Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Progressive Tax on Consumption

The Age of Ruin is brought on by self absorbed, simpleton clowns to the left and sociopathic simplistic jokers to the right. Self interest (crony money) tends to be a root of evil (lack of responsible empathy), Who speaks for the sustenance of a decent republic?

Nearly everyone apprehends that our universe would avail little meaning were it somehow able to consist only of matter or energy, but not both. The relationship between matter and energy is complex, not simple. For a civilization, much the same may be said of that which is private versus governmental. It's hard to think of a decent and meaningful society that would have no government. Even in a company town removed to a wilderness, the town would have rules that it enforced, i.e., government. The fairie idea of a government without law makers elected as representatives by their constituents tends to reduce to a government by the quickest and strongest, That is, a government of the most competent and likeable sociopaths.

It's almost breathtaking how blithely apologists for oligarchs will use government to increase private crony power, then tell their dupes we need to privatize government even more! What hoodwinkers! Our government is already largely privatized to corporatists! Why else would our government be moving quickly and steadily towards drowning our borders and the people at large (in the name of fairness, yet!) with a foreign tsunami of illiterate and easily exploited laborers? The bait and switch techniques used by oligarchs to fake and hoodwink the masses into perpetual debt servitude! Our children are indoctrinated that they need to remain in indoctrination for extended times. Even take out loans and go into deep debt to pay for their own indoctrination! Then watch as jobs and industries are funneled to distant and desperate workers.

The idea that the wealth of topmost oligarchs tends to churn, therefore is not a danger to a republic, is an insult to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. "It's the oligarchic meme, stupid!" It's the indoctrination to accept the conversion of all institutions for the purpose of ruling the people in fine detail, while misdirecting the people with circus barkers on oligarchic-owned media. Ask: Is that insult to the freedom and dignity of the people at large increasing, despite the churning of oligarchs? Why, yes, it is.

Our real problem is: Who should run government, and who should government serve? A few corporatists? Or the thinking class of productive, responsible, republic-minded citizens? Wherever there abides a decent civilization, there will abide a process for making and enforcing social rules -- more so than a process for merely making suggestions. So the problem for those who wish to establish and preserve decent civilization for themselves and their progeny is accompanied with many sub-problems. Among such problems is this: How can checks and balances be established that will tend to prevent oligarchic accumulators of wealth and power from taking over the governance, to all practical effects? How can the society defend itself from the acquisition among sociopathic oligarchists of power to buy, sell, and determine the government? Stated differently, how can decent people at large limit wannabe despots from succeeding in oligarchically collectivizing the people of a republic?

That goal tends not to be well served by an income tax, nor by a flat tax. Enterprise tends not to be well served by taxing businesses that provide employment. What is needed is to tax individuals, not businesses, in a way that allows them to spend their earnings without being able to convert such expenditures into crony investments for buying political influence as if it were a wholesale commodity. That necessitates a tax on consumption that is not limited to a flat tax. That is, non-business consumption should be imputed to individuals and taxed progressively, perhaps even logarithmically.

As to mechanics, there is no great challenge. If a retailer or credit card company is able to preserve and report information concerning particular retail exchanges, there is little reason why each such consumptive use of credit could not simultaneously be tallied as part of an accumulating total for each consumer, for each taxable year. Yes, let domestic corporations engage in domestic political lobbying, even when not directly related to producing non-crony business income. Just require that all such crony expenditures be imputed to particular corporate individuals, as part of their yearly running tally of taxable consumption. What would be unfair in a tax system that would at least tax attempts to buy progressive advantages, progressively?

Life is too complex and absurd to admit of any system that could reasonably constitute a final solution. However, a society that wants to preserve a decent republic that seeks to serve the freedom and dignity of its citizens will not do so by restricting itself to flat taxes on sociopathic oligarchs who scheme to buy and sell progressive advantages.

Sunday, May 4, 2014

Math Is Nature -- Bit Is It



CONSTANTS BASED IN MATH RATHER THAN IN PHYSICAL CAUSATION: A cosmological constant governs the rate of acceleration of the universe we share. Such mathematical constant is suggestive that the form-ulas that balance across our various fields of equalizing feedback (fields of math) provide all the measurables that our physical substances are made of.

AETHER: The only aether, or cosmological constant, is math. The fabric of space-time is such that, because of gravitational effects and curvature secondary to massive centers of spin-orbit-rolls, with varying values for wobbles, frequencies, amplitudes, densities, no form of aether is needed other than math itself.

