NO QUANTITATIVE WITHOUT SUPPORTING QUALITATIVE

There abides no quantitative without a supporting qualitative:

THING IN ITSELF: A Source thing-in-itself would have nothing against which to in-form or measure its chronology, locus, size, mass, density, direction, charge, or even any particular spin within any field. It would have no means by which to distinguish any particular aspect from any field aspect. In itself, it would not see or be seen. It would exist as a conceptual point, but, absent some means for projecting beyond itself, with no means even to conceptualize or experience itself. Its existentiality would seem to require that it must have capacity, that is, capacity to project beyond itself. In that event, it would not be a thing in itself. It would be a thing that would be a thing in itself if it did not have capacity to project. Given capacity to project, the Source is a thing which is immeasurable, but which has capacity to project. Although immeasurable, it need not be un-intuitable among perspectives of its projections, nor need it be without projective purpose and interest.
.
PERSPECTIVES CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH PROJECTIONS: Having nothing to spin, the Source would only project relativistic spins. That is, spins that relate and measure within spins, but that would not abide as spins, absent some level (however primitive) of accompanying, relational, interpretive appreciation (that is, subjective qualitative consciousness of the relationally quantiative spinning). Every projection of a relativistic spin is necessarily and contemporaneously accompanied with some level (however primitive, transitory, fleeting, or unaware of itself) of subjective, qualitative, sub-conscious appreciation. As the guiding purposefulness of the Source unfolds, such primitive perspectives of beingness would evolve to higher levels of self awareness and awareness of other perspectives. Such higher awareness is not confined to carbon 14 organisms or the human form. Eventually, perspectives will consciously participate in designing their own evolution.
.
RENORMALIZATION OF PERSPECTIVES OF PROJECTIONS: A thing immeasurable to its projections may project relations. Relations would unfold and be defined by form-ulas (algorithms). Formulas would be conservational in respect of equations. Perspectives that bind with and inhabit such projections of forms would necessarily renormalize to the formulas of such forms. For the same formula to apply to all perspectives that experience it, the formula would necessarily renormalize recessions and regressions, much as a rainbow (or the "edge" of the cosmos) recedes as one tries to approach it. Or as experience of the speed of light renormalizes to appear constant to each observer, regardless of the observer's relative locus, direction, or speed.  The fact that objectively experienced spins are necessarily accompanied in some respect with subjectively experienced perspectives implicates:  That every unfolding of an objective system is normalized and synchronized in respect of a shared system (either manifest or potential) of subjective (conscious or subconscious) perceptions.  This RENORMALITIVE EFFECT seems to unfold in tandem with what is often called the Observer Effect.
.
DUALITY OF PROJECTIONS: Projections would not be measurable in themselves. Their quantitative measure would be subjectively and qualitatively related, interpreted, and renormalized to the perspectives of recorders and observers.
.
SIMULTANEOUS CO-DEPENDENCE OF QUANTIFIABLE SPIN AND QUALITATIVE SPIN PERCEIVER: No spin is effected without perspectives being simultaneously bonded to it, to renormalize the spin, and to renormalize their perspectives to it. Except as God splits perspectives among particular iterations, there is no basis by which to effect relations of spins among and within spins. For each spin, there abides, at some level, a subjective perspective or set of perspectives that bonds and renormalizes in respect of it. Relativistic Spins do not exist as things in themselves. Without qualitative appreciation, there would be no existential means or meaning for any renormalization. Relativistic spins exist only in respect of a renormalizing Curvature, which has existential meaning only in respect of a shared colony of subjective perspectives of consciousness. Without subjective, qualitative apprehension and appreciation, there would be no interpretation of any renormalization. There abides no quantitative without a supporting qualitative, and no qualitative without a supporting quantitative. The quantiative and the qualitative flux together. Were they to meld into one, they would annihilate.
.
FICTITIOUSNESS OF ENTROPY: No spin occurs without simultaneous entailment of particle, field, and perspective. This implicates point of view, frame of reference, and purposeful entanglement. Each spin eventually disintegrates from others, expands relationally outward, and seems to dissipate. All perspectives that happen to be oriented to a frame of reference that implicates an outbound spin system will interpret their general situation, apart from observers' resistent efforts, as becoming more disordered and dissipate. Much as a ball tossed across a Merry Go Round will fictitiously appear to the riders as taking a curved path relative to their ride. Every perspective that shares a cone of experience or system of relativistic spins will sense itself, with the expansion of its experience of time, to be in-form-ationally and spatially expanding away from other systems. Every perspective will interpret the cosmos as expanding into entropic dissipation. However, it is only the perspectives that are dissipating outbound. The process of cosmic projection may well consist of a series of ever-replacing, self-encased, interpretive-bubbles of projections of spins. As each furtherest outbound bubble dissipates, it is burst and replaced with a next outbound bubble, and so on. The wider relation between the bubbles, which is not directly and precisely measurable from within any one bubble, may be generally measured, interpreted, and intuited. This may be "Dark Substance" (dark energy and matter). There is no "real force of entropy." Rather, entropy is a trick of perspective and perception.  It seems the Source's Projection of Cosmic Bubbles of Spins continues as an un-ending System of Ever Unfolding Purposeful Appreciation.
.
PHASE SHIFTING:  Things-in-themselves do not become entropically less organized, becasue there is no such thing as a thing in itself.  What becomes less organized is an appearance of expansion, such that organizations of things appear to stretch into dissipation (unless the dissipation is resisted).  Countering such general appearance of expansive dissipation and disorganization, there abide local appearances of synhronization towards pattern symmetry.  This is because spins that are relationally experienced in respect of expressions of particle-fields seem to pull one another into patterned or charged alignment (like high and low air pressure systems as they generate hurricanes and tornados).  Thus, there is a constant and continuous reconcilation of apparent forces and phasings of expansion versus pattern making.
.

