The world unfolds as if something of innate consciousness wanted to entertain a system-simulation of feedback, to test what would assimilate. Maybe even to test the variety of ways in which intution and empathy would rationalize credit to that something or someone. Maybe even to participate in guiding the simulation.
************************
I prefer to believe not that each person is a god, but that each person is an extension of a single assimilating moral Principler. Instead of thou art God, thou art an expresson of God. A work in perpetual progress.
THE NATURE OF PHYSICAL AND OBJECTIVE REALITY:
The way light performs is an indication of the way we relate to a math-field that defines and supports us. I suspect that the reason light exists for both wave and particle calculations is because light is an expression of the relation of each perspective of consciousness to a math-field (or a series of "reality cones") that happens to define and support it.
The Equational Nature of our math-field is such that, for every particle, there seems to be an anti-particle at some level of entanglement. For every manifestation by a particle, there seems to be a coordinate manifestation by a polarity-entangled co-particle. If you stop a particle enough to coordinate a measure of it, you induce a coordinate and contemporaneous expression of its equation-balancing twin.
Suppose you stop a pair of co-particles and do not yet take a measure of either. If you try to contrive so that a measure of one will entail a measure of the other as an opposite, then a "trickster effect" may block you. If you try to contrive so that a measure of one will entail a measure of the other as a duplicate, then, again, a "trickster effect" may block you. So, is the "spooky trickster effect" on the twin particle pre-determined, or is it contemporaneously established with the effect that is imposed on the original particle? Einstein and Bohr debated whether randomness concerning quanta entanglements was real or only apparent.
MY SUSPICION:
Neither. Ultimately, the ideas of randomness and predetermination are inadequate to the task. Because the "particle itself," as Substance, considered apart from Consciousness and Information, does not objectively exist. Rather, its manifest existence for interfunctioning with me is dependent on its interfunctioning with the "Reality Cone" (light cone) that happens to be shared by myself and all other beings with whom I happen to be in potential communication.
Bohr was correct, in that no Reality Cone is pre-determined. But I suspect he was correct in that, only because both he and Einstein were incorrect in presuming that a Reality Cone exists independently, objectively, by itself.
Einstein: "I like to think the Moon is there (continues to exist) even if (when) I am not looking at it." Myself: Yes, the Moon continues to exist even when I'm not looking at it. But only because other perspectives with which I share my Reality Cone, with whose experiences those of my own are reconciled, happen to continue to be "looking" at it (feeling its effects) -- even when I am not. If no perspective of Consciousness were feeling (or potentially measuring the effects of) the Moon, then the Moon could not intelligently or rationally be said then and there to be existentially manifest.
So, each Reality Cone unfolds as it is reconciled with the interfunctionings of such perspectives of Consciousness and Information as happen to share in it. And the way it will unfold cannot be perfectly pre-known or pre-set by any mortal perspective. Rather, a meta-process beyond our ken coordinates and reconciles all manifest interfunctionings within our Reality Cone. We part-icipate with it, and our apprehensions and appreciations (prayers and observations) factor with it, but we do not have means for controlling, confining, or measuring it -- except indirectly, intuitively, empathetically. The math must always balance, but potential fluxes enjoy general parameters of freedom -- so long as they remain tethered to factors for keeping the math field balanced.
IOW, we, and no-thing with which we manifestly relate, are not entirely causal to our unfoldings, as opposed to being merely correlative and appreciative. So, events as manifested are not knowable by us to be pre-caused, nor are they ultimately knowable by us to be contemporaneously or intertwinedly caused. For a mortal to anguish whether events are "really" first caused, pre caused, chaotically random, or participatorily chosen tends to be idle. Rather, each way of modeling tends to enjoy its season and purpose.
Ultimately ("really"), it must be enough to appreciate that what supports us is a godhead, whose aspects present to us in Consciousness, Substance, and Information. We part-icipate with the godhead, via our prayers (apprehensions), praising observations (appreciations), and good faith (good will, spiritual insight, innate empathy, generally intuitive sense of beingness, and moral higher-mindedness).
