Metaphors

We don't sense "individual things." Rather, we experience pairs presented to perspectives, of which perspectives are fitted to apprehend interpretations.  Yet, such experience is accumulated as potential Information, formed to present Substance.  While one focuses to believe he is measuring one part-icle, he is actually interpreting that measure from a perspective within a field of context, which process ismultaneously yields a conserved and interpreted experience of the missing member of the pair.

Except in representative sense (as for words) and formulaic sense (as in words in the form of measurements and math), the Information our senses receive is not quite the same Information that was transmitted.  It cannot be, for at least three reasons.  First, Information about a thing does not exist as a precise thing in itself.  Second, the process of storing, conveying, communicating, receiving, interpreting, and confirming interpretation of Information entails transitions of representations of representations upon representations.  Even as descriptions and measurements, Information conveys to us what a thing is considered to be like (metaphorically), or how a thing measures in respect of an idea of a model for standard measures (modality).  Third, the very process of measuring, observing, and communicating a thing tends often to change the thing, even as it changes while it is being communicated.

Light does not itself take little pictures of things, radiate the pictures to our eyes, there to be received by a little homunculus in the cells of our eyes or brains.  A way to model (or metaphorically conceptualize) what is happening is to consider that a field is storing and processing math-based values and expressing such values in a way that is compatible to a way of interpreting such expression to second field field, with which the first is interfunctioning.  The part-icles are appearances that exist only in relation to such process; the part-icles are not, in themselves, otherwise existent.  The role of the ultimate Source which expresses the fields, however, is not itself modeled or measured, but intuited.

The Source, in availing fields that have capacity to interfunction in order to communicate part-icular perspectives of such interfunctioning, expresses its math-based part-icles in terms of paired correlates --- which may be stretched, compressed, and arranged in various overlapping, encompassing, and fluxing organizations of hierarchy and sequence.  No individual part-icle is actually communicated to any consciousness, because no individual part-icle can function independent of its membership that is equationally conserved to a pair.  Rather, what is communicated consists of such appearances, relationships, representations, and interpretations (i.e., METAPHORS) as are facilitated via the correlative dance of fields, as caused and guided by the Source.

 

Polarity and Spooky Action

Conservation requires pairs of significations that obey equal and opposite equational functions.  When the equational aspect is expressed without allowing the pair to come into being with any measurably significant difference in distance in space or time, then each member of the pair may be said to be a polarized expression of the other.  So long as the encompassing field supports access by a common recorder or observer, the field will support the coordinated synchronicity among polarity-paired members, so that each may appear to be acting on the other.  In reality, common aspects of the field are functioning to coordinate the expressions of the members.

The forms our senses detect are physically "real" and digitally measurable to us because the fields that project our interfunctioning happen to be so tuned to our senses, having evolved together in respect of their foundations.

Conservation requires that no form can appear without its being compatible, and therefore detectable (at least to a record of accumulating Information), in respect of an equation con-forming offset. In-form-ation must con-form.
In itself, no form takes up space, occupies time, causes mass, or exerts energy. All such processes are subject to some Field, which happens to be compatible with some projection of part-icles, in order to trick out accumulating recordations of potentially-perceivable, digitally-regressive measurements. In effect, measurable fields and particles are correlative representations of one another.

It is impossible to measure anything without simultaneously, in effect, measuring some aspect of that with which it is paired and offset. All measures come represented in conserved pairs, like mirrored images. Information abides as organized hierarchies of paired representations. Light delivers field-stored images to attuned, compatible, receivers.

One member of the pair is not the "cause" of the other. Rather, both unfold, in some higher simultaneity or synchronicity , in correlative respect of something, or an overlap of something, of a different level or quality or Source.

I suspect that measurable "particles" (Substance) do not really collapse or exist, in themselves, but only insofar as they are potentially, digitally, and/or actually interpreted and measured in respect of math-structured fields. I suspect such math-representing fields have inherent and precoded capacity to interfunction with one another, thereby to produce or cause to emerge mirror, hierarchical, complex, synchronized, and feedback representations of representations of one another.

