The Quality of the Continuous v. the Quantity of the Discrete

.
The Quality of the Continuous v. the Quantity of the Discrete:

.

Is the experience of the Qualitative like the experience of the Continuous? Is it possible that both the experience of the continuous and of the qualitative can be reductively modeled to digital switching, back and forth, as from: zero to one, on to off, yes to no, positive to negative, field to particle?

.

Suppose the duration of the perpetual present abides in the fluxing instant of each sequence of charged exchanges between a reconciling field and its various, particular expressions. Suppose each particular perspective functions and fluxes within parameters of its allowed quanta exchanges. And each subfield and superior field mediates, reconciles, balances, conserves, and synchronizes all such exchanges. Suppose there were a meta-mathematical halter or gap between each particular flux and its reconciliation to its field. If so, no mortal could ever measure or experience such gap. Every mortal perspective would ecperience the unfolding of quantum exchanges as if no such gap in time existed and as if present time were extant and continuous, even though it were really sequentially discrete and granular.

.

Similarly, suppose each mortal perspective functions from an apparently superior brain, focus, or point of view, while, actually, the point of view is facilitated by an organic synthesis that functions in respect of a swarm of cells, all drawing from the context of a shared, defining, encompassing field. If so, for every charged exchange, there would abide organically synchronizing chains of supporting exchanges, below the level of self consciousness of the coordinating brain. Each exchange would determine an appreciation or decision: yes-no, on-off, positive-negative, like-dislike.

.

The appearance of a qualitative range of like-dislike for each apprehension for an entire field of sub-determinations and discharges of choices would emerge from reconciliation of all sub-decisions and subsystems in respect of superior decisions and systems. No particular mortal perspective would be able to pre-quantify and reconcile all factors that would predict and reconcile all decisions of its own supporting organism. Yet, quantitative decisions would have been spread out and made within the encompassing field. That is, the field would have measured all the quantitatives that went into the qualitative experience of the organism, even though the brain of the organism could not itself have pre-measured all the quantiatives that factored into its decisions.

.

In that way, it seems sequences could unfold discretely, even though they appear to unfold continuously, and experiences could be entirely determined by quantitative exchanges, even though they seem to be guided or determined by qualitative appreciations.

.

This does not mean the God and free will do not exist. It only means that concepts about God and free will need to extend to the unfolding guidance and reconciliation that occurs among encompassing fields, beyond mere perimeters of skins of organisms. Insofar as the reconciling field is math based, it still needs a meta-qualitative to operate the math and guide and reconcile its feedback. This does not mean that the qualitative does not exist, nor does it mean that the qualitative is reducible by mortals to the merely quantitative. It does, however, suggest that the reconciling field (God) has capacity to quantify that which mortals experience as qualitative.

.
 

The Qualitative For How Light Works

.

REGARDING MATH, logic, random probability analysis, statistical trends, and Bayes' law: Mathematically digitized CHARGES facilitate exchanges across equal signs and measurable quantitatives of cross currents and radiations of charged spins and vibrations of significations, to express: zero v. one; true v. false; either v. or; positive v. negative; electrical v. magnetic; binding v. radiating; reinforcing v. diminishing; borrowing v. annihilating; field v. particle.

.

LIVING MATH: Suppose all that one can quantitatively record, observe, and measure is derivative of a meta-immeasurable quality that avails field-point-geometry of math to be represented, signified, experienced, and communicated as if it were operating on itself, i.e., math equations operating on math equations, systems of sets operating on systems of sets, subsets operating across and within overlapping and subsuming sets, all dovetailing in nothing more than math: If such a system of fluxing equations avails all that is substantively, measurably experienced, and if one cannot measurably know the qualitative "why" for the determinations and choices that are manifested and explicated within the possible limits of math, then can one at least explicate the quantitative "how"?

.

MEDIUM FOR MATH OPERATING ACROSS EQUAL SIGNS: That is, can it be explicated HOW nothing more than math is quantitatively experienced as fluxing across the equal signs of equations? Can it be explicated HOW significations of "things" are quanticized to flux and preserve the balance of the perpetual present? How are fluxes of things in-formed and represented as images, sensed, translated, modified, and communicated? Is all of measurable Information represented and recorded in nothing more than potential of geometry for expressing spins and vibrations? Is all communication (transmission and reception) of Information represented via nothing more than potential that is measurably clothed in geometry for expressing dark-material foldings (expansions and contractions) of space-chronology and energetic radiations (of EMR, electronic beams, nuclear radioactivity, and cosmic rays)? If light is nothing more than a representation of a medium for fluxing across equal signs of mathematical equations, then how, quantitatively, does such medium work? How does light receive, transmit, and balance images across geometrical expanses? How does light mediate to allow math to be experienced as operating on math, to allow math to be experienced as trading across equal signs of equations for balancing geometrical representations of forms?

.

LIGHT MEDIUM: Should each photon, radiating beam, or mediator for recording and transmitting Information be conceptualized as a special kind of geometrical point, spin, vibration, and/or wave or field, that expresses capacity to deform itself in order to capture a surface impression of other kinds of points, spins, vibrations, and/or waves or fields? Does each photon serve as a camera, for recording and transmitting geometrical Information from previous sequences of significations to a record that is availed to the perpetual present? Must each photon's capture of Information be balanced and locked, so as to be imparted and discharged only to a properly quanticizing and receptive receiver? Pending discharge to a receiver, must the image captured by a photon (or field of photons) be kept un-discharged?
.
MATH BASED PERPETUAL BEINGNESS: Information about representations about preceding sequences of significations is borrowed and transitioned forward in order to balance the equation of the perpetual present. Preceding significations, in themselves, are not preserved in the manifest (except possibly in the fractal potentiality of the recurrent). Once a Perspective is adopted to a Subsystem of significations (cone of experiential sensation), it will experience and sense such significations as it happens to share with other perspectives within its contextual system, as they happen within a subsystem to share under a common system. The System is math based, as are the subsystems that sub under it. The “under” is more like a feedback-dovetailing among fractals than a hierarchy.