SIGNS: Measurable objects exist not as things in themselves, but as significations of Something else, something that is beyond measurable substantiality.

PRE-SETTINGS DO NOT PRE-SENTLY REQUIRE PARTICULAR OBSERVERS: Appearances of radioactive decay among particles do not require any particular (as opposed to holistic) observer in order for information about them to be recorded or to facilitate a sequence of communication among later particular observers.

COMMUNICATIONS ARE FORMULATED OUT OF POTENTIALITY AND FED BACK IN MATH: In the in-form-ational form of Math, Consciousness may summon "physical objects" to signify, to appear to exist, to be interpreted and communicated as apprehensions and appreciations of significations, rather than as "things in themselves." Significations are communications of signs among receptive perspectives. Objects and the particles comprising them do not, in themselves, exist, locate, sequence, radioactively decay, or electromagnetically radiate. Rather, substantive matter and energy and measurable space and time abide in an ambiguous state of potential unfolding, except as they are called into communicable manifestation by a meta process of feedback in appreciation and apprehension between and among a Meta Reconciler and its variously renormalizing perspectives and situational particulars.

CAUSATION: As objects come out of the fuzz of potential and collapse into the focus of the manifest, they avail expression to measurables. What causes this? Is the cause entirely reducible to the measureables in themselves, or is the cause inherently permeated with immeasurable qualities of consciousness that balance and communicate appreciations and apprehensions? Does the universe-in-itself cause signification of conscious appreciation of itself? Or does appreciation among fluxing layers and levels of consciousness cause the significations of the universe? Does the curvature of space-time tell objects how to move? Or do objects tell space-time how to curve? Or is "material causation" an illusion, derivative of correlative significations among renormalizing perspectives of a reconciling Meta Signifier?

UNFOLDING APPEARANCE OF CAUSATION: Einstein noted that the appearance of time is a stubborn illusion. Rather, what we experience are chronological relationships. Sequences. So, assuming in-form-ation of some sort must exist, what sort of link is required, if chronologies across all connected frames of reference are to be preserved, so that information can really be conveyed? Perhaps, to the extent a sequential connection is appreciatively linked, it is informationally and sequentially preserved in every frame of reference with which such appreciation happens to be mathematically connected.

MAY ALL THAT IS POTENTIALLY MEASURABLE BE CONCEPTUALLY CLOSED IN TERMS OF NOTHING MORE THAN MATH: May the measurable world be subject to eventual explication via a model whose terms consist of nothing more than formulas for exchanges in mathematical values among spin-orbit-rolls, as represented to various perspectives of consciousness that are sequentially and proportionately renormalized to appearances of space-time?

NO-THING BUT-TERY: What hub-bub and practical results may flow, were the measurable appearance of physical substances shown to be entirely derivative of nothing more than math? What would result, were all measurable forms of radioactive, electric, magnetic, chemical, and heat radiation of mass shown to consist of nothing more than transactional values that correlate with mathematical exchange rates in terms of form-ulaic interpretations of digital pairings of densities, amplitudes, and frequencies among representations of spin-orbit-rolls?

HOW WOULD A MATH-BASED INTERPRETATION OF THE AETHER AND SUBSTANCE OF THE COSMOS AFFECT OUR SCIENCE AND MORALITY: Suppose the quantitatively measurable physics of existence were found to be consistent with modeling nothing more than feedback relationships among forms of mathematically based information, that flux among perspectives of a singular quality of consciousness? Under such a conceptualization, would not Nature be modeled as Math? Would not the reconciliation of the singular quality of Consciousness be modeled as God?

META EMPATHY: Such a conceptualization would neither detract from, nor add anything quantitative to, our capacity to measure that which appears to be measurable. However, it would mediate an intuition of a meta-empathetic quality of motivational inspiration and spiritual-based morality. And it would brake the hubris of those who expect all concerns of qualitative morality should be reduced to quantifying science.

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

SENSATIONS OF PHYSICAL SUBSTANCES: One does not "see" any photon-in-itself. Rather, one detects and interprets sequentialities in math-based information and its apparent path as they are relayed to us, as photons make contact with one's seeing apparatus. We do not see any smallest particle. Nor any edge of the cosmos. Nor may we write an actual largest possible number. Nor a smallest possible decimal. In the here and now, what do we "really see," when we receive and interpret information that is transmitted to us by a photon?

