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.
18 comments:
Cronies don't need high interest returns so long as they can get returns by manipulating government to offer crises that can ne hedged. The masses can't buy more, because most profits are going to cronies. Consumption without pay for productive jobs is not going to save our economy. Were inflation to hit hard, the masses would wake up that QE cannot last forever. However, since the regime is not interested in a budget that may save the country, the only card it plays is QE. That can't work once the people wake up to it. I suspect prices are not inflating faster because people's effective wages are going down -- even though QE pumps more money into the system. Other countries allow this charade while the dollar is the reserve currency. But that will be changing. At some point along the change, the masses will wake up, and faith in the dollar will be entirely lost --- within weeks. Crises hedging managers are no doubt plotting for that eventuality. The currency will bust. The Constitution is busted. The electorate will be dumbed down beyond all hope of salvage soon after amnesty is passed. I don't think the country can be saved. I think its change into a despotism is not far off. There may be faint hope for a few states and mountain people to secede. After amnesty, either secession or a convention had better come soon, because otherwise Texas is toast. The people who laugh off conspiracy theories are whistling past a dangerous graveyard. This oligarchical collectivization has been going on for a long time. It has hidden in plain sight because decent Americans have too long tended to be too trusting. By the time they wake up to spot the steel cage, most will be trapped inside with the door bolted shut. Cronies mean to "serve us" as our lesser gods. Even if they have to wipe out millions to get it done. Meantime, cronies distract us with bread and circus morality plays about the "racism" of everyone who notices we are being buried alive, nose deep in a steel cage coffin, in the bs of oligarchic collectivists.
Read Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. In 1918, when the Bolsheviks controlled only a small part of Russia, a committee in aid was formed on May 1 by various oligarchs form Wall Street, General Electric, and the Federal Reserve System. So, I'd rather study history than get lost in the history of fairy tales. Marxism is a fairy tale. It's a story told by those who are more equal, to those who are more gullible, and then the gullibles evangelize about it. When they wake up, it is not Big Comrade who is leading the way, but Big Brother who has his boot on their faces. The true believers in the fairy tale of Marxism are better called useful idiots. Regardless of what you call them, the leaders who pull their strings and stir their heartstrings are the "more equal" cronies who amplify the broadcasts of the stupid or sold out profs who promote the fairy tale. Scratch a Marxist big wig, find a practitioner of oligarchical collectivism. Scratch a Dino hedger, find a Rino hedger. It's a two-party game to eliminate the middle class and see who can en-serf the most gullibles. Fascist, socialist. Tomaato, tomahto. The party labels have little to do with it. Both want useful idiots (one for cheap laborers, the other for voters, both to destroy the middle class). After the dust settles, an elitist lying Marxist who wants a two class system is much the same as an oligarchist lying Rino or Dino who wants an elitist two-class system. It's an axis of the evil corrupt, misusing and misleading the usefully idiotic with fairy tales, in order to reduce everyone else to farm animals. That axis of the corrupt and their idiot oz monkeys has been around since the dawn of civilization. Even before they had fancy names for it.
The crony power elite have not the foresight or will to restrain themselves from delivering the worldwide face of humanity under the boot of oppression. The incompetent oppressed have not the insight to apprehend that the power elite are not their friends, but their en-serfers. Competent and decent individuals have not the elevation of consciousness or organization to set the course aright. The crony corporatist train of collectivism approaches the Dagny tunnel.
Slogans abound. Start a third party. No, challenge establishment Rinos in primaries with Conservatives. No, invest in gold, guns and God. No, give up and learn to love Big Oligarchic Brother. No, tear the whole structure down. Wth? It appears we were born on a crazy train, we cannot stop it, we cannot fundamentally redirect it, and we cannot safely jump from it. At this point, it sometimes seems each competent person may as well secede and start his own virtual nation. Yet, the ever encroaching practice of oligarchical collectivism is hard to ignore. Keep faith, spread truth where you can, gather and salvage what can be salvaged, and pray for deliverance.
Would it be racist to wave an American Flag on Confederate Heroes Day? Suppose you despise elitists when they try to run your life, and leeches when they steal from your wallet. Evidently, that kind of resistance against the evil alliance of fascists and oz monkeys is enough to get you targeted as a "racist." If I'm a racist, then the evil allies of oligarchic collectivists are soul numbed oz monkeys. Comes a reckoning.
Cui bono? Who benefits? Are the string pullers made visionless by lack of cultural experience among ordinary people, or are they made heartless by greed substituted for spirit? I think people who are raised to devalue the freedom and dignity of others, who believe in their own entitlement to control others, make themselves easy to convince that every possible crisis and culture should be exploited to a cause. That cause is to serve themselves above all. And Obama looked down and said, It is good to make and exploit crisis. Women and femimen swoon, and oligarchs trail after, mining his droppings. This much is inferred from The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, "by" Emmanuel Goldstein, by George Orwell.