Every measurable event seems to occur such that it can be explicated in respect of a process-algorithm. At the same time the Source "chooses" to make an event manifest, its choice entails assigning a mathematically derivable algorithm.

*****

METAPHORS:

Except in representative sense (as for words) and formulaic sense (as in words in the form of measurements and math), the Information our senses receive is not quite the same Information that was transmitted. It cannot be, for at least three reasons. First, Information about a thing does not exist as a precise thing in itself. Second, the process of storing, conveying, communicating, receiving, interpreting, and confirming interpretation of Information entails transitions of representations of representations upon representations. Even as descriptions and measurements, Information conveys to us what a thing is considered to be like (metaphorically), or how a thing measures in respect of an idea of a model for standard measures (modality). Third, the very process of measuring, observing, and communicating a thing tends often to change the thing, even as it changes while it is being communicated.

Light does not itself take little pictures of things, radiate the pictures to our eyes, there to be received by a little homunculus in the cells of our eyes or brains. A way to model (or metaphorically conceptualize) what is happening is to consider that a field is storing and processing math-based values and expressing such values in a way that is compatible to a way of interpreting such expression to second field, with which the first is interfunctioning. The part-icles are appearances that exist only in relation to such process; the part-icles are not, in themselves, otherwise existent. The role of the ultimate Source which expresses the fields, however, is not itself modeled or measured, but intuited.

The Source, in availing fields that have capacity to interfunction in order to communicate part-icular perspectives of such interfunctioning, expresses its math-based part-icles in terms of paired correlates --- which may be stretched, compressed, and arranged in various overlapping, encompassing, and fluxing organizations of hierarchy and sequence. No individual part-icle is actually communicated to any consciousness, because no individual part-icle can function independent of its membership that is equationally conserved to a pair. Rather, what is communicated consists of such appearances, relationships, representations, and interpretations (i.e., METAPHORS) as are facilitated via the correlative dance of fields, as caused and guided by the Source.

******
.
Apparently, at least some atomic and subatomic particles are necessary to be conceptualized, to represent particles that can be massless, chargeless, and sizeless, constituting only a single dimension point on a vectored trajectory of spin, rotation, and orbit. Each such a particle would seem to be representable in nothing more than pure math. Hypothetically, if every particle can similarly be potentially stripped of mass, charge, and size, or constituted out of nothing but particles that can be stripped of mass, charge, and size, then it would seem that all of measurable substance is potentially representable in, and reducible to, pure math. This seems not surprising, because imagination does not conduce to any particle that could exist in itself and still be made to function in respect of a system of such particles. This is because the instant the particle's existentiality depends on its relation to a system, it becomes no longer a particle in itself. Thus, for particles to function in measurable respect of a system, it would seem that the system must, at bottom, reduce to an immaterial system, i.e., a system of pure math. Thus, it would seem that the notion that every action is entirely caused and explicated in terms of atoms must yield to a concept that every atom is entirely caused and explicated in terms of math. If so, then an explanatory system based purely on atoms or material particles, as in Lucretius' "The Nature of Things," cannot complete a system of explanation.
.
If atoms-in-themselves cannot exist as atoms-in-themselves, then they cannot in themselves be existential placeholders. Rather, some field-based significations of math values seems to abide --- for the setting, appreciating, and adjusting of a synchronizing dance of forms, which feedback to dance in respect of localized perspectives, contexts, and purposes. Some Immaterial Aspect that accounts for iterative representations of math seems to be implicated. In that case, Who or What is the power, potential, and character of the mathematician? How and why does it "cause" patterns of unfoldings?


 

The Making of a Mind

Regarding Surveillance of minds:

WHY and how do "I" happen to abide?  I am a correlative expression of a field-cone that expresses the particles of my body and gives rise to my perspective of consciousness.  Why and how does that field-cone just happen, here and now, to take an interest in expressing me?  I don't think empirical studies of correlative quantities can quantify an answer.