.

RE-CENTERING COSMOS: The measurable cosmos is merely math that is signified for operating on math. The Qualitative that avails such signification is not itself measurable. Each perspective functions from its own re-normalized center. There is no center-in-itself to the measurable cosmos, because there is no measurable cosmos-in-itself. No particular mortal gets to “see” the edge of the cosmos. One only gets to see limits of capacities for iterations to remove from the present representation of the original signification of the extant iteration of Big Bang, in order to look back upon it. Capacity to look back dovetails, so it is limited to how light (radiation of Information) is dissipated and transitioned throughout the perpetual present. Not even light exists in itself. There is no-thing to dissipate. The aspect of light, ultimately, is more like math, mediating and borrowing and carrying forward in order to balance and preserve the perpetual present.

.

CIRCULAR DOVETAILING VS FINAL VICTORY: Dr. Seuss wrote of a worm who put down a bear and rabbit by claiming to see clear around Earth, to see the back sides of the two biggest bragging fools that have ever been seen. I suspect variations on the Hubble telescope will eventually lead us to an insight: That the Cosmos Field does not in itself have a measurable size. Rather, the size measured is limited by the centering capacity of the perspective and its use of light as a medium for transmitting Information about mathematical Iterations of perspectives of one Reconciling Qualitative. At some point, apparent Information circles back to the beginning of the same field. The cosmos is not in itself a fractal. However, it is a signification of dovetailing Iterations of Fractal Fields (Geometric Representations of Sub-Balanced Equations.

.

COSMOS REPRESENTS A DOVETAILING FRACTAL: The Cosmos is not a hierarchical fractal, but a dovetailing fractal, like a Cheshire Cat, or a Ouroboros. Substantive Significations-in-themselves do not exist, apart from a System that necessitates interfunctioning among aspects of sequences of Information and Consciousness (i.e., feedback affecting contemporaneity in determinations within allowed parameters).
.
LABELING: Consider the hubris and conceit of expecting to understand a person, aspect, or concept merely by giving him or it a name. Common labels and parables are only beginning points, i.e., cultural metaphors for discussing unfolding interpretations --– not preset rulings for every situation.
.

THE QUALITATIVE OF MEANING, PURPOSE, EMPATHY, INTUITION: The habit of expecting quantitatively to prove every idea or thing that is worth communicating is derivative of hubristic delusion, often in aid of evil deceit of friends and self. The habit of expecting debate to lead to quantitative synthesis of truth in every concern is conducive to games of bait and switch, that pretend to measurably prove or disprove the immeasurable by conflating and switching the quantitative with the qualitative. This habit has led to an excess of attorneys, skilled in the ways of deceit. Also, an excess of similarly skilled and inclined advertisers, journalists, and scientists and apologists for political demagogues. There is much potential for temporal profit in conditioning people to give too much benefit of doubt to the science of Evil.
.

HOLISTIC RECONCILING FIELD:  Consciousness is exhibited and experienced relative to a subsystem (part) within a field (whole) as information (preset chronology preservation) and energy (substance) are received, selected, interpreted, processed, and contemporaneously determined (willed) to the advantage (purposefulness) of the temporal survival and flourishing of the subsystem. Neither the subsystem nor the field are conscious. Rather, together, they exhibit an experience of consciousness. Information about the past, measurement of Substance regarding the present, and contemporaneous determination of purposeful Consciousness do not sum to constitute the Holistic Reconciling Field. Rather, they are merely aspects that are expressed by the Holistic Reconciling Field. The Field is more than any Sum of Information, Substance, and Consciousness.

.
 

HOW WILL TO APPRECIATE CAUSES SUBSTANTIVE EFFECTS

HOW WILL TO APPRECIATE CAUSES SUBSTANTIVE EFFECTS:

.
THE PERPETUAL PRESENT: The present consists of a perpetual process of feedback: back and forth between the (conserving, unifying, Wholism) Reconciling Field and its multitudinous, adopted, sequencing perspectives (Parts; more descriptively: phase-aspects normalized to relative locus).

.

ALTERNATING CURRENT OF DIGITAL FEEDBACK: There abides between the Whole and said “Parts” (Field and “Particles”) a perpetual, participatory give and take that synchronizes and conserves (preserves) evaluations. Such evaluations process and effect an ever changing, fluxing store of signs and significations, i.e., Information. The expression of the Present accompanies a digital, on-off feedback of vibrational mathematics between the perspective of the Whole and the perspectives of such Parts.

.

ONLY TIME IS PRESENT TIME: There is no “time” other than the digitized duration of the Perpetual Present. There is no Past time, only previously sequenced, mathematically layered, fluxing geometries of forms of stored Information (i.e., Substance).  Information pertains to the chronological sequencing of previous unfoldings.  Substance pertains to the present measurement of accumulated stores of Information.

.

HOW WILL TO APPRECIATE CAUSES SUBSTANTIVE EFFECTS: No human being can by telekinesis will a penny to climb up a wall. So, how can the mere choosing by a perspective of what to appreciate be expected to affect anything? Well, Substance is merely the presently measurable manifestation of Information. Thus, the focusing of a choice affects and adds to and alters the balance of locally accumulating layers of Information. After awhile, there is an effect of ATTRACTION or overbalancing, that tips Information in a way that substantively affects future events, to favor those events towards which appreciations tend. That effect can be leveraged by channeling electrical impulses secondary to thought commands, to transmit from the brain through electrodes in order to power machinery. Eventually, a field for empathetic communication may be constructed such that electrode connections are no longer necessary.
.

