback by and among beings imbued with particular, conscious identities)?  Or is it byproduct of both?  Should a mass inducing point particle better be conceptualized as a "Virtual Higgs," rather than as a “particle,” which in itself, as a mathematical function, cannot itself be accelerated, or even made to appear to be accelerated?  Should a Virtual Higgs better be conceptualized as a mathematical function that abides everywhere, which inter-functions between a meta Source and each other relative pattern, such inter-functioning being necessarily accompanied with “filling in gaps,” causing things and events to appear to be relatively massive, continuous, and movable, as well as transposable, among and between other appearances of relative patterns?


MODELS AND SELF FULFILLING AND GAP FILLING ILLUSIONS:  Our conscious minds inter-function and intertwine with relations and self-involved illusions, filling in gaps with things that are not there, continuously making substantive calculations regarding models for things that are not in themselves substantively continuous.  Our brains give significations to model supposed quantities for substances for which there abide no substantive reality.  To my intuition, the reason we are unable to adduce a model that can correlate with substantive reality in a way that is calculably complete, coherent, and consistent is because no such an underlying substance-based reality abides, apart from how "reality" is given signification via an interfunctioning with non-quantifiable, non-substantive qualities of Information and Consciousness.  Our communications are about a singularly shared illusion of substantive reality, not about substantive reality itself, because no such a thing is available to the mortal perspective.  Our models about Substance will always be warped to incomplete purposes, however astonishing the trip may be.  Our search for fulfillment is coextensive with a search for a model of substantive reality that, in itself, does not exist.  There is no ultimate substantive or mass-inducing particle or Higgs Boson by which to tie up all of substantive reality in a pretty bow.  If there does abide a singularly shared way for quantitatively explicating how substantive mass is induced or adduced, it abides not in substance, but in math itself.  And that will beg qualitative questions about an interface with Information and Consciousness.  Periodically, laughs punctuate God's patience.

*******
COMPARING FUNDAMENTAL FORCES AND FUNDAMENTS OF BEINGNESS:

Gravity has to do with providing a space-time MEDIUM for the storing and conveying of distortions and impressions of INFORMATION about our common cone of experience.  (The void became a medium.)

Strong and Weak forces have to do with providing means for DIGITAL FEEDBACK regarding measurable SUBSTANCE in respect of exchanges of DISCRETE quantitative quanta in interactions between the whole and the parts, the membrane and its strings, the waves and their local expressions of particularly observable and measurable effects.  (God saw that it was good.)

Electromagnetic Radiation and its relative constancy in speed across space-time has to do with providing means for perspectives of CONSCIOUSNESS to restrict and share illusions and gap-filling perceptions of a quality of CONTINUITY in substantive relations among perspectives inter-functioning within a common cone of experience.  (God breathed consciousness, and then self awareness, into perspectives and particular identities of consciousness.)

NO PARTICULAR THING IN ITSELF IS MEASURABLE OR KNOWABLE TO MORTALS, BUT ONLY INTUITED OR IMPLICATED: SUBSTANCE does not, in itself, exist. But the appearance of its existence, as means for storing sequences of INFORMATION, is NORMALIZED, via a relative-constant (speed of light), so that all who abide within a common cone of perception and CONSCIOUS experience are availed means to sense and communicate regarding their sequences of experiences.

CHRONOLOGICAL PROTECTIVE MECHANISM:  To perceive a complex pattern unfolding from widely separate loci in space-time is not necessarily to perceive subpatterns associated with it as unfolding in the same sequence from every perspective.  When points of view are near one another in space-time, or near a Substantive subpattern being observed, then Information regarding the sequences of unfolding will tend to be Consciously interpreted and perceived as occurring in the same chronology.  However, there is no knowable, existent, substantive, quantitatively measurable, pattern-in-itself.  Rather, there are appearances, and they are normalized to points of view of perspectives of Consciousness.  Even so, because of a Virtual Higgs Mechanism, which may be quantitatively derivable as a mathematical function, some appearances of relations, at very fine detail, may be computed as having unfolded in a same, quantitatively measurable sequence.  Intuitively, this would be in respect that The Source does exist and abide and interrelate with us, even though IT cannot, Itself, be directly sensed or quantitatively measured as a Substantive Thing or Birther of Particles.