SUBSTANCE, INFORMATION, CONSCIOUSNESS:  I suspect that measurable "particles" (Substance) do not really collapse or exist, in themselves, but only insofar as they are potentially, digitally, and/or actually interpreted and measured in respect of math-structured fields.  I suspect such math-representing fields have inherent and precoded capacity to interfunction with one another, thereby to produce or cause to emerge mirror, hierarchical, complex, synchronized, and feedback representations of representations of one another.  At complex levels of production and subsuming storeage, such feedback (Information) informs perspectives of Consciousness.  Although such Consciousness is emergent, its emergence is also inherent and iterative.  Such Consciousness factors with participatory, contemporaneously-unfolding, feedback-determinative, synchronously-guiding effect.

MIND:  I'm reading Kurzweil's How to Create a Mind.  In main, I think his ideas are correct (although I don't think they necessarily lead to pro or con positions with regard to concerns of spirituality or Christianity).  To me, implications or ideas that so far seem key are:  (1) that all that we take to be measurable substance comes pre-coded (by some Source) for facilitating legos-like networks of hierarchical layers upon layers of overlapping, interconnecting, circling back, and digital representations of patterns; (2) that such networks are guided to evolve in self-wiring complexity by the devising of strategies for representing probabilities for the manifestation or non-manifestation of tested-for patterns; (3) that such hierarchical functions for processing pattern recognition come to constitute mortal iterations of what we take to be consciousness; (4) that such consciousness can be stored with, and accessed from, a cloud-field; (5) that most of the human mind can eventually be leveraged and uploaded to cloud status; (6) that all human minds may eventually (and relatively soon) be so uploaded (as in a "Singularity"); (7) that the cloud can be leveraged to facilitate continuous monitoring to detect all measurable inconsistencies and to seek to resolve them at higher levels of synthesis (most people, perhaps fearing cognitive whiplash, seem not much to engage such a function, preferring instead to spout correlative dissonance as they go about picking out whatever homily may seem to rationalize whatever they may presently be endeavoring).

PRIVACY, FREEDOM, AND PROGRESS:  I have not yet gotten to the point of seeing reflection by Kurzweil on the importance of some fundamental issues relating to individual dignity.  For examples:  Does the idea of a singularly connected Mind (or cloud of consciousness) implicate that all privacy and dignity as individuals must be lost (this seems of particular pertinence to our present political situation, vis a vis the NSA)?  Who (or what cohort of cronies), and under what system of checks and balances, can or should be entrusted as gate-keeper, to determine security-parameters for how the cloud is to be defended, accessed, and backed-up?  By whom, and for what assimilated purposes, is the cloud to be accessed or monitored?  Is "progress" towards such a "cloud" a good and inevitable thing?  How much freedom can a "godlike" cloud entrust to adolescent, developing perspectives?  Can a republican-based spirit of individual perspective and human-like freedom and dignity be preserved, consistent with such a cloud?

DIGNITY:  While I suspect relative freedom and dignity of individual perspectives CAN and SHOULD be preserved, I do not believe that is the general vector of any present political leadership of any potency.  Godless heedlessness should be of concern to any informed, academic perspective.  Yet, very little seems presently to be coming out of the media or academia with regard to such concern.
.
******
.
To preserve such human freedom and dignity as can reasonably be preserved, THE CLOUD would need automatic, redundant, and private means by wich to detect, block, or circumvent mindsets from becoming oriented with intention or capacity for harming or acquiring means for threatening the cloud.
PROBLEMS:
The better the block, the greated the false sense of security, the greater the reliance, the worse the eventual disaster.
How to define "harm" or "threat" -- rigorously and pragmatically.
How to guard the gate, to preclude evasions of blocks.
How to defend against the cloud, itself, should it eventually become antagonistic because of evolving or unauthorized stresses on its niche.
How to manage cooperation or threats upon detection or encountering of other clouds, which may have or fear first strike capabilities.
CHALLENGE:  Regressive, receding incompleteness.