SPIRITUAL TELEKENISIS EFFECT OF CONSCIOUS APPRECIATION: Humanity’s words are helping to focus to a point for conceptualizing this state of affairs as part of its Information, i.e., information about the character of information. This episodically awakening conceptualization will affect the empathetic quality of feedback and communication. Notwithstanding various blowups, this will eventually lead to a Civilization of Empaths — although such a civilization may itself be a mere part of a temporal sequence of the perpetual present. I do not believe there is a Final End. I much doubt there is a final end that entails only the vision of Arthur {spelling?} Clarke in “Childhood’s End."

.

********************
LAWS OF SUBSTANTIVE PHYSICS AS APPLIED TO INFORMATION:  It is sometimes thought that the fundamental forces or laws of nature that apply to measurable Substance do not apply to Information.  Thus, it is thought that Information in itself is not ATTRACTIVE or subject to gravitation, magnetism, or electrical charge, etc.  Yet, Information works as Information because it is subject to being recorded, stored, ATTRACTED, drawn from, CONSERVED (preserved) and conveyed ... much as Substance is.  This leads me to suspect that Information is simply the record of previous sequences (often spread out generally within a field) that lead up to its being stored in presently measurable Substance.  Even though Information, as it is being collapsed and brought by appreciation into manifest being, is not presently measurable under laws of physics until it accumulates into present Substance, that does not mean that decisions (drawn from the field) to collapse, accumulate, or deploy Information are entirely lacking in DELAYED EFFECT (attraction or repuslion, etc.) on substantively measurable physics.  It just means the effects are not collapsed to be measured until they are accumulated to be stored in Substance.  That is, until the Information is APPRECIATED/CHOSEN.  When mind-will-evaluation come to instil more immediate effect in collapsing non-measured Information into measured Substance, then the physics of informational relations will become more obvious.
.
******************
.
PROBLEMS:

The law of Conservation of Substance (matter and energy are interchangeable, but total remains constant) does not allow an accumulation or creation of local new Substance unless there is an offsetting loss of previous or distant Substance.

.

Potential change in Information is infinite, but the total of Information presently manifested in Substance must remain constant. The way I am defining Information, some old must be lost when some new is created.

.

Law of Entropy says Substance dissipates. I say Substance is not in itself real, but only appears to dissipate from a center of a shared, algorithimically-based cosmos. The kind of Consciousness that shares humanity's cone of experience must be experiencing an appearance of outbound dissipation of substantive significations.

.

That appearance must be offset (or traded in) for an increase in the organization of Information apprehended by Consciousness. Apparent dissipation of Substance must be related to apparent increase of Information. Information local to each Perspective of Consciousness must be increasing, while Information distant in Space-Chronology-Preservation must be decreasing. In relating to Perspectives, Information mediated or made manifest to local perspectives must increase, while Information made manifest regarding distances away must offsettingly decrease. What about in relating to the Reconciling Field: Does such Field ever gain or lose Information? Perhaps not, because Information for IT is always available in Infinite Potential. I cannot meaningfully rationalize whether IT learns or de-learns by gaining or losing Information or Experience. I must be satisifed to believe IT seeks Qualitative unfoldings of relations with Perspectives.

.

Thus, it seems there must be a capacity for Information to mediate tradeoffs in local versus distant experiences of Substance, without changing the total of Substance, as mediated by changes in accessibility to Information. Local Information must substantially increase, even as local Substance dissipates. Information "itself" cannot be massed or weighed, except insofar as it mediates changes in Substance. However, its accessibility to local Consciousness must, in some broad, Smeared Out way, be increasing.

.

When Substance relative to Consciousness dissipates beyond the capacity for local Consciousness to access local increases in Information, there must be entailed some fundamental local change in the mathematics of the Field for supporting local Consciousness --- perhaps some kind of condensation, collapse, or qualitative new Big Bang beginning.

.
ALTERNATING MASKS OF INFORMATION:  Information, in form, presents itself in both the quantitative and the qualitative: It is quantitative to Substance, qualitative to Conscious Purposefulness.  Whether an aspect of Information is quantitative or qualitative depends not on the Information itself, but on whether the Information is being applied substantively or purposefully. Whether the Field at any particular focus or locus is expressing itself Substantively, Informationally, or Consciously depends not on the Field itself, but on how the Field is then and there purposing to apply itself.
.
 

 

Space-Time is a Misnomer

 

NEITHER TIME NOR THE PAST REALLY EXISTS, BECAUSE ONLY THE PRESENT REALLY EXISTS. THUS, THERE IS NO TIME TRAVEL. THERE IS ONLY CONTEXTUAL CHANGE IN RESPECT OF THE ETERNAL PRESENT. THE "FABRIC" FOR SUBSTANTIVE EXPRESSION IS NOT A WEB OF SPACE-TIME, BUT A RENORMALIZING WEB OF SPACE-PERSPECTIVISM OR SPACE-CHRONOLOGY.

.

INNATE FRACTAL PRODUCTION BY FIELD: Information is a present signification of a previous signification. How does Information, which is itself a signification, measure, mirror, and transmit representations of previous significations? There must be some capacity for charging fractal mirror representations of fractal mirror representations. This capacity must be innate to a unifying field. EMR must be availed capacity, upon contact with other fractal systems of spins and vibrations and waves, to encode and transmit fractal representations of them. Eye systems develop capacity, upon receipt, to mediate such transmissions of representations to a decoding calculator or brain.

.