OBJECTS APART: We do not conceptualize a separation between bosons and fermions, apart, except in respect of something we call "spin" -- which we do not "see." Nor do we "see" photons or electrons. What we generally think we see are their traces and effects. However, we do not directly see even their traces. What we "see" consists only in the information that is directly conveyed by such photons as happen to make contact with our eyeball-seeing apparatus. We don't "see" any distant object. We only "see" (interpret information from) photons in respect of such object as such photons presently happen to have arrived to make contact with our eyeballs. If, in reality, a photon is only an organized form or bit of mathematical information, then we are not seeing any "thing." Rather, we are transacting in sequential interpretations of bits of math-based forms.
ENTANGLEMENT AMONG MEASURABLES WITH THE IMMEASURABLE: Is all that signifies, and that is signified, availed only because of, but not from, forms of math (i.e., active form-ulas, i.e., math made active by entanglement with a mathematically immeasurable formulizer)?

EMERGENT REALITY: What is physical reality? Is it an emergent that is derivative of something "more real," but less measurable? Are photon bits physically real and radiative across real distances in space-time?

CONCEPTUALIZING PHYSICAL PARTICLES AS MATHEMATICAL FORM-ULAS: It seems particles may reasonably be conceptualized as bits of mathematical form-ulas that take on physically measurable attributes only upon interfunctioning among conservational contexts of consciousness.

CONSERVATIONAL SYSTEM OF FORM-ULAS: A conservational system of form-ulas avails reconciliation in feedback among all levels and layers of signification by signifiers. Such system is innately and qualitatively coextensive with all layers and levels of perspectives of consciousness.

EXISTENCE: Space-time-in-itself does not exist, except as a derivative, or practical illusion. What exists with the perpetual present is mathematical sequentiality that is correlative with an appreciative capacity of consciousness to inhabit and effect forms of feedback. The appreciative aspect of the universe of form-ulas that our perspectives of consciousness happen to occupy is the universe that we feed our thinking back to, that we tinker to apprehend. Apart from the measurable expression of form-ulas, what is the appreciative aspect that actuates, transmits, and en-souls form-ulas and perspectives thereof, if not Holistic Reconciling Consciousness, i.e., God?

PERPETUAL POTENTIAL OF THE PRE-SENT: In the perpetual present, God is immanent at all times. What is potential in consciousness pertains to how consciousness happens to be guided to bond to particular fields of perspective and points of apprehensive view. The process of changing and moving potentials among relational perspectives is unceasing. It entails a Holistic Reconciler, guiding and making ready the environment of sequential form-ulizations out of which perspectives of consciousness emerge. Thus, the potential for emergence of consciousness among locally relational perspectives is not evidence that the Holistic Reconciler (God) has not always abided with the perpetual present.

QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIGHT AND SPACE AND TIME: How do light photons alter their wavelengths to store information about that with which they come in radiative contact, and then signal such information to such receptors of conscious interpretation as happen to receive them? How much information can be extracted from each photon, by processes of contextual and magnifying analysis? How may parallax information be extracted? What is a photon? Is it a thing-in-itself? Is a photon a kind of mathematically-based form or form-ula, that avails active, radiative transmission and communication of information across mathematically conservatory equality determinants? In other words, is all that signifies, and that is signified, availed only because of, but not only from, forms of math (i.e., active form-ulas, i.e., math made active by entanglement with a mathematically immeasurable formulizer)? We do not see any photon in itself. We detect and interpret the mathematical sequentiality of its apparent path and the mathematical information it avails upon contactg with us. We do not see any smallest particle. Nor any edge of the cosmos. Nor may we write an actual largest possible number. Nor a smallest possible decimal. In the here and now, what do we "really see" when a photon transmits information to our interpretation?

RADIATION OF MATH BITS: How are form form-ulas transmitted, received, interpreted? Each photon may be conceptualized as a representation of math-formulas that radiate for communicating math formulas. But math, in itself, does not radiate. It seems some immeasurable, like a Holistic Reconciler of the Expression of Math Forms, must account for how math-bit-forms are interpreted as seeming to radiate, such as in a form that is interpreted to express such capacities as we measure and conceptualize with photons. The illusion that math bits, as photons, radiate is a derivative of the immeasurable way in which the Holistic Reconciler qualitatively interfunctions to appreciate and apprehend unfolding expressions of mathematical, formulaic sequences in the feedback of the perpetual present. Apart from the measurable expression of form-ulas, what is the appreciative aspect that actuates, transmits, and en-souls form-ulas and perspectives thereof, if not Holistic Reconciling Consciousness, i.e., God?