 

Math as Science and Religion

.

META-SPECULATION: As to the Source itself (the Singularity), one cannot measure IT's rate of spin, because IT is immeasurable. It has no length, width, depth, mass, substance, energy, or axis in itself, as mortals would measure such constructs. Nevertheless, axis-less, immeasurable Source has meta-capacity to project meta axes around which to "meta-spin" its self-projections. The Mind of God thus projects Images.

PROJECTION FROM THE META TO THE MATH MEASURABLE: When God acquired meta-capacity to project spin, God contemporaneously and necessarily defined the rules of math. That meta-capacity gives rise to unfolding, relativistic measures. Some Character of the Source may image or project measurably-relativistic spinning, orbiting, revolving, and rolling among two or more aspects (the Duality) that gives rise to switch Digitality, i.e., numbers, i.e., positive-negative, on-off, dot-dash, yin-yang, plus-minus, zero-one. With capacity to represent all manner of patterns of zeros and ones, all manner of algorithmic functions can be computationally expressed and represented.

.

ANGULAR MOMENTUM:  A materially-represented thing or disc that spins about an axis could represent an infinity of possible interpretations of spins and relations in angular momentum versus angular speed, depending on choice of radial distance from its center. Under calculus, such a dimensionally-inhabiting disc would not represent a single expression of spinning, but a potential infinity of experiential interpretations of aspects of spin. Each radial expression of a spin in 3-D space would present two sides, like a coin. Depending on side observed or related to, one side would relate as spinning clockwise, the other as spinning counterclockwise. Thus, a digitally-experiential representation. If there were only 1 thing or point expressed, with no expression of 2-D or 3-D space, there would be no meaningful spin to measure. Meaningful measure would require at least an expression of 2-D space, in a sequence-preserving, information-recording time, which would require an expression of at least 2 things, i.e., a Digital Relationship.

.