Their brains are putty in the hands of conniving debt enslavers. The idiots among them do not realize they are leading Americans into debt slavery. The corrupt among them are willing to be coyotes for leading Americans into servitude, so long as they get their pieces of silver. Is a grave moral hazard at the root of our problems? You damn right it is. Nowadays, students are not taught to respect moral values. Instead, they're taught to snicker at the values of their parents and grandparents and the founders of the republic. All the people that gifted them with the opportunity to p i s everything away. As Americans, Obama and his cohort are epic failures. You can put diamond studded lipstick on a pig, but at the end of the day, it's still a pig.
A Convention offers a chance for a relatively new start. Under the status quo, reps are more inclined to vote special interests because the know that if they don't, everyone else will. So, the idea is to get yours while the getting is good. Given a fresh start, delegates are more likely to think about this: What system is needed to establish and preserve decent freedom and dignity for every responsible citizen?
Take excessive power away from the Feds and there will be less bang for the buck in buying them. Who wants to own a three legged, de-horned steer? Once there is less bang for the buck, there will be fewer bucks to bribe lofo voters. And reset the voting age for 25. Nowadays, a typical 40 year old barely has the sense of a 1955 man who was 25. Modern college graduates think money is handed out and community organizing is a job. Evidence? Dude, look at Obama's appointments.
As the American economy weakens, oligarchs will be looking to hedge. The temptation to profit from crony relationships with despotic socialistic nations will be high. China and Russia have been thinking about how to establish a new reserve currency. http://www.wealthdaily.com/art... Come a tipping point, I suspect subsequent financial sliding and hedging may make a California mudslide look puny. Putin may deliver more change to Obama than he was waiting for.
The sad thing is, Obama does not care about Americans. He cares about the oligarchs of America who prop him up and help him hoodwink his homies. He is upset with Russia because Putin is planning to favor his oligarchs at the expense of America's oligarchs. As the writings clarify and the trends are set, the cronies will find new post turtles. Our electorate let them push Obama on us, and this is what our head post turtle has now given us. Obama has started too many small fires for this to end well.
Oligarchs have marched through our institutions like cr*p through a goose. There are big time profits to be made through incestous relationships between billionaire corporatists and centralized governments of socialism, bolshevism, and fascism. That's how the clans of G.E., Rockefeller, Ford, and Morgan made dough, before and during WWII. Given the consolidation by such a NWO, it could have made Alfred E. Neuman look like a master. After all, he was smart enough to observe: "The U.N. is a place where governments opposed to free speech demand to be heard!" And he probably would have been a better bowler.
Even electing Emmanuel Goldstein, said in Orwell's work to have written The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, would not remove the NWO boot from our necks. Search the book online. The term "oligarchical collectivism" refers not only to the Party's ideology of Ingsoc (English Socialism) but also to the ideologies of the other two states (Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia; in Eastasia, "Death Worship" or "Obliteration of the Self"). That the three "opposing" ideologies are functionally identical is central to the revelations of The Book.
Check the News, to see: Change We Can Believe In (American Socialism), New Putinism (Neo-Bolshevism), and Islamic Jihad (Death Worship). History does repeat itself.
It may help if the TP could unite around at least one arching principle: What is needed to establish and sustain a decent republic that reasonably represents and avails its citizenry with individual freedom and dignity? Stated differently, what is needed to turn the tables on the ruling oligarchy that seeks to reduce Americans and the world to monkeys in cages? Titus Flavius Josephus tried this against Rome, but ended up like Winston Smith, embracing Big Brother. It is when such people cease trying that hope dies.
A winner would be a defender of the American Ideal. By definition, that would require defense of the borders and voter ID. Rand and Cruz have adopted the look of principled winners. But what to think of Rand saying emphasis on voter ID is insulting to Blacks, and Cruz's wife serving the CFR and working for Goldman Sachs? It's looking more and more like a convention among the States is the only viable way towards a win.
Why is no candidate concerned about the insult felt by the responsible middle class when it sees that the olicarchy treats it and everyone else as impotent caged monkeys, beneath the oligarchy, regardless of "the last straw?" Monkeys in cages endure "the last straw" every day. The oligarchy never runs out of straws. It will install its shill no matter what. It matters little who throws straws against the monkey cage, to stir the emotions of the inmates.
I see Rand Paul thinks emphasis on voter ID is too insulting to Blacks. Why won't he defend the substantive point that voter ID is the right thing to do for a republic?! That it is insulting to responsible members of the republic not to have voter ID? Next, he will be saying that emphasis on enforcing the border is insulting to Hispanics. Or emphasis on welfare reform is insulting to those who use welfare. Or the very existence of America is insulting to the oligarchy and everyone it can divide and stir up. Why are Blacks, Hispanics, and Welfare Recipients offended? Because they are factionalized. They don't think about what is needed to sustain a viable republic.