OF THE INFORMATION THAT IS CONVEYED BY PHOTONIC MATH BITS, WHAT IS IT THAT WE ACTUALLY APPREHEND AND "SEE": We don't see objects in themselves. We interpret information from photonic math bits that are presented to us, as if they had reflected from objects, which photons have their wavelengths altered by their reflections, and then our nerve reception systems renormalize and interpret the wavelength data received. Except, we do not "see" the wavelengths. Rather, our systems interpret the "impact" of the wavelength forms-formulas. In effect, the transmissive communication is of form-formulas. And the ultimate forms are not, "in themselves," of any measurable size. No homunculous "sees" photons. Rather, photonic math bits and interpretations of their paths of interfunctioning transmission are detected upon "contact" with senses or devices that happen to have become adapted for such purpose. For a local perspective of consciousness to bond with a body necessitates that such local body sense and interpret interfunctions with photonic math bits as if they were radiating physical particles that had been transmitted to make contact with such body. Our entire unfolding experience is like a simulation that is derivative of Consciousness as it appreciates, apprehends, and interfunctions with nothing more than formulations of systems of math.

PARAMETER LIMITS: What is the limit of analysis of a "massless" particle? Is there a "smallest limit? Or may the make up of each photonic-math-bit devolve into a fuzz, to a phase shift analysis of sub sub sub "particles"? May it be that each "photon" within a plate of photons (depending on magnification/perspective/analysis) may in potentiality convey incredible varieties of information, depending in large part on the contextual situation of the observer/interpreter/perspective of consciousness?

FOCUSING, RENORMALIZATION, AND RECONCILIATION OF INTERPRETATIONS OF CAUSE, EFFECT, AND CORRELATIONS: Given great magnification, what interpretive differences may abide between an eyeball brought close to a distant object versus a magnification of presently experienced photons collected from afar? What differences may abide, in sequential interpretation and parallax regarding relational maps of space and time and "cause and effect"? If all presentation of causation is derivative of the interfunctioning of an immeasurable Holistic Reconciler with fields and forms of Math, then all local interpretations of causation are little more than apprehensions of correlative, Bayesian analysis. That is, we cannot pinpoint or measure any locally specific cause-in-itself. What we can do is apprehend practical correlations. Moreover, there is no specific or objective event-in-itself. What we share are renormalized and reconciled interpretations (such as interpretations of the Moon). We experience interpretations of sequentiality among perspectives of consciousness, bonded to an informationally shared and relative locus in space-time. The appearance of spatial "distance" is derivative of the function of a mathematical relationship between each "distant" signal and each perspective of consciousness that is bonded to a relationally mediating locus in apparent space-time. All appearance of space-time-matter-energy is secondary to mathematical forms of relationships that are actuated between communicating perspectives of consciousness.

RENORMALIZATION: Each perspective of consciousness renormalizes, in respect of the Holistic Reconciler of such consciousness as we happen to share. Each deals with meta math in respect of contemporaneous apprehension of here and now significations. No one deals directly with meta math, except the Holistic Reconciler (God). Yet, how each local perspective deals with here and now significations affects how God reconciles the meta. What we apprehend are forms that are renormalized to our parameters. Those forms may be conceptualized as actuated math, that is de-stabilized across equal and expanding conversion signs. The "expansion" of our experience and universe is derivative of our unfolding of consciousness, as it is experienced in space-time. Such expansion may entail perpetual phase shifts across parameters for innumerable possible expressions of shared cosmos.

GOD IN THE PERPETUAL PRESENT AND OUTSIDE OF TIME: How does God interfunction with forms and fields of math? Were there a state where nothing were expressed, it would take an initial, borrowing, destabilization across the equality of nothingness in order to avail the expression of anything. Once Something were expressed, could, would, or should it ever settle back into a precise and perfect zero balancing of digital pluses and minuses? Or must it in perpetuity delay and resist any such perfectly symmetrical balancing out? Must all particular perspectives eventually reset to a single subsuming nothingness? Or must every purposeful or random attempt that tends towards a re-balancing into nothingness function like a perpetual-motion-destabilizing-machine? Could there ever have been a first de-stabilizing event, without its de-stabilizing function having forever been inherent to the cosmos? If inherent, can the function towards relativistically absolute change and de-stabilization ever cease? Must an inherent-meta-fictional-immeasurable-force-agent of change be accompanied by a mirror agent for resisting change, and vice versa? Must an inherent agency preclude a settlement back into a balanced nothingness? What may such an agent and counter agent sponsor, in respect of mortal perspectives and moral imperatives? Must it/they sponsor a perpetual process of conscious feedback between and among its/their holistically encompassing aspect and its/their particularly expressed aspects and perspectives?