FICTITIOUS APPEARANCES:  Suppose we could externally and objectively observe 2 points that lacked wave or field properties, interfunctioning in a way that limited them to 2-D space. From our aerial view, they may appear to us as tracking circle-like forms in relation to one another. From their "perspectives," they would appear only to vary in length of position from one another (perhaps sometimes even superpositioning to occupy the same point). There are problems with such a thought experiement. It does not seem that such points could observe or sense one another, as points. And it does not seem that there could be manifested, outside imagination of a superior "viewer," points lacking in wave or field properties. It seems inherently contradictory to imagine a manifesting point that lacks wave or field properties, or an axis in relation to such properties, in respect of which such point could spin. Upon granting wave and field properties to a manifested point, it would seem necessary that such point have an axis, that its wavelength could change, and that it could spin in the field space it occupies, even if there were only 1 iteration of itself. In that respect, even if there were only 1 such thing, which expressed both a point and a field, then such point may give expression to wobble, rotation, disturbance, revolution, orbit, and Vector of vibration or direction. (For a 2-D direction, it may give expression to a wave function, relating to wavelength, frequence, amplitude, and intensity.)

.

FICTITIOUS POINTS FOR ABSTRACT COMPUTING:  However, if the point is not made manifest with a field, but is only projectively imaged or imagined, then, for subjective computational purposes, it would take 2 such representations of images in order to conceptualize or compute any meaningful relationship. That is, a Dualistic Digitiality.

.

NECESSITY OF RENORMALIZING CURVATURE TO PARTICIPATION OF MORTAL PERSPECTIVES:  Suppose God had acquired only the capacity to make manifest and project 2-D shakes along directional waves, rather than 3-D spins in respect of fields. Could conscious mortals have been evolved in respect of such a world-projection? If so, how may the rules for the maths of such 2-D shakes be defined and limited? Would their maths have been limited to linearity and flatness? Absent points-with-field-properties, how may their maths renormalize to the world-space among different mortal perspectives?   Would not re-normalization among perspectives require an expression of Field Curvature, i.e., a 3-D space in time?   Such Curvature would abide more in the renormalizing function of controlling levels of algorithms than in any real substance.  If so, then, while 2-D points may be potentially conceptualized for computational purpoees, it does not seem that they could manifest a renormalized system inhabited by conscious perspectives, absent organization in respect of a 3-D space field.

.

MATH UNBOUND:  Is MATH limited to 3D space in time? If space is only a math-based construct of a Source's interpretive projection of particle-fields, then how many dimensions of math-based space may such a Source interpretively project? How may evolution among consciously dependend and appreciative mortal occupants of such spatial dimensions affect how God projects them? May the Source-Projector have capacity to meta-spin simultaneously among parallel universes and Constructs of space-time dimensions? May any mortals ever safely occupy (move back and forth among, bond and identity with) such parallel constructs?

.

META SPIN AS SOURCE FOR PROJECTING CONTINUOSITIES AND DISCRETES:  Source capacity to spin seems to implicate alternating and variable capacity to mix and flux, to effect manifestations of Continuosities fluxing and phasing back and forth with particular Discretes. Such a Source would have inherent capacity to give expression to infinity of possible relational constructs and representations.

.

META COMPUTER WITH CAPACITY OF INFINITE MATH:  A meta-computer with the capacity of infinite math to process digital projections for representing patterns of zeros and ones would seem to have infinite capacity to represent relationships, organizations, and organisms. That is, capacity to represent informational patterns that can assume forms as algorithms, whereby algorithmic forms evolve in respect of feedback with their Source, to avail their transmitter-receivers to sense and react with one another. Form-ulas made flesh. In-form-ation emerging to be made qualitatively sensing. All derived from an immeasurable Source that has capacity to represent relational spins, and all maths, patterns, forms, organizations, organisms, continuosities, and discretes that can arise and feedback therewith. The Source is the Source of Creative Math, i.e., Active Math, i.e., math that facilitates: formulization; feedback; virtual borrowing; apprehension and appreciation of unfolding choices; reconciliation; synchronization; and conservation.
.
RECONCILING RENORMALIZATIONS OF PROJECTIONS:  Nothing that is measured and evidenced can be represented to the manifest except upon being reconciled and renormalized to the Source's ruling projections of math. Because math is availed only by the Source, math cannot be used to prove or disprove the Source Itself. Rather, the existentiality of the Source is experienced only appreciatively, empathetically, intuitively, directly -- in Faith. Not in the proof of measured science.