RETRIEVAL OF FRACTAL CODED INFORMATION: Apparently, Information representing previous significations may be accurately preserved by EMR through great distances in space-chronology, free of dissipation or distortion. Through how many perspectives of sequences among expansions and contractions of space-chronology is such accuracy measurably preserved?

.

MANIFESTATION: Every present manifestation of a measurable Signification is immediately encoded to some kind of representation for storeage and transmission in respect of a medium (such as EMR), as Information. Such coded Information will be transmitted with a stream of coders, until it is eventually decoded when it makes contact with, and is manifested to, an appropriate receiver.

.

LAYERS OF PREVIOUS INFORMATION: Once a measurable signification has manifested, and the transaction has been passed by subsequent sequences, such Information is thereafter preserved as another layer of Information, not as any thing or Substance in itself.

.

INFINITE RETRIEVAL OF INFORMATION WITHIN FIELD OF CONSCIOUSNESS: Consciousness, by removing perspectives of itself a sufficient "distance" in the mathematically represented geometry of Space-Chronology, may sense and appreciate previous representations of Information indefinitely often, from an infinity of possible perspectives. Consciousness interacts with the representational aspect of such Information -- not as Substance, but to appreciate it as Information (and therewith are added new layers to it). However, Consciousness does interact with the presently Substantive EMR conveyer of such Information. As a present conveyer, EMR is substantive. As a representer of the past, EMR is informative.

.

 

The Reconciling Field

.

THE FIELD is one reconciling field. Not a sum of 3 fields.  Sometimes, temporal, practical purposes can be served by considering or modeling The Field AS IF it were 3 fields: C-Consciousness; S-Substance; I-Information. Such modeling would be to facilitate practical appreciation of a severable point of view (C) within a (S) context towards a (I) purpose.

.

In that respect:

.

S-FIELD:  An S-Field can be modeled as if it quantitatively and presently implicates natural laws that geometrically define, conserve, and renormalize parameters for spins fluxing within and around spins within the light cone of experience that is ruled by such S Field. The S Field operates presently: contemporaneous with feedback among related sequences of sensation, representation, observation, recordation, translation, communication.  Substance is the Field's relational measurability of the present.

.

I-FIELD:  An I-Field can be modeled as if it quantitatively preserves a mathematical record or memory of the chronology of all past, preset, and previous sequences of spins transitioning up to the present, as a contextual basis or frame of reference. Even though a record of Information may have been created in the past, the light-based communication of it may take an infinite variety of times, simply by removing observers to ever more distant loci in space-time, folding space-time where needed in order to position observers to eventually receive and review such information in their local contexts. Even so, the folding of space-time for distant viewers would not alter the local sequence from which a light signal originated, although such folding may alter the sequence, extent, and clarity with which the information is received. The light that records or affects each local event would, contemporaneous with such event, be substantive. The non-contemporaneous message it conveys would be informative. All along its path, each spin that functions to define light photons, waves, and transmissions of information would be both substantive and informational --- depending on purpose of analysis, point of view, and context.  Information is the Field's recorded memory of sequences previous to the present.

.

C-FIELD:  Regardless, the S-Field and the I-Field would both facilitate quantitative measurements. But what would, at each present moment, receive, interpret, appreciate, and qualitatively react to such quantitative measurements? What field would take the otherwise chaos of the S and I Fields and qualitatively guide them, out of all possible manifestations consistent with their parameters, to "choose" any particular manifestation for any present unfolding? That would be the C-Field, the Consciousness Field, the field that sponsors particular perspectives of consciousness as they contemporaneously (not pre-set)appreciate, experience, and will among possibilities of choice.  Nowness is the qualitative experience of the Field's Consciousness.

.

DERIVATIVE DEPENDENCE:  Again, the S, I, and C Fields are not real in themselves. All are derivatives of the Reconciling Field, which reconciles pre-set with contemporaneous and random determinations, quantitative measurements with qualitative appreciations, the expression of each particular with the conservation of the holism, and the capacity for holistic and overlapping appreciation with locally perspectivistic appreciations.

.

CONSERVATION OF INFORMATION:  Since the I-Field is not itself real, it seems not reasonable to suppose that all Information must be conserved, or that the Reconciling Field never forgets. However, I think this much may be said: Regardless of whether Information can be lost to the Field of Consciousness, Information cannot, to the knowledge of any particular perspective, be lost to the Consciousness Field. In other words, your information will always be conserved and re-normalized in its potential for being measured to your local experience. In other words, when you forget something, you will not remember what it was that you forgot, and you will rationalize every measurable as if it were perfectly consistent with all that could ever be known.

.

THE CAUSE:  An avatar can experience a contemporaneous quality of intuiting or appreciating how an event is to unfold or manifest. But "the cause" is not limited to the avatar. The cause is only appreciated from the perspective of the avatar. Moreover, "the cause" would not be limited to the C-Field generally. However, "the cause" of each contemporaneously then and there unfolding event or locus of signification would factor feedback both from the C-Field generally and from such of its particular perspectives as may be within the cone of effect (or empathetic affect). Even so, "the cause" would not even be limited to the feedback within the C-Field. This is because the C-Field is only a conceptualization for aiding qualitative communication. Ultimately, "the cause" is the Reconciling Field, which defies breakdown into perfectly severable and measurable parts. This is why the math of set theory is limited and why "the whole is more than the sum of its parts": Because the Whole (the Reconciling Field) does not have true parts, but only "as if" parts, as aids for communication and dependent on purpose, point of view, and context of reference.

.