SYMMETRY PAIRING AND BREAKING: May it be that there never was a symmetry-breaking destabilization, because there has always been Something, i.e., a meta sponsor of perpetual apprehensions and appreciations and effectuator of changes and re-normalizations and reconciliations? De-stabilization is inherently represented as digitized changes crossing the balancing scale of zero, with Zero Equality never itself being realized. In effect, Consciousness actuates formulas for transitioning across equalities. The math is actively actuated and delayed, like dominoes on spring strings. The reconciling Holism that feeds back to guide us to adjust the math programs of our receptivity simultaneously adjusts the math programs for the signals it sends to us, for our reception. As to the synchronization in itself, we cannot detect why or how such holistic synchronization is or should be the case.

THE SYSTEM PROGRAM: The program seems to be both a priori and subject to phase shifts, transitions, new beginnings, and incremental influence-- perhaps even by us. That is, we also may experience capacity to program virtual worlds within subprograms of virtual worlds within virtual worlds. Like a fractal of never-ending conscious creativity. All within a Perpetual Present. We cannot all at once prove the cause of the system or program as a whole. But we can continuously tinker at the edges and in the fuzz. See Deutch, The Beginning of Infinity. Thus, there seems to be no particularly pre-set God. But if Consciousness is taken as God, and it is recognized that we are all of the same intuitive, empathetic Consciousness, then we are all subject to an entanglement with God.

IDENTITY AND SPIRITUAL CONTINUITY: The nature of the form-ulas with which one identifies imposes limitations on one's capacity to move among apparent distances between apparent objects.

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

****

REPEAT:

I had thought that any conceptualization for explicating nature must be modeled based on some kind of actual "thing" that we can model. Under that head, it is sometimes said that "math itself cannot be the territory" for explaining Nature. More and more, I question that. For example, if math itself were conceptualized as consisting of an infinity of potentially paired bits of information, then it seems to me that a model may be possible. I suspect such a model would need to renormalize to every perspective that is possible within the rules of our universe, and its terms would consist of paired bits of information nested within transactional algorithms.  (NOTE: I don't think either math itself, or nature itself, can complete an explanation of nature.  I think there is necessarily an inherent mystery to the explanation, that permeates nature with a quantitatively inexplicable, meta aspect.  While that aspect is beyond quantitative analysis, I don't believe it is beyond qualitative appreciation.  Maybe call IT Godel's God.  Still, I suspect that all that can be quantitatively explained can be explained in terms of nothing more than math.)

QUESTION: Can MEASURABLE Nature reasonably be modeled, with no loss to science, as consisting of nothing more than transactions among bits of math? If so, I anticipate these effects: (1) Reduction towards ever simpler, mathematically-nested explanations. (2) Humble acceptance that physical science cannot, in itself, "close" existence or spirituality (or technology or morality).

******

CONSTANTS BASED IN MATH RATHER THAN IN PHYSICAL CAUSATION: Insofar as a cosmological constant seems to govern the rate of acceleration of the universe we share, such mathematical constant seems suggestive that the form-ulas that balance across our various fields of equalizing feedback ("fields of math") may provide all the measurables that our physical substances are made of.

AETHER: The only aether, or cosmological constant, is math. The fabric of space-time is such that (because of gravitational effects and curvature secondary to massive centers of spin-orbit-rolls, with varying values for wobbles, frequencies, amplitudes, densities) no form of aether is needed -- other than math itself.

SIGNS: Measurable objects abide not as things in themselves, but as significations of Something else -- something that is beyond measurable substantiality.

PRE-SETTINGS DO NOT PRE-SENTLY REQUIRE PARTICULAR OBSERVERS: Appearances of radioactive decay among particles do not require any particular (as opposed to meta) observer in order for information about them to be recorded or to facilitate a sequence of communication among later particular observers.