Substance (the Moon) does not exist objectively apart from Consciousness (observation) and Information (accumulation of maths). But neither do Consciousness and Information exist apart from Substance.
TRINITARIAN GODHEAD:
Character of Mind or Consciousness: Whatever self-identifies to take a stand (adopt a perspective) thereby takes a manifested measurement.
Nature of Substance: Substance is the thing or body that is measured, apart from its math value (math field), and apart from the conscious perspective that apprehends it as Substance.
Math of Information: Whatever remains fuzzy and itself unreduced to manifest measure and appreciation remains part of the math-field.
The character of an Unchanging-Changer (Consciousness) reconciles all that measurably unfolds out of potentiality to experientially manifested observation and participatory appreciation (Substance) -- out of no-thing more than a field of math (Information). The eternal abiding of the Trinity is unchanging. Yet, the Trinity changes in regard to the perceptions we experience in respect of how it presents to us -- in aspects that flux among Consciousness, Substance, and Information (CSI). The Kaleidescope remains the same. But the way we interfunction with it changes.
FAITH: What presently fluxes how the math field is experienced to unfold amounts to meta-level reconciliations of then-and-there feedback concerning the collective store of all the observations, apprehensions, and appreciations of all perspectives of Consciousness that happen to share a Reality Cone. Each perspective must and does rationalize as if it alone determines (causes) its reactions to how the Reality Cone is presented to it. The math must always balance, but potential fluxes enjoy general parameters of freedom -- so long as they remain tethered to factors for keeping the math field balanced.
ORIGINAL CREATION AND BIG BANG: Was there really a singular originating event or big bang? Or is it only that every that every perspective that happens to share any overlapping cone or point of view necessarily rationalizes as if there were a beginning point in measurable time and space that renormalizes to the first appearance of the Reality Cone in which it happens to share?
IMAGINATION AND CONCEPTUALIZATION: "Dark" energy and matter may be conceptualized as that which comprises all the generally measurable aspects of the math-field that are not precisely measurable or provable between individual perspectives of Consciousness. Dark energy and matter is that which cannot be entirely renormalized to the beginning point of a particular perspective's Reality Cone.
REAL FORMS AND PHYSICAL REALITY: For pragmatic purposes, we can tinker out ways to refer to a "same line." Even though such line does not, as a thing in itself, exist. And even though no precise or exact renormalization of such line is possible for us. However, the "same" line may be differently long, straight, or curved, depending on each perspective's point of view, relative motion, and interpretive experience. There may not "really exist" any re-normalizeable "same line" to measure. There may simply abide fluxing, nodal overlaps among perspectives of Mind. The only "real" synthesis for the straight line may abide with some thing or quality of reconciling Holism -- whose essence is beyond our ken.
CONSCIOUSNESS: Consciousness may be considered to be that which organically emerges and adopts to experience a set of mutually sustaining signals in a way that is qualitatively apart from the mathematical sum of its components.
COORDINATION AMONG SENSE RECEPTORS: A single pattern or form may evolve an electromagnetic or other force-based sense receptor that advantages its preservation and replication. It may evolve to coordinate with other patterns and kinds of sense receptors. By itself, a sense receptor will not give as good a representation of environmental challenges and opportunities in order to allow its owner to thrive. But sense receptors often evolve so that they coordinate Information that is refined and interpreted to avail a broader and more coherent and ooordinate interpretation of practical and surrounding Reality. The better such receptors coordinate to avail a more consistent, coherent, and complete interpretation or representation of Reality, the better their owner is equipped as an organism to survive and reproduce. Advanced consciousness of self tends to emerge with and adopt itself to the generation of coordinated interpretations of sensory inputs. Eventually, such self consciousness may acquire transhuman transbiological transmachined capacity to penetrate space-time to astonishing degrees and kinds.