IN-FORM-ATION AND PATTERNS:  Patterns are appearances of continuous forms.  The continuity consists in gap-filling illusions.  Quantifiable relations among point quanta at nuclear and chemical levels avail patterns that can be sensed and interpreted, as if they were continuously interacting forms.  However, as things in themselves, there are no continuous patterns.  APPEARANCES of patterns are associated not just with interfunctioning with quantitative Substance, but also with qualitative Information and Consciousness.  When results appear to follow interactions of patterns, masquerading as Substance, such apparent interactions among patterns are not in themselves causal, but epiphenomenally NORMALIZING for the sharing of appearances.  Patterns and forms neither exist in themselves, nor interact in themselves.  They are only apprehended to interact, or availed potential for being later apprehended or interpreted.  Absent interfunctioning with some level of Information and Consciousness (whether pre-set or post-set), there would be no property of continuosity in Substance to interpret.


NORMALIZATION: Do "virtual particles" function as appearances, secondary to playing a buffering role, so that all perspectives within our shared cone of experience may appreciate a common notion of universe, even though precise and particular aspects may fuzz or vary in sequence or appearance, depending on point of view and frame of reference? Are there other phenomena that play similar buffering roles for normalizing and conserving experiences, such as the relative-constant speed of electromagnetic radiation? Is such buffering necessary and secondary to how Consciousness manages to split among separate perspectives, so that each may convey meaningfully different apprehensions of possibilities to others, but within a commonly conserved logos and universe?

IS SUBSTANCE BEST MODELED AS BASED IN PARTICLES OR AS BASED IN MATHEMATICAL FUNCTIONS:  It seems oft expressed that quanta expressions of SUBSTANCE consist in "point particles" --- which lack space-time dimensionality in terms of measurable size, but not in terms of mathematically measurable expression of concentration of force of energy.  Even though conceived of as only measurable expressions of interfunctioning of mathematics, these "particles" seem to be the basis for all of matter, energy, mass, geometrical deformations in space-time for giving expression to gravity, and illusions of continuity for filling in gaps in patterns  (Is the geometry of space-time better conceived of as being deformed by Substance?  Or is it better conceived that Substance simply follows along the deformed geometry of space-time?  Or is it best conceived that both Substance and deformations in the geometry of space-time are best explicated by reference to a mix of Substance, Information, and Consciousness?  Perhaps the "answer" depends on purpose, point of view, and context.)

Regardless, patterns can be sensed as INFORMATION to the common interpretation of such apprehending perspectives of CONSCIOUSNESS as happen to share the same, singular cone of experiential beingness.  It does not seem that actual, sizeable physicality --- in terms of any dimensional occupation of grid-assigned loci in space-time --- is necessary to the experience of quantitatively measurable, Substantive Reality.  Indeed, an interpretation of unfolding functions of MATHEMATICS, operating upon a Meta Substance or Source, may better explicate the appearance of "ENERGY" than a notion of force being applied to particular bits of "matter."  Thus, a mix of Information and Consciousness, so long as sharing the same cone of experience, seems best to avail potential for apprehending continuity in unfolding of patterns and forms, even though such patterns are conceived as being based in an interfunctioning of mathematics rather than in force being applied to "real matter."


OF PRE-SET WILL AND POST-SET WILL:  A notion of a Source's deploying of mathematical functions to operate on or with a meta potential need not be inconsistent with an interpretation of "energy" appearing in relation to operations among sizeless point particles.  Such mathematical functions, operating with or on a meta potential, could express (1) pre-set determinants (natural laws), (2) random determinants (evolutionary replication of "the fittest" within degrees of freedom), and (3) post-set choices (higher levels of choice responses by individual perspectives to feedback from beyond their separately conscious identities).  That our universe exhibits astonishing potential is self evident.  It need be no more astonishing that such exhibitions are secondary to a Meta Potential for Willing, and mathematically guiding, various expressions of pre-set determinants and post-set choices (conscious and human free will).  That Meta Potential is what various perspectives of Consciousness may respect, or refer to, as "God."  Thus, Substance, aka "energy" (or stored energy), may be conceptualized as an illusion derivative of pure mathematics operating with meta potential, just as easily as it is conceptualized as being derivative of a meta notion of sizeless point particles that are imbued and charged with some kind of perpetual conservation of expansionist inertia.  There is a moral difference, however.  For the first, there is conceived room for God and empathetic moral reality; for the second, God and morality are either dead or illusions.