COMMUNICATIONS ARE FORMULATED OUT OF POTENTIALITY AND FED BACK IN MATH: In the in-form-ational form of Math, an inexplicable root Consciousness may summon "physical objects" to signify, to appear to exist, to be interpreted and communicated as apprehensions and appreciations of significations, rather than as "things in themselves." Significations are communications of signs among receptive perspectives. Objects and the particles comprising them do not, in themselves, exist, locate, sequence, radioactively decay, or electromagnetically radiate. Rather, substantive matter and energy and measurable space and time abide in an ambiguous state of potential unfolding, except as they are called into communicable recordation. Such meta process of manifestation, being meta, is inexplicable.  (It may avail a quality of inspiration, but not quantitative analysis, to call it "a meta process of feedback" that entails participatory appreciation and apprehension between and among a Meta Reconciler and its variously renormalizing perspectives and situational particulars.)

CAUSATION: As objects come out of the fuzz of potential and collapse into the focus of the manifest, they avail expression to measurables. What causes this? Is the cause entirely reducible to the measureables in themselves, or is the cause inherently permeated with immeasurable qualities of consciousness (a universe that is conservationally conscious of itself?), that balance and communicate appreciations and apprehensions? Does the universe-in-itself cause signification of conscious appreciation of itself? Or does appreciation among fluxing layers and levels of consciousness cause the significations of the universe? Does the curvature of space-time tell objects how to move? Or do objects tell space-time how to curve? Or is "material causation" an illusion, derivative of Bayesian-correlative significations among renormalizing perspectives of a reconciling Meta Signifier?

UNFOLDING APPEARANCE OF CAUSATION: Einstein noted that the appearance of time is a stubborn illusion. Rather, what we experience are chronological relationships. Sequences. So, assuming in-form-ation of some sort must exist, what sort of link is required, if chronologies across all connected frames of reference are to be preserved, so that information can really be conveyed? Perhaps, to the extent a sequential connection is appreciatively linked, it is informationally and sequentially preserved in every frame of reference with which such appreciation happens to be mathematically connected.

MAY ALL THAT IS POTENTIALLY MEASURABLE BE CONCEPTUALLY "CLOSED" IN TERMS OF "NOTHING MORE THAN" MATH: May the measurable world be subject to eventual explication via a model whose terms consist of nothing more than formulas for exchanges in mathematical values among spin-orbit-rolls, the relational "sizes" of which are dependent on nothing more than math-based renormalizations to adopted choices of perspective, as represented to various perspectives of consciousness that are sequentially and proportionately renormalized to appearances of space-time?

NO-THING BUT-TERY: What hub-bub, as well as practical results, may flow were the measurable appearance of the physical substances of nature reasonably shown to be explicable as being entirely derivative of nothing more than math? What would result, were all measurable forms of radioactive, electric, magnetic, chemical, and heat radiation of mass shown to consist of nothing more than transactional values that correlate with mathematical exchange rates in terms of form-ulaic interpretations of digital pairings of densities, amplitudes, and frequencies among representations of spin-orbit-rolls?

HOW WOULD A MATH-BASED INTERPRETATION OF THE AETHER AND SUBSTANCE OF THE COSMOS AFFECT OUR SCIENCE AND MORALITY: Suppose the quantitatively measurable physics of existence were found to be consistent with modeling nothing more than feedback relationships among forms of mathematically based information, that flux among perspectives of a Singular Quality of Consciousness? Under such a conceptualization, would not Nature be modeled as Math? Would not the reconciliation of the singular quality of Consciousness be modeled as "God"?

META EMPATHY: Such a conceptualization need neither detract from, nor add anything quantitative to, our capacity to measure that which appears to be measurable. However, it may inspire us towards simpler, more elegant, more unifying explanations.  And it may mediate an intuition of a meta-empathetic quality of motivational inspiration and spiritual-based morality. If so, it would brake the hubris or moral indifference of most of those who expect all concerns of qualitative morality "should" be reduced to quantifying science.

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

REGARDING MATH:

NO SEEING HOMUNCULOUS: No homunculous "sees" photons. Our entire unfolding experience seems more like a simulation, that is derivative of Consciousness as it appreciates, apprehends, and interfunctions with nothing more than formulations of systems of math.

SENSATIONS OF PHYSICAL SUBSTANCES: One does not "see" any part-icular photon-in-itself. Rather, one detects and interprets sequentialities in math-based information and its apparent path, as such in-form-ation is relayed as photons make contact with one's seeing-apparatus. We do not "see" any smallest particle. Nor any edge of the cosmos. Nor may we write an actual largest possible number. Nor a smallest possible decimal. In the here and now, what do we "really see," when we receive and interpret information that is transmitted to us by a photon?