PHASE FLUX: More and more, the Informational boundaries that feed back and forth between what is inanimate-unconscious-quantitative-Substance and what is organically-aware-qualitative-Consciousness will fuzz and flux, depending on point of view and purpose of focus. The way by which Information happens to be reconciled to self-organize coordinates with and influences the way by which Consciusness and Substance unfold.
CONSCIOUS FEEDBACK: At some level of conceptualization, cells and fractals that comprise every pattern that through feedback opportunize and persevere through space-time against changes in their exterior environment have been adopted to some level of feeding-back conscious identity. At some level of feedback beyond mortal analysis, there is hovered, rooted, bonded and/or entailed to every pattern that manifests and exhibits sensate consciousness some level of Identity. Every Identity apprehends fluxes among Substance, Information, and Consciousness. The fluxes are coordinated and reconciled with consciousness that perseveres concerning each and every such pattern, even if such consciousness is not caused by the pattern itself. Thus, the Godhead abides.
THE CLOUD -- SPIRITUAL DIGNITY AND FREEDOM: How can a civilization on a "physical world" remain based in freedom and dignity, once too many individuals acquire knowledge and skills for the absolute destruction of the shared "physical world"? As knowledge increases for mind manipulation, and as skill increases for the destruction of civilizations, ecosystems, biology systems, and physical worlds, must not survival require increases in monitoring, regulating, and strait-jacketing? Can virtual worlds, cyborgism, and transhumanism provide ways to phase beyond skill of destruction, towards advancement and preservation of spiritual freedom and dignity? Maybe.
FREEDOM, DIGNITY, AND SPIRITUALITY: Our future will entail more respect for spirituality, or it will entail destruction on a scale beyond reckoning.
DUALISM: Eternity resides with Infinity, as Waves reside with Particles and a Mathematician resides with Math. And as ungridded math and form-ulas (balancing equations of algebra and calculus) reside with gridded math (fluxing geometric forms and dissipating space-time). As God resides with Nature to co-relate to Morality.
Math must somehow be fluxing, both in ungridded and gridded aspect. In itself, ungridded. With self-perpetuating fractal-fluxes and "contacts" and sensations, gridded.
Some aspect must co-relate with a math web, to activate "contactual sensations" and rebalance reconciliatory feedback among its fractalizing form-ulas.
Math must somehow be innately sensate to a reconciling Mathematician, with degrees and kinds of fluxing formulaic freedom.
Without Image-ination innately summoning some such Mathematician, math would be without form as a gridding web, and it would be meaningless or absurd to speak of any existential math-web. Math implicates sensate rebalancing of equations, and therefore an innate Web Master.
ACTIVE MATH: Suppose geometry of space-time is not a form that is "itself" "physically real." Suppose space-time in itself is mainly derivative of interpretation by Consciousness of math-like Information, that presents AS IF it were in itself real (or at least practicably and measurably representative). Were space-time not interfunctioning with Conscious experience and interpretation, it could be thought of as being more like a self-perpetuating form-ula than an externally-existential form.
What then of part-icles that present AS IF moving through space-time? Would not the particles also be thought more like self-perpetuating form-ulas than actual forms? So, how would such particular formulas be conceptualized to interfunction with an "encompassing" formula for space-time, except by moving as forms "through" it?
Well, what if each math-based part-icle form-ula is conceptualized to be immune to "erosion" or interactive corrosion from space-time in the absence of pre-conditioning phases? How is it that some quanta "tunnel" through other form-ulas AS IF they were not factors, while "impacting" and being catalyzed or changed by other form-ulas?
IDEA: When so-called particles tunnel through others, without either being altered or changed, it is because their active formu-las remain to some extent self-contained and uninfluenced. When they are mutually changed, it is because their formulaic maths (equations) are charged, changed, and rebalanced. (Because all particles, i.e., form-ulas, seem to come in potentially annihilating pairs, no particle seems to be completely self contained. All are subject to "contactual" influence. But the key to such influence may reside in other particles of select charges or polarities. Until a particle comes into the influence of another that can complete or alter it, it can "tunnel.")