CAUSE IN ITSELF:  It would seem that not even God would "know" whether God were The Cause as opposed to merely an epiphenomenal puppet for The Cause (or The Source).  There seems to abide little of worth in such speculation.  However, it is practical to conceptualize and consider causes in relation to purposes, in relation to points of view and contexts.  Depending upon purpose and model, one may conceptualize causation as being indifferently pre-set (Determined), pre-set to randomly unfold in obedience to availed degrees of freedom (Random), or caringly and consciously guided (Chosen).  Regardless, every conceptualization of "cause" will occur in relation to a mix of Substance, Information, and Consciousness.

CAUSATION BEYOND SPACE-TIME PROXIMITY:  Insofar as patterns, in themselves, have no Substance, and point particles (quanta) have locus but no dimensional size (apart from measure of force), then the common illusion of causation in respect of bouncing billiard balls or pin balls, by itself, is incomplete, incoherent, and inconsistent.  Missing in the common analysis of causation is the necessity for qualities of Information and Consciousness to be in the mix with illusions of quantitative Substance.  We need Conceptualization for how Substance, Information, and Consciousness inter-relate, inter-conserve, and inter-transpose.  We need conceptualization for how Conscious Will can be stored, pre-set, guiding, or post-set --- to appear as Information and/or Substance, depending on purpose, point of view, context, feedback, and potentiality.


WHO IS THE PUPPET:  Does Information show that Consciousness is merely the derivative puppet of Substance, or that Substance is the puppet of Consciousness?  Or is it most consistent with intuition that none of Information, Consciousness, and Substance are derivative of the others, but that all are co-equal expressions, fluxing in respect of a digital like process of feedback among a holistic Source and particular representations of Itself?  Is that feedback process so singular and one of a kind that our math, logic, and models necessarily fail us each time we try to comprehend, construct, or replicate an exactly correlative duplicate?  Are the words "puppet" and "causation" necessarily inadequate and incomplete when it comes to trying to intuit or comprehend the relationships between each of our perspectives and the true Source?  For mortals, "CAUSATION" seems best modeled under notions of Qualitative fields (of Information, Consciousness, and Substance), fluxing and inter-functioning, thus giving Quantitative expression and direction to particles.  Reconciliation of Qualitative purposefulness with Quantitative practicality seems less well modeled under mechanistic notions of ultimate particles, as if causation should best be understood as mere byproduct of pinballs, Continuously bouncing off one another, without reference to Discrete, digital, quanticized expressions within fields.

WALLING AWAY PRAYER:  Whatever our notion of "Causation," we must accept that it cannot be entirely Quantified.  Rather, each time we choose or Qualify a point of view, we will necessarily contaminate any effort to separate a complete and entire Quantification from an interpenetrating aspect of Qualification.   The effect of Observing and the raising of Consciousness cannot be entirely walled away from from Causation.  Rather, the raising of Consciousness and the power of positive thinking are aspects of a qualitatively paranormal power --- the power of conscious PRAYER and meditation.  It is tediously asinine to prescribe that prayer must be WALLED away from the public square, because it is simply impossible for Conscious Prayer to be walled away from Secular Purpose.   This is because every perspective of consciousness is NECESSARILY IN A CONSTANT RELATIONSHIP with the Field of Consciousness (aka, God).


POWER IN ITSELF:  Constitutions, laws, and regulations are oft resorted to, in order to check and balance social proclivities.  As mere representations of Information, they are without power, in themselves.  They have effect only insofar as they are respected, and they are respected only insofar as they are consistently applied, either by social moral consensus and acceptance of tradition, or by consciously organized agency of force.  A good intention that is enacted as a law is with little effect for a society that does not want it, is not ready for it, and does not respect it.  For example, a balanced budget amendment would little avail to induce a society to be fiscally responsible, once society has overburdened itself with entitlement-minded attitudes and peoples who are anything but fiscally responsible.  There is no magic in law, or lack of law, that can reform a corrupt, ignorant, un-insightful people. To be decent, a people must assimilate values in respect of a consensus about what is necessary and desired in order to sustain a decent civilization.  Multicultural diversity in America has so rotted out the values under which America has heretofore been assimilated that there is little hope that America can soon find the will to clear away the rot.  As things stand, all significant American institutions, including those of science, are blinkered with rot.  Rot that is resolutely aligned to corrupt or wipe away every institution that is needed in order to sustain decency.