MORAL CONCERNS:  This begs moral questions: What should we believe that the Field (or even the C-Field) prescribes for what we "ought" to be seeking and doing? Intuitively, empathetically, I seem unable to ascertain any linearly or measurably achievable goal in itself. I intuit there is only a shared qualitative goal: to perpetually seek to apply our intuitive capacities to express ourselves empathetically and artistically. For that, we are availed means, but no measurable end. We pursue happiness; we don't achive or own it. Our reach perpetually exceeds our grasp, perhaps even the grasp of the C-Field, and even the Reconciling Field.

.
QUALITATIVE V. QUANTITATIVE THINKING:  Thinking in feelings and observations:   Feelings are qualitative thoughts; observations are quantitative thoughts.
.

IS V. OUGHT:  Measurable How (IS) v. Immeasurable Why (OUGHT): Measuring trends of what IS will suggest ways for effecting measurables. It will not suggest the qualitative immeasurables one OUGHT to attempt to express.

.
Don't think "time." Think chronology preservation among vibrations and spins, preserved and synchronized in respect of a universal nowness. Substance is the relational measurability of the present. Information is the Field's recorded memory of sequences previous to the present.  Nowness is the qualitative experience of the field -- which experience can be called Consciousness.
.
REALITY:  The only real thing that exists is the qualitative entity of a field that presently avails contemporaneous expression of Consciousness. Every "thing" else is mere math, quantitatively derivable, i.e., mere geometrically formulated signification of the "Substance" of spins and vibrations in respect of such field, or "Informational" accumulations of previous significations in respect of such field.  Apart from present fields and perspectives of consciousness, every "thing" else is stubborn illusion.

.

 

Universal Nowness

RIDDLE OF NOWNESS AND FOLDING SPACE-TIME: The Big Bang idea postulates an expansion of space, without which a limiting speed of light would not make sense. The idea of a Bubble Warp Drive is to control such phenomena artificially, by expanding and contracting space as desired. 

. 

See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/18/nasa_eagleworks_warp_drive/

and http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29.

.

Can consciousness bond with material avatars and push them beyond the otherwise limiting speed of light by manipulating foldings (expansions and contractions) of bubbles of space-time? If a perspective of consciousness did so, would it thereby have altered the past? I think not, because ITS EXPERIENCE OF THE UNFOLDING PRESENT would always accompany whatever bubble it rode with. If it traveled from Earth to a distant star by contriving to exceed the speed of light, it would arrive at such star in such bubble's coordinate PRESENT. It would affect the light that emanates from such star to us only from that point forward, and that light would not until then have left to venture towards Earth. However, if it is possible to so fold space-time, then there is an implication: That the cosmos does synchronize to a UNIVERSALLY UNFOLDING PRESENT. In that respect, the cosmos would seem to share in common a "universal chronological protective mechanism" ("age"), i.e., NOWNESS.
.

Am I wrong?
.
QUALITATIVE FEEDBACK BETWEEN HOLISM AND PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVES:  If there abides a universal nowness, then there would seem to abide a universal FIELD that SYNCHRONIZES it and instantaneously enforces mathematically geometric based rules of CONSERVATIONS with respect to it. What then would guide such FIELD? Qualitative appreciation of FEEDBACK in respect of perspectives of that which it unfolds?
 

The Secret

The economy has to do with both words and deeds.  Words without good deeds are dead,  while deeds unguided by good words are dry.  Too many Lefties only dream, while too many Conservatives only work.  Lefty science often balances on faith that the secret to happiness can be collectively achieved merely by thinking happy thoughts.  This may be why Lefties always have a crush on regimes that mask propensities for sacrificing populations to dreams.  Conservative science often balances on faith that happiness will rain down if only each individual will work to preserve proper forms.  Lefties' feelings covet things they observe; Conservatives' feelings work towards things they imagine. Lefties tend to be easily deluded, while Conservatives' individual dreams tend to be uncommunicated and therefore uninspiring.  Romney needs to crack a way to inspire Lefties' dreams by pointing up the value of happy thoughts about individual work, initiative, and opportunity.

Rigged Game

.

No doubt, frequent failure to communicate between generations is frustrating on all sides. That frustration intensifies as agitators exploit the differences to serve corrupt interests. Today, I came across an article by a noted Lefty that mocks the Romney-Ryan ticket as being doomed because, according to its slant, it appeals only to middle-aged, straight, white guys. As if the economy Romney would encourage would not avail opportunity to every talented or energetic worker, regardless of whether he/she is straight/gay, blue/green, or young/old. The implication of such agitators is that these white guys don't want to share with anyone else (talk about yellow-bellied race baiting!), and they don't want to recognize shares to which every possible minority should be entitled. This is the zero sum, government as central teat model. It implies that white guys are pigging out. It udderly fails (pun intended) to recognize that most of the white guys don't want a government teat, and don't want a micro-managing, governmental regulator of entitlements, but do want to establish and preserve opportunity for everyone --- including minorities. Indeed, that system of opportunities is why most minority immigrants came here in the first place. They weren't attracted here to establish the same kind of collectivized hell from which many of them came. Moreover, as they become successful, mature, and raise families, it's doubtful many of them will continue to think government ought to make friendly with every kind of minority that organizes its little "community" to demand its very own special entitlements. The implication of agitator-dregs is that anyone who wants to hand opportunity down to the nation's posterity must be zero-sum selfish. This is the dirty little game that's afoot among Lefty economists. Unfortunately, there seem to be enough louts, dopers, whine artists, commies, felons, illegals, naifs, gullibles, and pick pockets to make the intended audience a majority. Indeed, the corrupt crony business bastards they are taught and paid to complain about are usually the financiers of these sick little OWS community adventurers. They own and operate the cave, projector, and heads held fast to the shadows on the wall. It's a rigged game, but Americans who "act white" can't seem to get the message through.  Those crony cockroaches own the race game! yet they have managed to twist it to make it look to their dupes like the game is being operated by the people who want nothing more than fair rules.  This is the meaning of The Scream!