When the rebalancing is sensed by a perspective of Consciousness, the event will be interpreted AS IF each of the form-ulas that is perceived to be interfunctioning "really" had mass, vector, charge or "occupation" of space-time. Even though, in "reality" apart from each interpreting perspective, there are neitther particular forms nor general space-time, independent in themselves.
Ideas concerning Quanta seem to have to do with math values that are self containing for some purposes and charged (not self containing) for other purposes. To make a particle is to split no-thing but a math web, since every particle entails a counterparticle. To make a particle is to make a form from no-thing but a math web, that, as a form-ula, is charged to sense and seek its counterparticle. And if it finds it, to annihilate one another. Thus, no particle can in itself be complete, and any particle that does achieve completeness annihilates back into the math web.
Much of observational interpretation is correlative with how pairs of form-ulas happen to be mathematically entangled and how those entanglements are charged or affected by interfunctioning forces of quanta, gravity, and electromagnetism. For example, some Robins are tested to find North by tricks of quantum entanglements in respect of magnetic poles. And frogs are tested to morph from tadpoles by similar tricks for breaking down protein-based collagens. Moreover, an "observer effect" seems broadly to influence many interactions.
When considered apart from Consciousness, it is AS IF measurable Substance were little more than Active Math. Considered apart from Informational accumulation of Conscious interpretation, the "real existentiality" of Substance seems to be illusory-like.
PHILOSOPHICAL CONSEQUENCE: Any idea that Science can be based purely in measurables is illusory. Rather, a well-formed appreciation of Reality necessitates an undergirding philosophy that facilitates understanding of fluxes among a triad: Consciousness, Substance, and Information. Information concerns what appears to be (manifests) "physical," but Information itself is not physical.
MORAL CONSEQUENCE: Interpenetrating Consciousness is a fundamental aspect among a triad. Projections of empathy are intuitive and innate. Too many profs, stooges, and shills mislead people to believe things about science, nature, spirituality, and the godhead that simply are not so. It is only in that way that people become more hardened against ideas of spiritual-based empathy.
FRACTALS WITH ENTAILS: Form-ulas that would otherwise remain independently self-perpetuating may be brought into "contact" with others that result in their mutual change and rebalancing. Their "contact" may results in their "remembering" or recording of fractal copies, entails, or imprints of one another. Entails that represent as geometry-based entanglements, polarities, attractions, repulsions, spins, particles, and/or waves may facilitate fractal-cell representations in ways that facilitate the interpretation, recordation, transmission, transmutation, communication, and/or "sensation" of one another.
PHYSICAL CONTACT: So, how is it programmed, simulated, chosen, determined, or chanced that some form-ulas (physically?) "contact" others while some "tunnel through" others? Is such process under a preset algorithm, a participatory Author, a chaos of pattern forming, and/or a fluxing triad? Is the Triad comprised of measurable quantitatives (Substance), immeasurable qualitatives (Consciousness), and accumulated properties (Information)?
GODHEAD: Is a holistic and reconciling property or Identity of Consciousness fluxing with a perpetual and infinite math field (of present Substance and potential Information)? Is that how senses evolve, via fractals of form-ulas as reconciled via a meta-Source (godhead)? How can we have an idea of "causation" or "first cause" if all we experience are limiting perceptions of chronologically and correlatively connected manifestations? We say, tautologically, that "such and such came to be as it came to be" -- with no way of knowing what came before what first produced our present interpretations and sensations of self.
CAUSATION: Our idea of "causation" (past, present, and future) thus seems to reduce to little more than tautological begging of the question: How and why did what preceded us (that continues to precede us) come to be?