OBJECTS APART: We do not conceptualize a separation between bosons and fermions, apart, except in respect of something we call "spin" -- which we do not "see." Nor do we "see" photons or electrons. What we generally think we see are their traces and effects. However, we do not directly see even their traces. What we "see" consists only in the information that is directly conveyed by such photons as happen to make contact with our eyeball-seeing apparatus. We don't "see" any distant object. We only "see" (interpret information from) photons in respect of such object, as such photons presently happen to have arrived to make contact with our eyeballs. If, in "reality," a photon is reasonably to be conceptualized as only an organized form or bit of mathematical information, then we are not seeing any "thing." Rather, we are transacting in sequential interpretations of bits of math-based forms.

ENTANGLEMENT AMONG MEASURABLES WITH THE IMMEASURABLE: Is all that signifies, and that is signified, availed only because of, but not from, forms of math (i.e., active form-ulas, i.e., math made active by entanglement with a mathematically immeasurable formulizer)?

EMERGENT REALITY: What is physical reality? Is physical reality only an emergent, that is derivative of something "more real," but less measurable? Are photon bits physically real and radiative across "real distances" in space-time? Of is space-time-in-itself a stubborn illusion?

CONCEPTUALIZING PHYSICAL PARTICLES AS MATHEMATICAL FORM-ULAS: It seems particles may be conceptualized as bits of mathematical form-ulas that take on physically measurable attributes as they interfunction among conservationally renormalizing pre-texts or con-texts for recording or conveying quantitative information among qualitatively fluxing levels and layers of consciousness.

EXISTENCE: Space-time-in-itself does not exist, except as a derivative, or practical illusion. What exists with the perpetual present is mathematical sequentiality that is correlative with an appreciative capacity of consciousness to inhabit and effect forms of feedback. The appreciative aspect of the universe of form-ulas that our perspectives of consciousness happen to occupy is the universe that we, from our various levels and layers of consciousness, feed our thinking back to, that we tinker to apprehend.

RADIATION OF MATH BITS: How are form form-ulas transacted, transmitted, received, interpreted? Each photon may be conceptualized as a representation of math-formulas that radiate for communicating math formulas. But math, in itself, does not radiate. (Spatial distance is an illusion, that is renormalized to every perspective, even though the math of it absolutely governs every perspective.) It seems some immeasurable, like a Holistic Reconciler of the Expression of Math Forms, must account for how math-bit-forms are interpreted as seeming to radiate, such as in a form that is interpreted to express such capacities as we measure and conceptualize with photons.

COMMUNICATION: What we share and communicate about are renormalized and reconciled interpretations (such as interpretations of receding rainbows and moons). (Einstein liked to believe that the Moon is "really there."  Well, the information about it is "really renormalized to govern every perspective.") We experience interpretations of sequentiality among perspectives of consciousness, bonded to an informationally connected apparent locus in what we call space-time. The appearance of spatial "distance" is derivative of the function of a mathematical relationship between each "distant" signal and each perspective of consciousness that is bonded to a relationally mediating locus in apparent space-time. All appearance of space-time-matter-energy is secondary to mathematical forms of relationships that are actuating and transacting among communicating, recording, and potentially appreciating perspectives of consciousness.

RENORMALIZATION SUCH THAT NO ONE GETS TO SEE THE EDGE: Each perspective of consciousness renormalizes, in respect of the Holistic Reconciler of such consciousness as we happen to share. No mortal of this universe will ever "see" its edge, nor catch the end of any rainbow. The density of our universe seems to be seen as much the same, regardless of spatial locus of perspective. The speed of light, as a measure of distance, is renormalized to be constant to every perspective that takes its measure. Each perspective deals with meta-math in respect of contemporaneous apprehension of here and now significations. No one deals directly with meta math -- except possibly a Holistic Reconciler (God). The "expansion" of our experience and universe is derivative of our unfolding in consciousness, as it is experienced in what we interpret as space-time. Such expansion may entail perpetual phase shifts across parameters for innumerable possible expressions of shared cosmos.