.

ETERNAL PRESENT:  The Source avails the Eternal Present. The Present, as we occupy it, is perpetually reconciled and renormalized so that we experience and interpret it as a mathematically sequential unfolding of relationships. We interpret those relationships as availing dimensions of space, time, matter, and energy, i.e., field renormalizations of points of view relating to situational contexts under unfolding apprehensions of layers and levels of awareness of purposefulness.

.

LEAP OF FAITH:  It seems not a hard Leap of Faith to intuit that such a Source, having mathematical capacity to give relational expression to infinity of measurable relationships, would also have capacity to apprehend a qualitative evolution of feedback, to identify and evaluate the qualitative experiences and apprehensions among the various points of view of such various organisms of which IT may give expression. Indeed, if an organism is aware of itself, and is aware that others like itself are aware of it, then such seems to suggest to the intuitive-faithful that, if their consciousness has causal effect, then the role of their consciousness as a causal factor must somehow be appreciated, evaluated, and factored by the Source.

.

QUANTITATIVES DERIVATIVE OF QUALITATIVES:  Hence, all that we measure is illusion -- not having reality as things-in-themselves. They are forms derivative of nothing more than math that is projected and experienced by an immeasurable Source that meta-interfunctions with its projections. Thus, the only "thing" we really measure is Math. And the reason we are able to measure relationships among projections in math is in respect of the immeasurable Source. Although immeasurable, the Source is not beyond empathetic, intuitive appreciation in good faith and good will.

.

IMMEASURABLE CLASS OF ONE DOES NOT MEASURE ITSELF:  The Source, as an encompassing class of 1, does not measure itself. It requires a digital 2 to avail capacity to form-ulize a relationship. Given access to infinity of patterns for expressing 0-1, every possible relationship can be mathematically formulized and algorithmically represented. However, the digitizing math, the 0-1 duality (i.e., the 2), is not by itself a source in itself. Rather, the digital duality is byproduct of a capacity of the Source to project math-based forms and images. The unfolding, imaginative projection from the Math Mind of the Source. The Source has capacity to represent spin, which implicates capacity to project and represent math-based relationships, which translates into capacity to represent and experience Qualitatives. Such Qualitatives may be immeasurable from the subjective perspective of the mortal experiencer, yet be correlatively and Quantitatively measurable and factor-able to the perspective of an observer of the experiencer. And to the Source-Projector-Reconciler.

.

SUBJECTIVE APPREHENSIONS OF QUALITIES OF SPIN VS. OBJECTIVE APPRECIATIONS OF QUANTITIES OF SPIN:  When one's (subjective) perspective is bound to a spin of organized focus (subjective consciousness of an organism), exterior (objective) spins upon which the focus is cast will appear to take on a substantive materiality (which may be derivative of spin projected by a Source which itself receded into immeasurable infinity).

.

WHAT IS SPINNING:  Ultimately, it's No-Thing in itself that is measurable that is spinning. Rather, what is spinning is the meta-spinning of an immeasurable Source-Thing, whose measure recedes into infinity in the number of ways towards which math-based digitality can be form-ulized. Perhaps the Source's capacity to avail maths based on projections of algorithmic patterns correlates with evolutionary unfolding of points of view that "do maths towards infinities."

.

SCIENCE OF MATH:  Analysis under Math avails means of measuring. All measuring science applies math. All technical science deals with how maths are made manifest to representation by a Source. Studying means and parameters for organizing projections (of such projections by the Source) of maths is itself an unfolding, correlative Science.  It seems not unreasonable to conceptualize a Science of Math, a Philosophy of Math, a Science of the Philosophy of Math, and a Philosophy of the Science of Math.

.