APPRECIATION: Yet, even though one's idea of causation is fuzzed, one still contemporaneously and appreciatively part-icipates in one's unfolding experiences and perspectives.
CULTURE OF TECHNOLOGY: Technological advances will depend on discovery and development of new math and algorithmic co-relations. That will change our perspectives, brains, bodies, and environment. It may also alter the availability of pathways to new usages of maths. And the nature of space-time.
What is possible to transmit with math-based tech will depend on the algorithmic direction along which tech unfolds. How we change ourselves, our perspectives, our purposes, and our philosophies will affect the potentialities of math as they unfold before us. Our maths are limited in that they have to contact, connect, flux, and rebalance. Beyond that, limits, if any, on potentialities of clouds offered by eternity and infinity are hard to see. In a way, we are always only at an accumulated beginning for potentialities of infinity.
BEINGNESS AND PARTICULARIZATION: If space-time is not really an objective physicality, then what in chronology or distance really separates any particle from its anti-particle, or from any other particle? Perhaps what separates them is ultimately no more independently and "physically real" than the physicality of the part-icles themselves. Perhaps what "really" separates them is not chronology or distance, but the image-ination of Consciousness, for imagining Substantive placeholders for present accumulations of Information.
But for the part-icipation of Consciousness, part-icles would not exist. Particles, because they are sensate of their co-particles, are themselves, at some level,"Observers." The Observer Effect, writ large. Human beings are simply more fractally complex organizations for leveraging the innate senses that associate with particles. Consciousness "interpenetrates" Reinhold Niebuhr's word) the math web.
MORAL GUIDANCE:
The Godhead is what it is. We need not pretend that it is what it clearly is not. It is not without innate creative desire, interest in testing its capacities, and innate empathy. No particle of any particular manifests into existence unless and until the Godhead has facilitated it from a web of math that otherwise would be without apparent physical form. No particle becomes manifest without having been contemporaneoulsy charged and paired against either a balancing counterparticle or a counter aspect or form-ula. Every particle that manifests thus capacitates a kind of "physical" sensateness.
Thus, every perspective of sensateness is innately a representation of both consciousness and empathy. From that innate capacity, the Godhead facilitates organizations of perspectives built on complex fractals of particles upon particles.
Nothing suggests that the Godhead's underlying creative drive and innate empathy ever terminate. Nothing suggests that any apparent locus or perspective of Consciousness is of any essence that is apart from all others. Consciousness is consciousness. Empathy among perspectives of Consciousness is innate. However, it can become stunted or perverse to its natural interests. It can become twisted to the point of needing to be rehabilitated or eliminated. Creative destruction is part of necessary feedback and reconciliation.
Twisted perversion and misery tend to come of pretending that the Godhead is other than what it is. Pretending that is it "linear to a final earthly purpose" leads to falls of towers of Babel. Pretending that phased replacement (destruction) is not part of the process of creative feedback leads to disillusion and withdrawals into cynicism. That is, people farming. Promoting unchecked population leads to vast pollution of the earth. Undue social and governmental facilitation of nutcase religions leads to destructive disassimilation of decent social mores. Promoting libertine and socialistic pleasure in irresponsible polyamorous sex while replacing responsibility for child rearing with stringent gov oversight and regulation of pc leads not to a City on a Hill, but to bureaucratic hell on earth.
After the "good guys" "won" the Cold War, polyannish cretin pastors counseled it was time to let libertine pleasure bloom and to "apologize" to pansexual gender-fluid people for ever having counseled moderation and social responsibility. PolyAnns also counseled that gov bureaucrats operating under instructions from their moral "betters" and elites should take central control over material wealth and then redistribute it charitably, equally, and "fairly." IOW, they pervertedly conflated Caesar, Gov, and Force of Arms with voluntary charity. So what have these "do gooders" produced?