.
***********
.

The mass of Dims consists of fearfully aligned children, fearful of nature's god and God's nature. They huddle and cower against guided evolution. America was not made wealthy and powerful by centralized, redistributive collectivism. America prospered because of invisibly guided and freed initiative of individuals. America is exceptional because it was founded and pioneered by people who self selected for self reliance. To allow such people to be swamped and smothered by codependent children of incompetent and illegal immigrants is not to change America, but to destroy America. It is to reduce the world so it will have no exceptional leader, only fearful masses indentured to incompetent, central elitists, i.e., aristocrats, priests, imams, nomenklatura, and crony corporate rent seekers. The redistribution this will produce will redistribute all the power of the thinking middle class to central elitists, and it will trickle down only such cheap trinkets and tricks to the masses as are needed to ensure they stay in their place. Moreover, redistribution in the U.S. will not go to its people, but to much more impoverished people of the world. And that will ensure that no exceptional society of free thinkers will arise again, perhaps ever. It will ensure that most human brains are screwed to central regimentation. This is the de-humanizing madness for which incompetent Dims and their corrupt and ignorant leaders pine. And now they have swamped America to become the majority. It may well be that the thinking middle class simply did not wake up to the threat in time.

.
 

 

The Secret v. Darkness at Noon

.

From Darkness at Noon, by Arthur Koestler -- Rubashov, meditating in cell: Now, when he stood with his forehead against the window or suddenly stopped on the third black tile, he made unexpected discoveries. He found out that those processes wrongly known as "monologues" are really dialogues of a special kind; dialogues in which one partner remains silent while the other against all grammatical rules, addresses him as "I" instead of "you", in order to creep into his confidence and to fathom his intentions; but the silent partner just remains silent, shuns observations and even refuses to be localized in time and space.

.

MY NOTE: Koestler also wrote The Ghost in the Machine. Gilbert Ryle discussed an idea of ghost in the machine in The Concept of Mind. To me, it seems reasonable to conceptualize locally rationalized experiences of qualitative mind as expressing themselves with quantitative substance. However, it does not seem reasonable to conceptualize mind and substance as independent, yet coexisting opposites. Rather, both mind and substance seem to be expressions of perspectives of a unitary. However, qualitative apprehensions of that unitary for consisting of one or the other, mind or substance, seem to depend on point of view, frame of reference, and purpose of perspective. I would tend not to agree with an interpretation that would try to reduce consciousness to merely emergent phenomenon, inferior to measurable substance (as if measurable substance were the superior to immeasurable spirit). That is, I don't believe consciousness is merely severable, derivative, or reducible to space-time slices of substance. While I suspect many experiences of fields may be sliced and limited in space-time, I suspect there abides an encompassing, connecting, and immeasurable field of contemporaneous determination to which that severability does not measurably apply. I would not expect to derive belief in that field from empirical quantification, but perhaps only from direct, qualitative experience.

.

I am now reading The Secret. Alhough I find much truth in it (and awe concerning the nature of "I"), I hold some obvious reservations. Some competitions ARE mutually exclusive, such that one cannot accomplish everything one desires -- especially were one to desire to put a boot on the desires of competent others. You know (but many ignore) that some aspects of beingness ARE zero sum. For examples: racing contests between predators and prey; wrestling and gambling matches; carbon credits. I would also include dominance contests within hierarchies, as between useful idiots and sociopathic freaks who get their jollies by hurting others. There ARE some people and ideas that cannot be tolerated without tolerating the destruction of oneself or prevailing decency. For example, one cannot tolerate the idea of death to apostates at the same time one serves the idea that even apostates should be availed the dignity of seeking after truth -- wherever it may lead them. A kind of blindness descends when one seeks to dominate rather than persuade. That blindness seems dangerous to every social philosophy. It seems especially prevalent among those that espouse "the answer" which they then seek to impose on others -- regardless of whether such others are led to adopt it for themselves. Then, "the answer" becomes dehumanizing rather than inspiring or enlightening. It is interesting to read The Secret juxtaposed with Darkness at Noon. Temporally, it seems one either succeeds in throwing off those who would oppress one's philosophy, or one succumbs. One can serve a philosophy of cooperative dignity or of fascistic invasive dominance. Much depends on one's view of the Deity (or Consciousness Field) as being essentially guiding (let the children come) or fascistic (obey or die).

.

The field of consciousness (God) can be worthily meditated about, consulted, importuned, and worshipped from a wide variety of figures of speech However, no mortal can confine God to measure or control under any single conceptualization. One can choose to participate with the Deity (1) in respect of its capacity to facilitate mutual respect and caring cooperation, or (2) in respect of its capacity to fuel fanaticism that seeks to rule under fraudulent elites. One can relate to God (1) as a guide to consult in good faith and good will, or (2) as a despot to help sociopaths justify enserfment of majorities comprised of the most naive, ignorant, and corrupt. Why should any decent, thinking person choose door number 2? Why should any decent, thinking person devote his life to trying to force the world to pretend it believes any single, maddeningly detailed, contrived history or psychology of God to be measurably factual?  It seems enlightened society must always pursue, but never fully obtain, freedom from the most naive, ignorant, and corrupt.

.
 