********

MODELING GOD:  Conceptualize God as that which reconciles all feedback in mathematical operatives among the whole and the parts, and among all degrees of freedom, including degrees of freedom within operatives that are pre-set, operatives that are random, and post-set operatives that are responsive to apprehensions of observers.  The more pre-set and controlling the mathematical operatives, the greater the confidence of an observer in making predictions.  The more uncontrollably random the mathematical operatives, the greater the confidence of an observer in making statistical analyses.  The less the applicability of pre-sets, randomness, or control, the greater the uncertainty, until a result is made manifest.  The less the applicability of pre-sets or controlled randomness, the less any man should dare conceit to predict how God shall reconcile the sum of all apprehensions --- unless such man be imbued, blessed, or cursed with hubris enough to feign to know and prophesy the Mind of God.

EVIDENCE OF GOD:  Evidence of God's continuing and reconciling presence does not, and cannot, abide in the reliability of empirical statistics or the methods of pure, substance-based, measurable science.  Rather, the evidence consists in three other aspects:  First, there abides what C.S. Lewis called "inside information."  This is borne out of awareness of our own separately unfolding conscious identities.  Second, there abides an obvious condition of conscious beingness:  That is, we have no choice but to make unfolding, unpredictable, non-scientifically determinable, purposeful choices from among such degrees of freedom as are obviously availed to us.  Third, there abides as much or more moral utility, mathematical coherence, and logical consistency for a notion of a field of consciousness (God) as for a notion that the only "real" field is entirely and quantitatively based in unconscious Substance, consisting of entropically directed forces (or energies) --- but otherwise dumb, inanimate, unconscious, and without moral purpose.  It is at least as practical to suppose that energy is the illusion, derivative of reconciling mathematical operatives of God, as it is to suppose that reconciling mathematical operatives are the illusion, derivative purely of substantive energy.  There is no necessary or mathematical inconsistency between a field of conscious reconciliation of mathematically-based degrees of freedom versus a field of energy.

RECONCILIATION OF MATHEMATICAL OPERATIVES:  Somehow, within our shared cone of experience, some meta source (God?) reconciles the mathematical weights of our variously entangled and qualitative perspectives of apprehensions.  Each manifesting upshot is reconciled out of fuzz of feedback among variously contending apprehensions among degrees of freedom availed the parts and the whole.  To the extent various perspectives share a common, entangled context and cone of experience, each sequential upshot will be interpreted as part of a shared, connecting pattern.  What binds, to avail our shared illusions of continuosity?  Do point-particle-placeholders for mathematically charged operatives function together, to convey illusions of interconnecting, continuous forms?  Are such illusions derivative of point particles and electrons ACTUALLY being shared among variously charged collections of sizeless particles, or are such shared and charged point particles mere ILLUSIONS, derivative of meta-based interpretions signified to variously entangled perspectives of consciousness?  One may model such entanglements and bindings as accompany perceptions of continuity or simultaneity as being associated with (1) shared electrons as actual substance, or (2) appearance of shared electrons as mere logos of God, serving as commonly apprehended placeholders in order to facilitate communications among perspectives of Consciousness.  Either model can be as suitable as the other, depending on purpose, point of view, and context.  One may model sizeless particles and charges as if they are actual, or as if they are mere indicia of mathematical functions, secondary to logos-placeholding for apprehensions among variously entangled perceptions of meta-Consciousness.  The "question you have to ask yourself" is this:  Does the notion of a "sizeless particle" seem any less metaphysical than a notion of "meta-Substance of God?"