They say the world tends now to be a better place. If so, it is with little thanks to the heads-in-the-sand of crony-commie "do-gooders." Inner cities and infrastructure are a mess. Minority households tend to be without fathers. Recipients of "gov welfare" tend to be entirely unthankful smart alecs. They blame the producing redistributors for not redistributing more. They believe the world ("Whitey") owes them a good living on account of the past "sins of the world" (the Godhead). They seed and feed self-righteous anger, division, looting, mayhem, and madness. They become mind slaves to cynically faithless puppet-masters that care not in the least for them.
This is what our Leftist, Progish, Socially Charitable, Socialistic Priests, Pagans, Profs, Pimps, Pervs, and Perps are producing. Even as they target responsible Americans (who advocate real charity, individual responsibility, and work dignity) for resisting. If Americans "won" the Cold War, the social scum we have facilitated are grasping defeat from the jaws of victory. In short, many of our moral "leaders" have become stupid, ludicrous, twisted, and evil.
**************************
Well, I don't think I can evaluate the essence or "final purpose" of God. It is what it is.
Regardless, by the same argument, God would have had no need to create us as imperfect beings in the first place. God could have made us perfect, without need of trial or tribulation. If so, I see no reason to assume He would need to provide for us a "final judgment."
I suspect the conscious aspect of the Godhead needed us for some purpose. If so, then that aspect was not in itself perfect. Not without the trinitarian addition of Information and Substance to the Conscious aspect. CSI = Trinitarian Godhead.
I would conceptualize the trinitarian Godhead to be perfect in its essence, but pursuing in its flux among its trinitarian aspects.
What does the Conscious aspect pursue? I don't think it's anythng linearly final. Rather, to my intuition or belief, it's more like a fluxing feedback. An artist needs his art, and his art, to be good or meaningful, needs its artist. If so, the important question becomes: What is needed as feedback between Conscious Source and Imperfect Expresson to facilitate appreciation of meaningful pursuits among and between them?
[On a less ambitious scale, the important question for a society that wants to preserve human freedom and dignity is: What is necesssary to preserve human freedom and dignity?]
Whatever "heaven" "finally" is may be "known" to the trinitarian Godhead, but perhaps not completely known to the Conscious aspect of that trinity.
When I think about creation occurring out of nothing more substantive than pure math, I think then about the nature of math. In that, I intuit perpetuities in time and infinities in space, but not a final point. At least, that's where I am now. :)
I suspect we tend to use latin phrases to dupe ourselves into believing that circular assumptions about the character of God constitute proofs. But the essence of God defies proof insofar as the Changeless Changer is what it is.
To my conception, we cannot reasonably assume IT has a final rendezvous, and then take that as proof that such is so. Human beings often apply logic that works well for aspects of quantitatively measurable Substance under an assumption as if if should apply equally well for aspects of qualitatively immeasurable Consciousness. But I don't see why we should assume such to be the case.
There abides cosmic Math and a cosmic Mathematician. While unfolding parameters for the cosmic Mathematician may be limited for their expression to a chosen web of Math, I doubt such math could measure the Mathematician. I just don't see reason to believe in a Beginning in tme and space for the Trinity, nor for an End. I suspect the process is more like one of endless phase shifts and fluxes among cosmic bubbles that are comprised of no-thing more than fluxes among CSI as it works math with its web of math.
IOW, I believe in ongoing judgment, not "final judgment." Expressions of Conscious perspective simply phase among varying outlets and forms, but all are alike in a common respect: They are all expressons of the unifying and trinitarian Godhead. IOW, I think YOLO is as wrong headed as an idea of a final perfect Heaven.
I get that goodness tends to spread, but I think it confronts many snares along the way. What doesn't kill you tends often to make you stronger. And I don't believe the process is ever at an end.
I would conceptualize "the perfect being" as the Trinity (CSI). But the Conscious apsect of it is a flux: A flux that never ends, but that does change in form-ulas for how it accumulates, filters, and discards aspects of Information and Substance. Living Math, perpetual and infinite.
