Model of CSI --2

‽ ‽ ‽




I don't think natural laws are based only on math.  I do not think math maths itself.  I think Consciousness, operating with math, as a Mathematician, correlates with every expression of measurable Substance.
I see that your position is that Substance, as determined by natural law, simply is.  That is the position based on an assumption that everything is derivative of measurable Substance.  That is a form of metaphysical belief that I tend not to accept.  I prefer my alternative belief about metaphysics.
You seem to believe in the importance or validity of good will (Golden Rule).  I think that to respect good will among humanity is to respect good faith towards God.  IOW, the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule may be collapsed in this:  Be empathetic.
You seem to say "be empathetic" in a kind of Carl Sagan sense:  You don't know why, but our society would not otherwise have evolved as it has. 
My concern with that is:  I don't think that formulation helps inculcate widespread continuation of the kind of empathy (fellow respect) that is needed to sustain decent civilization.   As I look at what oligarchic elitists are doing to our republic, to undermine its borders to import liberty illiterates and lead us to mass cheap labor, I think undermining faith in an innate basis for good will is among the last things we need right now.
You close on an interesting question that I have thought about.  If you are interested, perhaps we can continue and I will get back later.  Meantime, my Harley throttle connection went bad yesterday, and I have to go to the dealer to get it fixed for the rest of the Weekend.  Interesting discussion.  Thanks.  Have a good weekend.  And, assuming you may be an American, have a happy Fourth.

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


Math-verse:  I conceptualize that a system of math-based laws defines allowable parameters that happen to allow human beings to communicate about measurables.  I don't think any math-verse in itself occupies space-time.  I think the experience of space-time is a derivative.
Substance:  I conceptualize that Appearances happen to become amenable of potential measurement and recordation, for Beings (Perspectives) that happen to be adapted to sense them.
Unified Universe:  I conceptualize a system of connections, such that experiences of measurable appearances can tend to reliably sequential communication.
Regarding wave function in the loose and expansive way you use it:  I don't see that the idea is rigorous enough to support any pretense that it is other than faith based in the way that you use it.

Note:  I see I was unclear and perhaps inconsistent regarding universe/cosmos.  The concepts CAN be conceptualized differently.  Not so much in terms of separate soap-like bubbles, but in terms of possible/fancied separate math-verses. 
The math-verse whose appearance we experience may be said to be our universe.  Other math-verses, if any exist, may be said to constitute the cosmos.  That is the way I am thinking about those concepts.  I am not sure whether others may conceptualize those terms differently. 
My intuition, not empirically testable nor meant to be, would be that, regardless of differences in math-based laws and dimensionality, every expression of a math-verse would correlate with a flux of Consciousness with Math, to avail expression of measurable Substance and accumulating Information.

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

I think my terms can be understood well enough in context.   Can you define what you mean by a wave function that "contained" the laws of the cosmos?  What does such a wave function look like?  Can it be measured?  Has it ever been seen?  Does it contain all the laws?  If it only contains all the observable laws, does that mean we know what all the observable laws are?  Is the number and kind of observable laws affected by advances in science or by changes in models?  How many of those laws may expand or phase-shift, in response to our input and feedback? Does this kind of "cosmic wave that contains the laws of the cosmos" contain enough laws to make it a reliable indicator?  Does it contain enough certainty or uncertainty to make it a useful idea?    Does this kind of cosmic wave relate to a testable hypothesis, or just an after-the-fact rationalization or assumption?




http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/742567/PROOF-of-God-real-Michio-Kaku

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/05/three_problems_with_the_big_bang.html

http://thetechreader.com/top-ten/top-ten-scientific-flaws-in-the-big-bang-theory/