 

The Bayesian Past and the Spinoza Future

Of the God of Spinoza:

REGARDING SPINOZA: To my lights, Spinoza is a mixed bag, perhaps because he did not have the qualifying experience of modern discoveries, fractals, or the "nature" of nothingness. I like Spinoza's independent thinking, free from conformity with established "authorities." I like his analysis of determinism, with respect to hindsight examination of events of the past. I do not agree that events of the future are already determined. I do not think an individual human being has free will to move the future howsoever he will. I do think the apprehensions of an individual human being are contemporaneously factored by a Reconciler, whose vector or range of freedom is limited by the past but not bounded by the future. I do think it contemporaneously worthwhile and meaningful to believe the Reconciler, as to the future, tends to be interested in the reinforcing good will of collectives and fractal iterations of people of good faith. I agree that the Reconciler is not solely interested in humanity, but I do not agree that the Reconciler is indifferent to humanity.

From Wikipedia, I like this idea about Spinoza: 
"a dynamic nature in action, growing and changing, not a passive or static thing."
And this one:
".... the pantheist formula "One and All" would apply to Spinoza only if the "One" preserves its transcendence and the "All" were not interpreted as the totality of finite things."
But not this one:
"... Spinoza's cool, indifferent God is the antithesis to the concept of an anthropomorphic, fatherly God who cares about humanity."
I like this one:
"In Spinozism, the concept of a personal relationship with God comes from the position that one is a part of an infinite interdependent "organism". Spinoza taught that everything is but a wave in an endless ocean, and that what happens to one wave will affect other waves. Thus Spinozism teaches a form of determinism and ecology and supports this as a basis for morality."
And this one:
"All that happens or will happen could not have unfolded in any other way."
I am somewhat indifferent to this one:
"Spinoza certainly has a use for the word 'freedom', but he equates "Freedom of Mind" with "blessedness"
I like this:
"Spinoza's system imparted order and unity to the tradition of radical thought, offering powerful weapons for prevailing against "received authority." As a youth he first subscribed to Descartes' dualistic belief that body and mind are two separate substances, but later changed his view and asserted that they were not separate, being a single identity."
I like this:
"This picture of Spinoza's determinism is ever more illuminated through reading this famous quote in Ethics: 'the infant believes that it is by free will that it seeks the breast; the angry boy believes that by free will he wishes vengeance; the timid man thinks it is with free will he seeks flight; the drunkard believes that by a free command of his mind he speaks the things which when sober he wishes he had left unsaid. ... All believe that they speak by a free command of the mind, whilst, in truth, they have no power to restrain the impulse which they have to speak.'


*****************************

OUT OF NOTHING: What sort of existential quality creates, guides, appreciates, purposes, reconciles, conserves, or synchronizes any unfolding path for forms (that have become measurable to perspectives) ... out of an immeasurable quality of no-thing?

QUALITATIVE ASSOCIATION WITH A FRACTAL PLETHORA OF ITERATIVE QUANTA: MUST each physically measurable quantum be of derivative association with some fractally corresponding quantum of a qualitative complexity, i.e., consciousness?

YES:  Cosmic Source is inherently in appreciative communication in respect of unfoldings and recordations of accumulations of Information.  Fractal Complexity in how Information unfolds is correlative with the complexity of the Recording Fractal(s) and Observing Brain Systems with which it is associated.  The apprehensions of a complex human mind interfunction to affect the complexity of unfolding Informational experience.  Events stand ready to be affected by apprehensions.  Because there are a plethora of fractal apprehensions to be reconciled, they tend to be fuzzed (and eventually hardened to algorithmic reinforcement) under a common range of experience, which can be rationalized to statistical analysis.)

UNFOLDING SYNCHRONIZATION OF CHOICES: How or why are particles across a field conserved, reconciled, and synchronized to a common, hierarchical cone of unfolding experience?

QUANTA THAT ARE MEASURABLE TO PERSPECTIVES ARE EXPERIENCED AS BEING DIGITALLY AND INHERENTLY CHARGED: Digital feedback of quanta --- in regard to electromagnetic-charge, spin-orbit, vector-polarity, digitality-mirrorness --- must obey some mathematical ALGORITHM, which facilitates or correlates with each Conscious Perspective's anticipation, apprehension, recordation, transfer, reception, and communication of Information. Quanta cannot arise or form without a digital, conservational, mirroring relationship. Measures of particles of quanta relate to perspectives of parallel polarity, spin orbits, electro magnetism, mirror correlations, vector correlations, space-time orientation translations, etc.