*************
Some, including myself, believe the existence of anything is qualitatively beyond logic. However, I also believe empathy (which is not the same as love) is innate. Beyond needing proof. Simply directly experienced. Consciousness identifies with other expressons of itself. To me, that can provide a foundation for good faith and good will. Unless it is perverted by a system of mind enslavement, such as Islam.
I do not seek to prove other belief systems are wrong (though I may point out internal inconsistencies, since I think a mature belief system should be as internally consistent, coherent, and complete as possible). So long as other belief systems promote good faith and good will, I tend to honor them. (I do not think Islam as a belief system is compatible with either good faith or good will. I think it is more compatible with subhumanizing mind enslavement.) However, if I am wrong, it seems to me that some computer and computational system could prove it. I simply doubt that will ever happen.
Re: "He could have made us perfect, without need of trial nor tribulation,
but then justice would dictate that there could be no reward."
Well, once final judgment were to occur with wheat separated from tares and led to perfection, the same could be said: Trial and tribulation would end and there could be no (further) reward. So I think that argument does not work. At least, for myself. However, I accept that those who believe it does work still tend to be brothers in good faith and good will. I tend to have no problem with them having that belief.
I agree that time and space are not things in themselves. The appearance of their extensions into perpetuity and infinity are derivative of the potential perpetuities and infinities in Math, as fluxed by the Mathematician. Which, to me, is the Trinity of CSI. That is a conception that seems to work for me. Other conceptions may work as well for others. IAE, I much doubt that any mortal, using even the best of logic and programming, can ever know.
Part of what the Godhead made is a system of flux that entails organisms competing with and eating organisms, systems "eating" (building upon) systems, and equations "eating" equations (transitioning and phase shifting terms). This entails competitive and cooperative change. But it is of little value to say change is good, because not everyone takes all change to be good. Some consider some changes and choices good, and others not so good. This brings in the problem of evil. I don't think attempts to make logical sense out of "final resolutions of evil" make consistent sense. But again, that is just me.
I don't have a problem with Latin phrases. After all, I am a lawyer. I just point out that they sometimes seem to mislead or divert analysis. Much like mortal mathematicians seem often to mislead themselves by assuming every pertinent factor has been accounted for as a term within an equation.
Re: "How can you believe in ongoing judgement but not a final judgement?"
My Answer: Because I think the Godhead is in some qualities beyond reason. Do you believe the Eternal God must finally judge Himself and bring an end to time and change? I think, so long as change continues, there will continue to be choices, i.e., judgments. And, if all change were to stop, so would consciousness. Which would mean YOLO.
Regarding justice in this world: I don't think an event must be perfect for it to move in reconciled appreciation towards justice. I don't think a painting has to be perfect for me to appreciate it. I think justice unfolds as a reconciled upshot, subject to future revisionism.
Justice is reconciled subject to our part-icipation. If we deem ourselves incompetent to participate in defining and meting out justice, then how can we assume competence to decide which among God's presentations are just, in those cases where the power of choice is put in our hands? What is just in a world ruled by human beings will phase shift as the world moves towards being ruled by machine enhanced beings. Feedback and phase shifts: They happen.
Afterlife: I don't think consciousness ever ends. I think it fluxes and phase shifts. "You" will continue (although your in-form-ational store of memories will often be phase shifted).
Re: "what’s beyond logic has to be accepted by faith (an argument from authority)"
Yes, but I think the "argument from authority" includes innate intuition and empathy that comes with good faith consideration of the "book of the cosmos." I often prefer my own reading of that "book" to the formulas that applied to a bygone age, that could not have factored all that has unfolded to us today.
We seek a way of communicating about the cosmos (substantive physics and spiritual Godhead) that is as internally consistent, coherent, and complete as possible, without contradicting reliable empiricism. Problem is, it is doubtful that any conceptual system that can be apprehended by mortals will ever be complete (perfect).
