REAL REALITY

.

Because I am presently reading Stand on Zanzibar, I find myself thinking like a synthesizing Shalmaneser. Thus, I engage informational worldbuilding in order to constrain science, rather than to be constrained by science. I am seriously unserious. Seriously.
.

REGARDING Either-Or: EITHER the thing that is really fundamental is not material, OR no thing at all is fundamental.

The first article I read in the 29 September 2012 issue of NewScientist is "Is Everything Made Of Numbers." Over the years, I have acquired a cursory familiarity with some of these ideas. They have led me to believe, since about a year ago, that the measurable universe is best conceptualized as consisting only of numbers and equations, the significance of which is to signify the functioning of iterative, immeasurable fields of feed-back-appreciative, Conscious-Will. The fluxing of the Quantitative is the Sign of the guiding Qualitative. The Sign people look for is the fact that the substance of the cosmos is derived, in its measurable respect, out of nothing-more-than-the-empty-set. From there, all that can be Signified, Simulated, and Synchronized can be represented in computational language of zeros and ones (or Morse Code, or yin and yang, as has been long known and indeed represented on the flags of various oriental nations). Assuming Pythagoras really said all is math, he would have been correct if instead he had said that all-that-is-measurable-is-math. For some immeasurable, qualitative "Thing" is not math: that thing would be the immeasurable co-source (hermaphroditic-whole-part) that accounts for and/or guides all that is measured to be unfolding in respect of the empty set. I think Plato was wrong about the superior existentiality of arch-Forms of geometrical math (or fluxes of forms, spinning within and across spins, vibrating within and across vibrations). Fluxes of geometry-based math may be applied to define all that is measurable, but I am unable to intuit how they could ultimately observe, apply, or define themselves. Math takes you only so far. I do not believe the math-map is the reality-territory. Math did not preset itself to do math. Rather, math and maps are the signs and signifieds of a reconciling superior. What is that Superior? Well, it is not measurable in math, thus it is qualitative. So what does "qualitative" mean?
.

I suspect only The Immeasurable "really" exists in the iterative here and now. All that is measurable exists only as Inferior, numerically-derivative-feedback of past-previous-unfolding-chronologies and sequences of numbers and fluxing equations and sub-equations. Virtual particles are not in themselves real. They are only sequencing placeholders for fluxes among equations. For such fluxes, there is no "real" up, down, past, future. There is only renormalized appearance to each relationally-iterative point of view in respect of each cone of reference. I remember Dad wondering with our neighbor in Genoa whether there must be either a furthermost distance away from Earth or a brick wall at the end of the universe. I believe there are neither, because I do not believe substantive earth or universe (or space-time-matter-energy) are the superior reality. Rather, I believe they are derivatives of field equations that are themselves derivative, being necessarily, continuously, and constantly recentered and renormalized to each iterated perspective and context. Every perspective within the cosmos can chase to its end, much as it would chase to the end of a rainbow. One may tinker and leverage with various mathematical tricks, but one's worldview will always be limited by inherent field-limitations of math so as to be renormalized to one's present point of view.

.

Geometry-based field theory needs to be correlated with theories of set-logic: of classes, "class of one", wholes, nested parts, and "dovetailing qualitatives" (qualitative loopbacks for experiencing direct communications and collapsing wave-equation functions among the micro and the macro, like a circle of co-dependent qualitatives)."
.

Because measurable appearances are SIGNS, to convey measurable meaning, they have to obey field-equational-conservation. Appearance of past conservation can be preserved by borrowing from the future. So we have "virtual particles" (which particles-are-not-in-themselves-real, but which function as transitional placeholders. So Now-ness is conserved by borrowing back and forth from what only appears to be the past versus the future. However, there is no "measurably-real-in-itself" past or future, but only the communicative-observer-experienced-present, and only because Some Immeasurable Quality is capacitated to do quantitative-feedback math. The informationally computing cone of experience of your measurable body is only an iterative avatar for Some-Reconciling-Thing-Else (some hermaphroditic of wholes and parts).

.
Bottom line: To me, it's more intuitive to believe the "thing" that is "really" fundamental is not purely material, than it is to believe that no-thing at all is fundamental. I don't think measurable-substantive-material-in-itself, by itself, can support simulations of unfoldings of conscious civilizations. While perspectives may be seeded and observed under dovetailing and simulated conditions of materiality, I believe each simulation, as it were made aware and as it became aware that it is a simulation, would at some level necessarily affect the simulator (much as prey affect predators). That is, the simulation could never prove what would evolve from purely-measurable-substance, absent immeasurable consciousness. This is because each simulation that produced consciousness would necessarily be "contaminated" by the consciousness that set up the simulation. Circles and dovetails.
.