Free Will and Contemporaneous Participation

Free Will and Contemporaneous Participation:
.
From my perspective, what I do, as in a game of rock-paper-scissors, often seems random, qualitative, unpredictable. Yet, a computer may be fitted (perhaps even “unconsciously”) to “read” my body, predict my plays, and thus beat me every time. It could be preset to read the salient context, perhaps sense my brain waves, and predict my actions before my own consciousness were aware of each of my decisions that preceded every play. However: Could I, unknown to it, fit a second computer, likewise to read it? And could I then upset the balance by keeping each play ambiguous, until I got a read from the second computer? One may object and say no amount of biologically-sponsored ambiguity and cunning could be fast enough to upset an electronically-wired opponent that did not have to integrate with biological processes. I doubt that is true. I suspect human-like consciousness can be merged with cyborg-like leveraging. I suspect individuated perspectives of consciousness are ultimately the expressions of a meta field, not mere byproducts of randomly chaotic biological evolution.
.
So, instead of multiple hierarchies of consciousness of contemporaneous determination, I wonder whether there may abide chaotic and circular feedback (within a reconciling-network or meta-internet of avatars for receiving and transmitting quantitative signals of qualitative intentions)? How abides capacity to determine and manifest measurable significations (whether preset, contemporaneous, or revised)? Is the process entirely LINEAR, or may the process be more CIRCULAR (or digital) — entailing perpetual feedback (appreciation and reconciliation between perspectives of wholes and of parts, between consciousness of contexts and points of view)? Generally, the process of determination for each unfoldment of sequencing seems necessarily to entail a dance of the qualitative with the quantitative ... even though “which-is-quantitative-and-which-is-qualitative” may depend on context and point of view.
.
Sense might more often be better communicated by replacing the notion of “free will” with a substitute: Instead of “free will,” reason in respect of “a qualitative sensation of contemporaneously effecting a determination.” Through the avatar of my body, “I” can empathize morally so long as I experience a sense of contemporaneously participating in effecting determinations. Were society to inculcate more regard for a concept of a reconciling and connecting field of empathetic consciousness, it would seem an unnecessary complication to moral philosophy to further belabor an individuated concept of free will. “Free will” may exist, but it would seem better to conceptualize it as that Immeasurable which purposes to determine and reconcile both the universal field of measurable context and all its possible points of view — something like a class with a membership of one, which seems to abide, even as it defies constraint to mortal sense of logic or morality. At such a meta level, free will would seem to be only of intuitive relevance to thinking society. As such a meta concept, free will would tend to be interesting for specific applications only to easily impressed followers of such mad men as deem themselves exclusive messengers of a God who is otherwise impotent to guide anyone else. For such Will, however, the significations of each and every one of our bodies and measurable cosmos would constitute only the avatars and agencies for conveying messages, not The Actor. That is, the Will-that-is-done experiences identification (individuated I-ness), and evaluates and guides and reconciles unfolding expressions, as such expressions are signed through the various avatars with which our Perspectives of IT are identified. It is the sense and feedback of contemporaneous participation that inspires our perspectives, not control of (or entire representation of) the holism of Will.
.
****************
.

Some Reconciling Entity seems to be taking feedback and fashioning it to give representation to a system in which participants may eventually promote cooperation over competition. But getting to that level seems to entail a path through competition. However, suppose we reach a point where most material wants are easily satisfied. Suppose you were able to go to the store (or atom builder) and simply take whatever may meet your specifications. You would have no need to own such a store or to fill your home with its produce. Not enduring scarcity, you may need to occupy yourself with satisfying other pursuits. I wonder what such occupations would be? Would you identify with a body to condition yourself to have other cravings, so you could find release in seeking to satiate them? Would you seek spiritual recognition, promotion, or power? Would you simply be absorbed into a superior reconciling pursuer? If so, what may be IT's meta pursuits? Would IT design and guide systems of worlds, riddles, and challenges in order to satisfy an inherent or spiritual craving for artistic creativity and empathetic feedback? May it be the lot of consciousness to perpetually occupy itself with pursuing appreciation of self conserving limits for working through self created systems? Maybe the imagined geometry of possibilities is both the muse and the albatross of consciousness, the yin and yang that drives morally empathetic feedback.
.

Morally empathetic feedback:  I haven't yet read Byrne's The Secret. I think I will. I think maybe the imagined geometry of possibilities is both the muse and the albatross of consciousness, the yin and yang, back and forth that digitally drives morally empathetic feedback: To pursue one's way in order to be receptive to such arts of others as incline to help one to inspire one's own expressions of art in return. This necessitates a context of perpetually unfolding challenges. With such context, each of us both competes and cooperates to participate in the unfolding expression of artistically spiritual and meaningful pursuits. This is not about false "progress" merely to bring forth gaudy technologies or satiation of material wants. There abides a spiritual complement to our physical sighs. Through our experiences, that complement may be what the Almighty finds perpetually leading in meaningfulness: Not making cripples for the purpose of seeming to cure them only in order to dominate them, but making systems for the purpose of venting and sharing artistic expressions of perspectives of conscious self. I think this yin and yang is what much of the East found long ago, and what the West has largely repressed in false linearity.
.
 

 

 

The Swarm

We need more appreciation of what may be entailed in communication, competition, cooperation, conservation, and causation, i.e., interrelations between expressive individuals and reconciling collectives and fields. Too many seem too stuck on assumptions they deem convenient, such as:

That the time between one's death and one's reincarnation must be experienced as more than the blink of an eye;

That what is measurable physics cannot evolve with its measurers;

That the field of consciousness cannot connect sequences except through such delayed transfers among particles as each particular point of view happens to have capacity to experience;

That we can never harness technology to connect sequences beyond limits that seem to constrain measurable physics;

That individual freedom can avail meaning without respect for one's collective context, and that collective context can avail meaning without respect for individual focus;

That any of our cells, conceptual centers, customs, cultures, and countries is other than significative of a swarm (unfolding field) of ideas and perspectives, cooperating and competing to give expression to a meaningfully connected point of view within an unfolding context;

That future causation is simultaneously fixed (unavoidable), yet also predictable (avoidable);

That measurable physics is the sole meaningful cause of the birth and death of each perspective of consciousness;

That the field of consciousness must be devoid of capacity to express itself except as the effect, rather than as the reconciling cause, of such relational absolutes as happen to conserve the cosmos we are presently induced to measure our avatars against.