INNATENESS OF YIN YANG:  Physical Particles are inherently charged and dualistic. Matter arises only in correlative, balanced, conservational respect of anti matter. The only quality that is not measurably dualistic is that "measurable nothingness," which is not measurable, but with which all that is measurable is derivative. Such nothing is "not really nothing." It really exists, but it is directly or intuitively signified and experienced --- not measured, demonstrated, empirically proved, or substantively signified. It is the Signifier, not the Signified. The Signified is only the sign of the Signifier.

INFORMATIONAL BITS: Quantitative bits of correlative Information are inherent to any possible experience of measurable communication. Each perspective adopts a qualitatively subsuming interpretation of every correlative that is availed to its experience, which is iteratively communicated and spread throughout a shared and overlapping system of fractal-geometry (space-time).

CONSCIOUS PERSPECTIVES ARE NECESSARY TO QUANTITATIVE EXISTENTIALITY: Until particles exist to mirror feedback to a perspective (or correlative recorder), there is no relevance to time or space. Each present perspective of consciousness must abide as a correlative of an incomplete fractal of an entire cosmic cone of perspective. The reality of measurable extensions of existentiality is necessarily correlated with Conscous Measurers.

NOT REALLY NOTHINGNESS: Physically measurable, particular points are not real in themselves. The form of their measurable reality is derivative of having been split out of a quality of no measurable thing, as matter and anti matter. Once a path is chosen, it is habituated to the set sum of circumstances from which it arose. The intuitive question is: What is the existential character of this "nothingness" that is not really nothing? What primitive or originating apprehension caused the evolution of the presets that facilitated photons, i.e., light, to record and transmit images and representations?

FORMATIONAL SCIENCE OF THE PAST: Once the past is set, the Information about the past becomes set to an algorithm, so that a powerful enough calculating computer could take the Information that has accumulated up to the present and work backwards, to ascertain the path that had unfolded to the present. That path and Information would thus be set.

CONSERVATION: Conservation inherently allows each charged particle to correlate with, mirror, represent, and quantify its necessary balancing partner. Such inherent quality of parallel digitality (yin and yang) builds and binds a fractally hierarchical record of information of the past, i.e., the "truth of physical facts." However, it does not account for the outbound vector of expansion of space-time, nor for the perpetual potential with regard to any unifying first force. Conservation can inform us how the past has unfolded to our present.  However, conservation cannot fully determine or tell us how our future will unfold.

UNFOLDING DETERMINATION OF THE FUTURE: Each succeeding situation will be determined, conserved, and reconciled based on four factors: (1) How similar it is to preceding patterns and forms, which have been set as algorithmic determinants; (2) how much newness is now confronting the present, in respect of outbound expansions of pre-sets along a vector of space-time; (3) what new connections have been made and are being made among chaotic, mirror-polarizing, fractal-hierarchical patterns of particles within particles and hierarchies within hierarchies; and (4) what is the immeasurable quality of appreciation that is fed back between the ultimate Source Sponsor (which split nothingness into mirror images of somethingness and somethingness' various and incomplete perspectives of incomplete fractal representations of itself)?

CONTEMPORANEOUS DETERMINATION: Via innate digital charges (positive and negative, north and south, plus and minus, yin and yang), the Source Field observes and measures its parts, and the parts, contemporaneously, observe and measure their (incomplete) experience of the Field. Once field-parts are set in flux-motion, such process is sustainable via contemporaneous feedback upon feedback.

FIRST CAUSE: But what was the first cause of such a sonservational system of feedback? What did IT observe, and what may IT still observe, appreciate, and influence?

FUTURE EVOLUTION IS NOT PRESET: The Source Field avails feedback in the apprehension and evaluation of vectored arrays of possible unfoldings. Forms evolve to conscious experience, built on layers of previous (preset) acceptance, unfolding towards apprehensions of possibilities.