And it's not just them. Hardly anyone believes in substance or color blindness, but everyone recognizes the emotive power of factionalism. So politics reduces to the theory and practice of the incitement of factions of monkeys. Very few stand against this deliberate oligarchic policy for stirring factionalism and division. Not even Rand Paul. Who even begins to speak on behalf of a decent republic, as opposed to ways to contrive majorities among rival factions of gangsters? Who retains the least faith that a goodly people can be led to recognize what is best for the republic as a whole?
Can a nation of fellow skins and entitlement minded dopers be brought by a cynical, corrupt oligarchy to elect a Hillary? Or a Jeb Bush? You betcha. With a little help from the redistributionist Pope, even Obama's numbers are up.
Americans are not doing ok, but I don't think it is because they are unable. I think it is more because cronies look for permission and excuses to ship our resources and industries to venues that avail servile labor. Cronies benefit from the protection and information that our soldiers and researchers provide, then they take same, without having defended or developed it, and profit overseas. This is what they call "meriting." I call it the selling out of America by buying politicians. Soldiers and researchers do their jobs, while cronies translate stealing from (and selling out) America into "merit."
My faith gets harder to sustain, but I still believe in the American Ideal of promoting liberty for individual citizens within a loose central government that is, however, strong enough to defend the nation. I do not trust private international corporatists, because they are not faithful to any god, nation, culture, or concept of human freedom and dignity. Rather, they thrive via the practice of oligarchical collectivism (explained by Orwell) on the skulls and bones of whomever they can take advantage of. However, the American Ideal requires a righteous, intelligent, vigilant middle class. I fear we no longer have that, and we are being pushed further from it every day. Americans were better before they let oligarchs "educate" their children. While I still carry the faith, I am now resigned that its fulfillment will necessitate a miracle. I will abide in such faith against the gates of hell, but I won't evangelize it to Muslims, collectivizers. or Wall Street collectivizers.
Faith is part of the problem and part of the solution. A righteous citizenry is another part. A third part is an adequate Constitution. Our citizenry has failed to keep faith to amend the Constitution to defend liberty against oligarchical collectivism. Instead, our citizenry fell for cheap promises and pottage. Rescind the 17th Amendment. Don't tax domestic corporate income. Don't tax any domestic income. Do tax consumption. Especially tax political lobbying. And get control over transactions to foreign corporations and oligarchs. I don't like a small band of thieving politicians controlling a powerful central government. Neither do I like a small band of oligarchs owning the thieving politicians who control the central government. And I especially do not like a small band of foreign oligarchs owning the politicians who run our central government.
The carbon tax idea would not really reduce any carbon footprint. The electorate would never consent to making do with less free stuff. The carbon tax is only to consolidate control by the oligarchy. As to the big carbon industries of the oligarchy, it will simply move them to third world nations, where the labor is cheap, the regulations lighter, and the resulting carbon footprint higher. The base of the Prog electorate consists of trained seals, barking for free stuff bought with fiat money that is redistributed away from American producers. Talking with a Prog is like talking to the Pet Detective's hind quarters.
We should embrace the means availed for measuring that which is measurable. Everything that is measured is communicated or recorded for communication. What is thereby appreciatively signed is the reconciling logos among our disparate perspectives of God. The sign-ificatiions of the Signifier. The Word made substantive.
My reference is not to "my" mind, but to the mind of God. To mortal minds, you are right, that the mind of God seems absurd, in the sense that it is beyond our measure or reduction. Some take it that reference thereto is therefore irrelevant, impractical, misleading, wasteful, and often as much destructive as helpful. Even so, we cannot avoid choices, and we rationalize our choices. Some try to rationalize choices in science, as if to derive oughts from empiricism. I agree we can derive techniques pertinent to our contexts with empiricism, but I do not agree that we can derive one true consensus from empiricism with regard to the direction to which civilization "should" be guided. Nor would I agree that all that cannot be falsified is without moral value. I suspect that a "standard model" could be as well explicated by reference to the math of computer logic and bits as by reference to interpretations of "substances." That would not be to prove it, but to show that it would suffice as well, for empirical purposes, but without so hubristically discounting an innate, empathetic, humble, intuitive respect for a reconciling Source of moral guidance. I think a sense of moral purposefulness is enhanced by coming together in humble respect of an Holistic Reconciler. I think trying to scientifically or statistically prove the substantive reality of bits of dogma is what is the mistake and the waste. When we humble ourselves to come together in respect of the Reconciler, without the baggage of absolutist human authorities and their hired enforcers and beheaders, that is when I think we tend to find figurative meaning and worthwhile, moral purposefulness. I agree we should be humble in all that we do. I don't agree we can or should "only" be humble. There is still the problem that we have to make choices.
Post a Comment