ASSOCIATIVE ENTANGLEMENTS SHARED WITHIN OUR NORMALIZING CONE OF EXPERIENCE:  Space-time associates with the normalization of Substance and mass within the context of Information availed within our shared medium.  Electromagnetic radiation associates with the normalization of Information conveyed among points of view within our shared medium.  Strong and weak forces associate with the normalization, reconciliation, and collapse of perspectives of Consciousness within our shared medium.  Qualities of continuosity are derivative of mathematically quanticized and digitized feedback within the quality of a meta Source, between its capacities for representing holistic versus particularistic expressions of self Will.  Apart from the Oneness of such effect, we have no sub-model by which to replicate, correlate, map, or demonstrate IT's capacity or potential.  There is none other like IT.

*******

NON-TRIVIAL ESSENTIAL ONENESS OF THE SOURCE — THE ULTIMATE ONE-OF-A-KIND THING-IN-ITSELF: Purely mathematical formulas that show equalities on both sides of their equations merely state tautologies, and thus are trivial in their statements. When quantitative mathematical operatives are applied to forms that are not changed in their underlying qualities, their processes tend to be reversible and trivial. However, substantive, qualitative conversions and transformations of kinds, that unfold in respect of chemical and nuclear formulas, tend not to be trivial, because they discharge byproducts in processes that tend not to be easily re-gathered or reversed. A sequential, often entropic, DIRECTION to such processes tends to be sustained to the our common cone of unfolding experience. Thus, non-trivial applications of mathematical operatives are attached to transform experiences of RELATIONAL QUALITIES of substances into different qualities. In those cases, the “TERRITORY” that is operated on and measured in mathematics is not mere math. Rather, “Something” that is qualitatively different from pure math is being operated on by, or in respect of, the math — and that Something cannot be reduced to pure math or to pure quantification. That Something can partake of, or unfold to represent, various forms of relationships — but its essential aspect necessarily remains beyond empirical measure, thus Metaphysical. Indeed, the very notion of "forms" brings to mind in-form-ation. OF WHAT ARE ALL THESE "FORMS" COMPOSED OR IN-FORMED? Intuitively, must not all forms to which we can relate eventually trace back and be composed of one common meta-substance, Source, or thing-in-itself, to which we, in our separately relational Identities, within our common cone of experience, cannot, at least not directly, relate? Is not every form with which we relate but an aspect or perspective of the one Form with which we cannot, at least not directly, relate, nor quantitatively know, but only intuit and indirectly apprehend, via an innate quality of love or EMPATHY? Must that Something somehow have directionally "cracked symmetry" and "looked at Itself in a mirror?" Must atheists be somehow irretrievably, objectively, and scientifically opposed or indifferent to empathy beyond objectivity? Or are they simply confused by their own falls into bottomless rabbit holes of faux-quantifiable "objectivity?" Does the wiring in their brains become that of an addict, twisted or ensnared by their own muscle-bound devotion and addiction to trivial aspects of mathematics?

NON-TRIVIAL THREE-BODY TRIADS: Once META-ONENESS of symmetry is cracked, much of PRACTICAL LOGIC BECOMES DIRECTIONALLY TRIVALENT, with no clear, “either-or,” reversible, correlative mapping. Rather, triads flux in their directional correlations, fuzzing and transposing in their connections and relationships. Triads such as: wholes, parts, sums; essences, forms, relations; discrete, continuous, appearance of continuity; math, logic, chance; space, time, direction; past, present, future; quantity, quality, capacity; uncertain potential, present manifest, likely unfolding; been, being, becoming; Substance, Information, Consciousness; known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns; indifferently determined, randomly determined, caringly determined; stored consciousness, active consciousness, self consciousness; energy, stored energy, mathematical operatives; pre-set, guided, post-set; replicable, predictable, purposeful; trivial, practical, moral; brain, mind, soul; measurable catalyst, unmeasurable catalyst, non-replicable evolution; legislative, judicial, executive; directional purpose (Father), medium of context (Holy Ghost), concentration of perspective (Son).  While METAPHORS and parables may avail insights for apprehending unexpected ways in which such triads inter-relate, bivalent logic will not avail precise predictability for such non-trivial, three body concerns.

*******
Lay level research to do:  Flat universe; Light cone; Time simultaneity; Chronology protective mechanism; if matter is constituted of stored energy, what of mass?

@Thus spake Dlanorrenrag.