COMPUTER SCIENCE:  Computer Science deals with the possibilities of applying math-based algorithms to computational devices, and of devising algorithms that can be applied to such devices. And of how we, or conscious beings, can bond and identify with organizations and organisms of math algorithms, in order to exploit old dimensions of math-based experience and open up new ones.  Explaining our way towards Infinity and Eternity.

ALGORITHMIC RENORMALIZATION TO PURPOSEFUL FEEDBACK:  Numbers are abstract, shorthand representations of representations of projections.  Thus, it's not NUMBERS, per se, of which our measurable cosmos consists.  A better model for what our measurable cosmos consists of consists in a concept of projections of clockwise and counterclockwise SPINS, which interrelate as if they were bits of ones and zeros for defining algorithms for a Computer.  This Computer seems to have a property or Character of functioning in conservatory feedback, sort of like a Holistic Reconciling And Appreciatively Computing Person.  IT's projections are arranged in patterns, which compute, interfunction, and unfold in renormalizing obedience to such algorithmic patterns as define such pattrerns and as such patterns define.  These Algorithmic-Based Patterns in turn obey, respond to, help regulate, and feed back to other algorithms --- all of which arise in abstract and renormalizing respect of patterns of projections of a participating and immeasurable Reconciler.  In Bonding to Identify with a focus of participatory-organizing-algorithms, each Mortal Person takes on an unfolding Perspective or point of view in respect of an interpretation of a Contextual Situation.  Each Contextual Situation responds in Purposefully Appreciative Feedback with such interfunctioning of algorithms as define and limit each Person's unfolding situational Renormalization to his or her cone of interpretive experience.

.

 

The Rise of Economics over Political and Moral Science

Progs tend not to believe in Jesus or spirituality, but they are quick to create interpretations when it suits their interests.  What are Progs' interests?  Primarily, they claim to want "fairness and equality," conveniently defined.  They do not want any common-sense assimilation of cultural values.  To Progs, that would be cultural chauvenism.  To avoid that, they want to flood all nations with diverse ghettos of unassimilable groups with grievances.  Convenient to Progs' interpretation, Jesus would celebrate multi-culti values that promoted the use of sex and drugs to live in a perpetual high.  Progs tend to deem it intolerant to be offended by cultures:  that use children and women as sex toys and property; that celebrate and push drugs on children; that promote experiments in anal sex; and that ridicule faith in a spiritual Reconciler.  The fake tolerance promoted by Progs amounts to intolerance of any cultural or national assimilation of social values.  Progs do not want to invite people to come and reason together in the pursuit of assimilable values and purposes.  That discussion is "settled" by economics.  Instead, Progs want to divide people, so that "anything goes."

Why do Progs ridicule all attempts to assimilate spiritual, traditional, or even common-sense social values?  It's as if their only social value is the preclusion of any assimilation of social values.  Progs want multi-national economic concerns to replace traditional and state forms of governance.  Why?  Who and what interests are behind this?  The interests behind this are the purely crass, material interests of crony people-farmers who believe all non-material based social values are not only un-scientific, but chauvenistic, "unfair," and counter to pursuits of human pleasure and happiness.  As if using children, women, and laborers as material property were conducive to pleasure and fairness.

Corrupt cronies who are devoid of spiritual or national sentiments or loyalties, whose ultra-dominant interest is to acquire power to rule others, have decided that the world should "be made safe for free trade."  All other social and moral values are subservient to their economic interest.  They believe economics is "science," but common-sense values for human freedom and dignity are not.  Indeed, they believe all domains that promote human freedom and dignity must be infiltrated by diverse ghetto cultures, in order to divide and undermine them.  This is so that purely economic interests can be harvested.  When Progs talk of "tolerance for multi-culti values," their message makes about as much sense as the fake interpreter for the deaf who appeared at Mandela's funeral services.  Prog kids and profs and kid-profs are the useful dolts of crony people-farmers.  These people-farmers are the NWO that now runs the mulit-national economic concerns that are replacing cultures, constitutions, and nation states.  People of the middle class -- accept your new, deconstructed station as interreplaceable widgets.