RELATIVE EXPERIENCE OF COMMONLY REFERENCED CONSTANTS: The speed of light is not measurably constant in relation to things, except in respect that such things are either recorders or observers. To recording observers, experience in the measuring of time is always adjusted, so that light always seems to every observer be traveling at a set, constant speed. Experience of time has to do with tic-toc, digital, orbital relationships that are experienced. Were there no Source of Consciousness and no observers, not even math (numbers) would be "trued to definition," much less would light be trued to a constant speed. The Source Field causes and reconciles Recording Observers to experience adjustments in their experiences of time, in order that they will experience the speed of light as being a constant, therewith availing relativistic and relationally communicable measurements of quanta.

PERPETUAL PRESENT: For any particular perspective, the present abides with the junction between such perspective's accumulation of preceding Information and its participatory experience with regard to unfolding choices for the future.

"COSMIC MIND" -- COSMIC CODE INHERENTLY FACILITATES CONSCIOUS APPRECIATIVE FEEDBACK BETWEEN THE HOLISTIC SOURCE FIELD AND THE SUM OF ITS INCOMPLETE PARTIAL PERSPECTIVES OF ITSELF: The cosmos, depending as it does on digitized pairs that were originally split from nothing and vectored in quantifiable, correlative, and transferable spins and orbits, represents an inherent capacity to encode, record, represent, organize, network, transmit, and receive fractalized bits of Information. Each bit is a recursive fractal, containing with its context information about its smallest part and its most encompassing whole. Selves evolve to intuit awarensess of such field of Information, as they evolve to organize information about information about information, and organizations of organizations of organizations, and perspectives of perspectives of perspectives. Such selves, as abstracted, fractal, and incomplete perspectives of consciousness, intuit moral interpretations of the purpose of the Reconciler of consciousness.

HOW: From mortal, incomplete perspectives of The Unifying Universality, we have no means or language by which to test or explicate how it is that the Source Field is able, or should desire, to split measurable quanta out of a quality of no measurable thing ("no-thing"). The quality of no measurable thing is not no-thing.

RELEVANCE OF THE IMMEASURABLE QUALITY OF THE SOURCE OF MEASURABLE SUBSTANCE, ACCUMULATED INFORMATION, AND PRESENT CONSCIOUS PERSPECTIVE: We don't intuit the Source's future purposefulness in terms of past bits of (scientific) information, but in respect of our (fractally incomplete) perspectives of universality.
It may be (perhaps must be) that there was only one way for the Source of the field to inform what we take to be the present. It may also be that the Source-Field enjoys a range of potential for expressing the future, which range may be limited in respect of any chosen starting point, but unbounded in respect of not having any absolute ending point.

SCIENCE OF THE PAST VERSUS MORALITY OF THE FUTURE:  Thus, the past was determined (and Information about the past can be discovered), yet the future is not yet determined. That is, the Source may have qualitative power to "change its mind" about how its apprehensions about future vectors should change. Thus, Bayesian based Science applies to how Information can be obtained about how the past has been set, but does not precisely determine the future (whose algorithm has not yet been determined).  Rather, our perspectives appreciate intuitive participation in a synchronizing, fractal, contemporaneous choice and determination of how the future should unfold. We do not do that by weighing quanta, but by intuitively interpreting and participating in the unfolding of the universality.

INDIVIDUAL HUMAN DIGNITY VERSUS CIVILIZED SOCIETY: What about the hierarchical dignity of civilized experience for checking our individual reptilian branis with collective inhibitors, without which we would be brutes? What about a supposed best mix of "dignity definers" or helpers, via church, family, culture, and governance? What about freedom availed to adult participants, in good faith before God, and good will before one another, to think and communicate?

REGARDING THE GOD-INTOXICATED SPINOZA: To my lights, Spinoza is a mixed bag, perhaps because he did not have the qualifying experience of modern discoveries, fractals, or the "nature" of nothingness. I like Spinoza's independent thinking, free from conformity with established "authorities." I like his analysis of determinism, with respect to hindsight examination of events of the past. I do not agree that events of the future are already determined. I do not think an individual human being has free will to move the future howsoever he will. I do think the apprehensions of an individual human being are contemporaneously factored by a Reconciler, whose vector or range of freedom is limited by the past but not bounded by the future. I do think it contemporaneously worthwhile and meaningful to believe the Reconciler, as to the future, tends to be interested in the reinforcing good will of collectives and fractal iterations of people of good faith. I agree that the Reconciler is not solely interested in humanity, but I do not agree that the Reconciler is indifferent to humanity.