Maybe some other CONCEPTUAL SCHEME or model can better reconcile or communicate the qualitatively-intuited-experiential with the quantitatively-measurable-physical. If so, I have not surmised or apprehended it. I have no doubt that more "rigorous" Shalmanesers, mathematicians, and scientists could expostulate such ideas in a language of math and science and with which they would be more comfortable. However, as they conceit thus to draw geometrically "nearer" to a purely mathematical representation of "reality," I suspect they would only be fooling themselves (much as Blanche DuBois forever depended upon the kindness of strangers).

.
**********

.
NO MORTAL MIND WITHOUT A BODY:

I seem unable to intuit how the experience of consciousness could possibly abide, absent a substantive base (body, brain, point of sensory view) from which to transmit and receive communications and signals along mediums within contexts of measurable substance.

.

NO ACTIVE MATH WITHOUT A NON-MATH PARTICIPANT:

Once a geometric form of progression is preset (like a row of dominos), I can conceive how an originating and participating mover could set in motion and sustain a sequence that unfolds along a predetermined progression over time and space. However, I don't see how a row of dominos could be set up, upset, reconfigured, or mutated without entailing something more than (or other than) math or the dominos in themselves.

.

LAYERS AND DOMAINS OF MATHEMATICIANS AND MATHS:

I don't intuit a first or last basement or ceiling for mathematical universes or domains. However, I do intuit that a perspective and field of consciousness may temporally or sequentially identify and bind with a math domain that defines quantitatively measurable limits and degrees of freedom that are shared as a commonly separate context or cosmos with all perspectives that so bind. And I intuit that perspectives whose measurable significations are defined by such a math domain may intuit immeasurable apprehensions that may be defined by one or more math domains that are beyond their direct and/or statistical or random measure. That is, maths may define qualitatively separate or fuzzily bordered domains for regulating maths of quantitatively subservient domains. Math may be preset to do math (i.e., signify unfolding vectors of force), even if it seems some Originator superior to (or other than) math would need to account for the presetting.

.

DOVETAILING TO AVOID LINEARITY:

What is qualitative for one domain may dovetail with what is quantitative for another domain, in a circle that spreads to account in a way that is beyond the perspective of any one domain for all that is immeasurable and measurable. It seems no mortal should have means for reducing that kind of meta-summing to conceptual comprehension. (As to a Reconciling Immortal, one may believe, but what mortal can possibly know or mathematically speculate?)

.

QUALITY OF DETERMINATION:

Thus, perspectives limited to a particular shared context may lack means for proving whether such mental determinations as they may contemporaneously make are "really" (1) deliberately and consciously chosen, (2) mechanically preset, (3) generated by random number generators, or (4) chaotically mutated. Thus, one may choose a conceptual model that seems most appropriate to one's focus, context, and purpose.

.

REJECTION OF PURELY LINEAR MODELING:

- When one's purpose is empathetic, exemplary, or visionary, one may qualitatively and meaningfully communicate in a logos of free will, moral responsibility, and spiritual unfolding. (Aside: At one time, Planck regarded consciousness as the superior fundamental, and matter as its inferior derivative.)

- When one's purpose is technically practical, one will tend to communicate more in maths for measuring unfolding vectors of force.

- When one's purpose is population-field management, one will tend to communicate more in maths for measuring statistical probabilities.

- When one's purpose is narrowly hormonal, one may simply seek the quickest path to appetite satiation.

- When one's purpose is civilization-visionary, one may try to be receptive in the entirety of one's beingness to feedback-guidance for how best to proceed to help guide the evolution of a society of decent, free-thinking companions.

- Thus, no single kind of model or math seems appropriate for every qualitatively inspirational and quantitatively directing purpose.

- Thus, I don't think "REALITY" can be proved in math or science to be fundamentally based in (1) purely mathematical-represented signification, (2) "if then" computer projection, (3) projected holographic simulation, (4) panpsychism, or (5) bodyless consciousness. I don't think reality consists only of math-in-itself. Moreover, I reject all singularly, linearly simplistic "explanations." I think reality is too important to be left to self-described linear "realists."