GOD -- BOTH "IN" THE PERPETUAL PRESENT AND "OUTSIDE" OF TIME: How may God sequentially interfunction with forms and fields of math? Were there a state where nothing were expressed, it would take an initial, borrowing, symmetry-breaking, destabilization across the equality of nothingness in order to avail the expression of anything. Once Something were expressed, could, would, or should it ever settle back into a precise and perfect zero-balancing (perfectly flat universal point) of digital pluses and minuses? Or must it in perpetuity delay and resist any such perfectly symmetrical balancing out? Must all particular perspectives eventually re-set to a single subsuming nothingness? Or must every purposeful or random attempt that tends towards a re-balancing into nothingness function like a perpetual-motion-destabilizing-machine? Could there ever have been a first de-stabilizing event, without its de-stabilizing function having forever been inherent to the cosmos? If inherent, can the function towards relativistically absolute change and de-stabilization ever cease?

MANICHAEIAN SATANIC NEMESIS: Must an inherent-meta-fictional-immeasurable-force-agent of change be accompanied by a paired, mirror agent for resisting change, and vice versa? Must an inherent agency preclude a settlement back into a balanced nothingness? What may such an agent and counter-agent sponsor, in respect of mortal perspectives and moral imperatives? Must it/they sponsor a perpetual process of conscious feedback between and among its/their holistically encompassing aspect and its/their particularly expressed aspects and perspectives?

SYMMETRY PAIRING AND BREAKING: May it be that there never was a symmetry-breaking destabilization, because there has always been Something, i.e., a meta sponsor of perpetual apprehensions and appreciations and effectuator of changes and re-normalizations and reconciliations? De-stabilization is inherently represented as digitized changes crossing the balancing scale of zero, with Zero Equality never itself being realized. In effect, Consciousness actuates formulas for transitioning across mathematical equalities. The math is actively actuated and delayed, like dominoes on spring strings. The reconciling Holism that feeds back to guide us to adjust the math programs of our receptivity simultaneously adjusts the math programs for the signals it sends to us, for our reception. As to the synchronization in itself, we cannot detect why or how such holistic synchronization is or should be the case.

THE SYSTEM PROGRAM: The program seems to be both a priori and subject to phase shifts, transitions, new beginnings, and incremental influence -- perhaps even by us. That is, we also may experience capacity to program virtual worlds within subprograms of virtual worlds within virtual worlds. Like a fractal of never-ending conscious creativity. All within a Perpetual Present. We cannot all at once prove the cause of the system or program as a whole. But we can continuously tinker towards the edges and in the fuzz. See Deutch, The Beginning of Infinity. Thus, there seems to be no particularly pre-set God. But if the quality of Consciousness itself is taken as God, and it is recognized that we are all of the same intuitive, empathetic Consciousness, then we are all subject to an entanglement with "God."

IDENTITY AND SPIRITUAL CONTINUITY: The nature of the form-ulas with which one identifies, and has come to bond with, imposes separations and limitations on one's capacity to move and warp among apparent distances between apparent objects.

*********

REGARDING RANDOMNESS:

I was not at this time thinking about quantum probabilities. But I have thought a bit about it before, to the effect that algorithms can be used to facilitate random expressions. If there is a God, whatever God said would be consistent with mathematical parameters and statistical analysis. IOW, if whatever is ruled for expression is a product of an Immeasurable interfunctioning with Measurables, we could never in math show that any particular event had been contemporaneously willed or decided by the Immeasurable versus having been previously decided by the Immeasurable, to unfold either as a pre-determined pre-set or as a random result of a pre-determined random number generator. So, neither precise measurement nor statistical analysis can ever be used to prove or falsify God. So, you exasperate, what's the point?

I think the point is that God's qualitative participation is entailed, either in pre-sets or in contemporaneous feedback and appreciation, in the reconciliation of every measurable event. But the significance has less to do with what has preceded than with what is potentially being determined. I think our apprehensions, in combined feedback, factor contemporaneously in that. Our participation via qualitative apprehensions renormalize to be reconciled in such quantitative significations as unfold. Some quality of reconciliation and renormalization of apprehensions effects decisions before our material brains even register or signify self awareness of them.

We think we make decisions contemporaneously with the self awareness that is fed back by our brains. But something beyond our bodies and brains has already made each next unfolding manifestation of a decision. After it is effected, we can analyze it. We can consider it as if (1) it were precisely predetermined from the Big Bang, (2) randomly emergent as buffered by complexities of chaos, or (3) partly influenced by our somewhat contemporaneous apprehension and participation. We can model an explanation under each explanation. And each model may be superior to the others for different purposes -- engineering, social-political, or moral-spiritual. But I don't think any of the 3, nor even any sum or combination thereof, can be suitable for every purpose, much less complete.