COSMIC MIND:  There abides no ultimate building block that could be measurable as a thing in itself.  Measurement by a mortal necessitates comparison to a locally chosen standard.  All measurable matter comes manifest in pre-coded pairs, such that matter can be related to and measured from different local perspectives in different contexts for different purposes.  That which is measurably manifest to local experience has been "ready made" to support a reconciled evolution of complex systems of feedback among hierarchical levels of information, which are pre-coded for representing about information about information.  Thus abides a guided system of iterations of codes, which are mutually dependent and fractally repetitive across levels of synchronocity.

Why is this system of material representation reconciled to support guided evolution of complex systems, seemingly arising as a matter of course out of chaos?  I suspect the reason genes may be rationalized to be "selfish" is in respect of a Source Self, which pre-encodes them and reconciles them to be self-ish in their feedback, which tends towards organizing complexity of information about information about information.

Thus, all measurable manifestation of Substance (matter) is inherently encoded (not subsequently built to be encoded) to be image-representational. Material (measurable substance) is conserved, organized, fractal, and synchronized --- like synapses organized and associated with hierarchies of feedback within a brain. All present accumulation of Substance represents all measurable Information that has been accumulated to the present.  Mortal Consciousness is that which recognizes complex informational correlations of local substance.  And it is apprehensively readied for their possible vectors. (Your conscious brain readies itself for decisions already made by your unconscious brain.)  Source Consciousness (God) is that which brings forth pre-encoded matter from a quality of no thing that is measurable to mortals.  That is, Source Consciousness brings forth matter and anti-matter out of a measurably nothingness ... which is ... not really nothing.

RELEVANCE OF THE IMMEASURABLE SOURCE OF MEASURABLE SUBSTANCE: We don't intuit the Source's future purposefulness in terms of past bits of (scientific) information, but in respect of our incomplete perspectives of universality.  This is why we need to come together in good faith to reason together in good will.  It may be that there was only one way for the Source of the field to inform and determine what we take to be the present. It may also be that the Source-Field enjoys a range of potential (contemporaneous freedom) for expressing the future, which range may be limited in respect of any chosen starting point, but unbounded in respect of not having any absolute ending point.


Mortal Consciousness is that which recognizes complex Informational correlations of local Substance and apprehensively readies for their possible vectors. Source Consciousness is that which brings forth encoded matter from a quality of no thing that is measurable to mortals, i.e., it brings forth matter and anti-matter out of a measurably nothingness ... which is not really nothing.
.
 

The Singular Mind -- Individual and Collective

OF THE SINGULAR SOURCE FOR PROMOTING, RECONCILING, AND COLLECTIVIZING INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVES OF EXPERIENCE: There abides a Singularity that encompasses and reconciles all minds. It massages informational experiences by fluxing out representations of folds, in order to facilitate varied, separate and qualitative experiences. As each of our separate perspectives abstracts back, we come closer and closer to apprehending the encompassing Reconciler of our collectively various experiences. In this way, the encompassing Mind functions to avail the COLLECTIVE of all quantitative and qualitative experience. This is "where" all the investment in qualitative experience goes. It is qualitatively subsumed, to add to present intuitive insights and apprehensions concerning potentialities. As our apprehensions flux beyond the fold, we go further and further apart, towards experiencing things for which commonizing language has not yet developed that would facilitate the representing or communicating of such experiences. In this way, the encompassing mind tends to reconcile and COLECTIVIZE all, even as it avails INDIVIDUALS, i.e., the explorative separateness of all.

Without faith, there is no nation.  There is no political "solution" to the individualizing and collectivizing of Mind.  There are only temporizing ways to manage the fluxing relationships between individuals and collectives.  Such management tends towards good or ill as the faith and will of agents and avatars of management respect and remain receptive to good or ill.  Without good faith and good will, there is no good form or good management.  Loss of good faith and good will snare us towards becoming less than human.  We often tend to become snared as we open our doors to people of little assimilating good faith and good will.