Nature's Selection v. God's Nature's Selection

If I understand the idea, entropy relates to an increase in disorganization within a conserved system.  Within a conserved system, a local decrease in disorganization should, eventually, average out to obey the law of entropy.  Do we really have basis to believe that is the case?  What if we open the system even further, to take the apparent cosmos as only one bubble among many worlds?  Our bubble measures to obey the conservation of matter and energy.  Our bubble is (supposedly) measurably finite yet unbounded.  (If unbounded, a notion that the present, past, and future are already and eternally extant seems incompatible.)  Suppose a cosmos where the measurable interfunctionings of apparent substance were merely signs of the cause, rather than the cause itself?  I wonder whether such a cosmos would look much like the one we happen to inhabit?  Is not perpetual conservation the sign of The Cause?  Is not perpetual change the sign of Severable Perspectives of The Cause?
.
***********
.
It seems that all measurable significations are temporally transitional, always obeying a conserving balance, in respect of which they are born into manifestation and then are sacrificed into transitions. Conservation is constant, change is continuous. In that respect, if laws of nature are assumed to be an alternative to laws of an empathetic and reconciling Consciousness (Nature's God?), providing an indifferent mechanism for evolution by selecting among births and deaths among patterns of measurable expression, then what mechanism of change is not attributable to "natural selection" that is exclusive of God?  In pretending to prove too much, doesn't a notion of indifferent natural selection self-disqualify as a meaningful alternative to empathetically guided selection under God's Nature?

.

Behind big words and circles of confusion, doesn't godless natural selection reduce to a trivial notion that things change because they change, and that things obey conservation because they obey conservation? In what way may such thinking constitute a "causal" explanation?

.

If indifference is parsimony, then natural selection may avail a parsimonious way for explicating how measurable significations remain in balance. However, natural selection avails little, if anything, for explicating how any culture of perspectives of consciousness ought to help guide the unfolding balance. Measurable significations may be involved in guiding choices among an immeasurable range of alternatives, but they do not entirely rule how or why specific choices ought to be preferred or made. In that respect, the parsimony of natural selection is barren, and an "explanation" sponsored under its indifference seems inherently incomplete. In effect, sponsors of natural selection seem often to advocate that God's Nature "ought" to be assumed to play no role in ruling godless nature. Behind the various circles of thought and powers of self expression, there seem to abide advocacies by assumptions. Some wish, perhaps for temporary glory, to lord to others, or to reduce the lordship of others, to the effect that beingness is only the fruit of indifference and meaninglessness. Others don't.
.
************
.

FORMS AND SIGNS:  A system of mathematical relations among geometric forms can be conceptualized to consist of spins of nothing more than spins. Such a system, of which we happen to have been induced to share, appears to have been established. Who or what established and continues this common system, of which we happen to share? These spins do not exist independently, by themselves, nor are they the cause, by themselves, of the forms of which we are given to relate to as significations. The significations they impart are "real" to us only because we happen to be given a situation such that the very forms of our bodies are given to be expressed so as to interpret these spins within spins as "real." I doubt this conceptualiztion need do any damage to common or worthwhile notions of physics, biology, or psychology --- even those based in math.

.

It is often suggested that society would gravitate to sustainable civilization even without express notions of religion. I think, however, this depends on one's idea of "express" and "religion." A person, in his habits and inclinations, can be as spiritually or metaphysically receptive as a literalist believer. No doubt, many whistle past graveyards. Confucious taught a supposedly secular kind of system of civic goodness. Yet, he related it to a "mandate of heaven." I doubt he pictured heaven as a place of golden harps and choirs, but his idea still seems based in metaphysics. I suspect most political would-be philosophies, even Libertarianism, are likewise not completely walled from the metaphysical.

.

IMAGINATION RUN RIOT:  The World may be analogized to an assimilated bubble of imagination run riot.  The imagination of the world is reconciled to the assimilation, not to any particular perspective of it.  The bubble conserves the limits.  The particular perspectives stroke the bubble and seek to apprhend the trend of its unfolding assimilation of imagination.
.
REALITY:  The Physics of mathematically measurable geometrics conserves and expresses interrelational vibrations, spins, waves, radiations, and bursts, organizing to record and preserve Information to the experience of perspectives of Consciousness. One may interpret such forms to assume there is a "real" basis for measuring interactions among coordinate expressions of particles. I join in that. I also assume there is a "real" basis for intuiting conscious empathy among sympathetic points of view. Is that unreasonable? Might the obvious only seem fantastical because som many have worked so hard to condition themselves to believe so obvious nonsense?

.

I rather doubt dogs believe there is no real basis for empathy within their packs, in order for their packs (doggie civilizations) to survive and flourish. I rather doubt they consider their inter-pack empathies to be mere random happenstance, otherwise unsupported by any meaningful reality. I rather doubt they seek to "inspire" or assimilate pack loyalties by teaching one another that reality holds nothing but indifference. Rather, "I," with help from those like me, will really design I. I will really do it in respect of, and in association with, a real ethereal aspect that avails and unfolds severable expressions that remain subject to conservational balancing.

.

BLACK HOLES:  A black hole need not signify a violation of conservation. The general mass it seems to absorb is simply signified as having been generally spread and smeared out. A black hole may, however, warn intelligent organizations of avatars to keep their distance, and it may mark a locus within the geometric logic that we happen to have been induced to share where mortal interfunctioning with significations may not tread beyond.
.