We each do the best we can. And many lack skill, time, or inclination to ponder such issues. They find it more practical simply to accept whatever the sacred-story-system that is commonplace to their preferred society. They often lack means or time to try to resolve cognitive dissonances, so they simply accept them -- warts and all. By leap of faith, more than precise logical or mathematical proof.
Re: "God exists independently and outside of these properties of our universe"
I don't know about that. I think God actively interfunctions with us. I don't think we have "free" will. I think we have participatory will. Under my conception, I do agree that time and space are derivatives of the Godhead interfunctioning with no-thing more than math.
Again, I have no animus to your system. I think it is an important part of the effort to sustain human freedom and dignity on earth. I believe in a Godhead that pursues meaningful participation with us. I simply part in my philosophy of "end times."
**********************
You say Einstein "knew" our universe is pre-determined? I don't see how he could "know" such a thing.
Einstein and Bohr debated whether randomness concerning quanta entanglements was real or only apparent.
MY SUSPICION: Neither. Rather, I suspect quantum entanglements become measurably real only as a consequence of interfunctionings among aspects of an ineffable essence that fluxes to give expression to fluxing relationships among Conscousness, Substance, and Information. IOW, what collapses into apparent and measurable Substantive "reality" does so only in concert with part-icipatory effects of Consciousness and Information.
Ultimately, the ideas of randomness and predetermination seem to be incomplete or inadequate to their task. Because the "particle itself," as Substance, considered apart from Consciousness and Information, does not objectively exist.
Rather, its manifest existence for interfunctioning with me is dependent on its interfunctioning with the "Reality Cone" (light cone?) that happens to be shared by myself and all other beings with whom I happen to be in potential communication.
Bohr was correct, in that the Reality Cone is NOT pre-determined. But I suspect he was correct in that, only because I think both he and Einstein were incorrect in presuming that a Reality Cone (of measurables) exists independently, objectively, by itself (a-part from immeasurables).
Einstein: "I like to think the Moon is there (continues to exist) even if (when) I am not looking at it." Myself: Yes, the Moon continues to exist even when I'm not looking at it. But only because other perspectives with which I share my Reality Cone, with whose experiences those of my own are reconciled, happen to continue to be "looking" at it (feeling its effects) -- even when I am not. If no perspective of Consciousness were feeling (or potentially measuring the effects of) the Moon, then the Moon could not intelligently or rationally be said then and there to be existentially manifest.
So, each Reality Cone unfolds as it is reconciled with the interfunctionings of such perspectives of Consciousness and Information as happen to share in it. And the way it will unfold cannot be perfectly pre-known or pre-set by any mortal perspective. Rather, a meta-process beyond our ken coordinates and reconciles all manifest interfunctionings within our Reality Cone. We part-icipate with it, and our apprehensions and appreciations (prayers and observations) factor with it, but we do not have means for controlling, confining, or measuring it -- except indirectly, intuitively, empathetically. The math must always balance, but potential fluxes enjoy general parameters of freedom -- so long as they remain tethered to factors for keeping the math field balanced.
IOW, we, and no-thing with which we manifestly relate, are not entirely causal to our unfoldings, as opposed to being merely correlative and appreciative. So, events as manifested are not knowable by us to be pre-caused, nor are they ultimately knowable by us to be contemporaneously or intertwinedly caused.
For a mortal to anguish whether events are "really" first caused, pre caused, chaotically random, or participatorily chosen tends to be idle. Rather, each way of modeling tends to enjoy its season and purpose.
Ultimately ("really"), it must be enough to appreciate that what supports us is a godhead, whose aspects present to us in Consciousness, Substance, and Information. We part-icipate with the godhead, via our prayers (apprehensions), praising observations (appreciations), and good faith (good will, spiritual insight, innate empathy, generally intuitive sense of beingness, and moral higher-mindedness).
Substance (the Moon) does not exist objectively apart from Consciousness (observation) and Information (accumulation of maths). But neither do Consciousness and Information exist apart from Substance.