&&&&&&&&&&&&&

different a priori assumptions
FEEDBACK ON ALL LEVELS

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

Re:   "[W]e cannot describe the cosmic causing consciousness beyond stating that it is conscious."
I tend to agree.  We cannot measure consciousness -- whether from the perspective of our math-verse or from whatever our math-verse may have originated from.  And, I agree that we cannot know the mind of God.
I do not agree that makes God irrelevant, because I do believe, in spiritual concerns, that the essential concern relates not to knowledge, but to self-evidence, intuition, and innate empathy.
A few thoughts:
1) The idea of innate, connected empathy does not require much more than recognizing/stating (that it is) conscious.  Consciousness is consciousness.  Each of us has a qualitative experience of our perspective of it, that is self evident to us.  Each of us can intuit that our feelings and interests would likely be much the same as that of any other perspective, had our bodies and brains been cycled through what it has been cycled through.  It is not measuring consciousness that tends to interest me for reasoning about morality.  It is qualitative appreciation.
2)  When I, as an observer, am involved with the collapse of a wave function, I do not become "outside the context of the building" for that collapse.
3) IAE, I am not confident it accords with good reasoning to apply observations from perspectives based on our math-verse to assume they must apply also to perspectives that may (or may not) abide a-part from our math-verse.
4) I doubt there are measurably manifest applications that are implicated by your line of reasoning about the relation of humans to other math-verses that would be inconsistent with mine.
5)  When you apply your line of reasoning to postulate other math-verses, or to argue that Consciousness does not function in a way that is consistent with reconciliation of all lts perspectives, you are beyond empiricism and into faith-based metaphysics.
6)  Since empiricism will not resolve the issue, I think other forms of reason are appropriate.  They would entail such aspects as self evidence, intuition, innate empathy, and, insofar as reasonably possible, tests for consistency, coherence, and completeness.
7) You seem to be wanting to assume that existentiality entails that every possible "parallel" math-verse must be a derivative of a cosmic wave acting in space-time. 
But I am arguing from an assumption that math-verses derive from (or with) Consciousness functioning with Math to express Information.  I am saying Substance (such as cosmic waves functioning in space-time) is not the superior from which everything else is derived.  I am saying Substance is either an inferior derivative, or, at most, a coordinate aspect with an innate condition of Consciousness.
8)  If you take your assumption, you can construct a fancy system of rationalizations.  But so can I, with my assumption.  You cannot disprove my assumption simply by indulging your own assumption. 
Moreover, my assumption supports the Great Commandment (good faith) and the Golden Rule (good will) --- which I believe to be nearly self-evident, and, from History, to be essential to the establishment and preservation of a decent representative republic that respects the freedom and dignity of its citizens.
9) It may be more interesting to think about how Consciousness could be reasonably modeled or rationalized to guide and reconcile each and every one of its perspectives.  You have not touched on that, I assume because you consider it to be irrelevant so long as you remain committed to your a-priori system of assumptions?
10)  Here are some recent links that might be interesting.  I do not vouch for them because I have not read them.  Their titles look interesting, so I will likely peruse them, to see if they might add any insight.  Also, one pertains to Michio Kaku.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/742567/PROOF-of-God-real-Michio-Kaku
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/05/three_problems_with_the_big_bang.html
http://thetechreader.com/top-ten/top-ten-scientific-flaws-in-the-big-bang-theory/

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

I don't think a wave-function collapse "caused" our universe.  I think wave-function collapses are continuously renormalizing.  I think the expression (manifestation) of our universe is a correlate (not a cause) of a perpetual flux of Consciousness, which necessarily signifies its perspectives in systems of math, which produces appearances of measurable Substance and accumulations and renormalizations of Information.
I don't think a cosmic wave function can come into being by itself.  I don't think math can math itself.  I think a math-based system of natural laws implicates a Mathematician.  I don't think math-in-itself (without a Mathematician) has, or produces, a locus "within" which math itself must be "contained."
I have meetings later today, so I will look at this in more depth later.  It's an interesting train.  We are assuming different axioms.  You seem to want to believe or conceptualize that everything is derivative of Substance.  While I conceptualize that Consciousness (and perhaps Information) is on at least an equally necessary plane.  If you leap in faith to take your axiom as "truth," you may rationalize it in ways similar to as you have done.
For now, I will say that I don't think everything flows down from measurable matter, energy, space, time (what I mean by Substance).  I think of Substance as what is appearing to be measurably manifested, just before it is transferred to a sequential record as stored Information.  I think Substance is an apparent derivative of Consciousness as it fluxes with Math.  What collapses is not out of Substance (space-time), but out of Consciousness as it fluxes with a math field (laws of Nature).  Substance abides only as a fleeting appearance, before it is absorbed as Information.
It may be that different math-based systems for Laws of Nature are used to sponsor different systems of dimensionality (worlds).  But I doubt those worlds would be defined by any "thing-in-itself" that actually exists "in" (or out of) space-time.  I don't think there exists any soap-film like edge to set apart or define our universe --- or any other.  I think any separateness, if any, would be more due to something like a receding rainbow effect.  A continuous renormalization (of appearances), that abides perpetually, rather than as a "big bang" event from any point "in" space-time (Substance). 
Renormalization entails continuous addition and loss of Information, such that we cannot capture the end of the rainbow or say what happened before the point of renormalization (big bang).  As Information is lost, we would have no means to remember it.  We would simply re-rationalize as if it had never been part of the record.  (Indeed, we may even try to rationalize that Information cannot be lost.)
Now, if you can locate the actual point of origin of the Big Bang, or the edge of our universe as it separates us from others (or if you can capture the end of a rainbow within a system that is not artificially apart from your own), then I may alter my thinking.
I suspect you want to say, with the Deists, that whatever the Consciousness that fluxes with Math to produce our system of dimensionality, it has "left the building."  That seems to me to be the interesting issue.  I don't believe or conceptualize that to be the case.  I suspect Consciousness necessarily remains involved and interconnecting.  That may be worth more consideration and elaboration, later.


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

Christopher Yoder:

I have updated my argument based on further research
P1. A wave function is a set of the probabilities for the quantum superpositions of observables.
P2. The von Nuemann-Wigner Interpretation states that a consciousness is required to collapse the wave function.
P3. The cosmos was created by the collapse of, what I will call, the cosmic wave function that contained the natural laws of the cosmos as its observables and that our cosmos is only one of a set of possible cosmos described by the cosmic wave function.
P4. The Cosmic Wave Function exists necessarily apart from the quantum superpositions it describes and the reality resulting from its collapse.
P5. A consciousness that collapses a wave function cannot be contained within the set of observables of the wave function.
C. Therefore, there must be a consciousness external to our cosmos that caused the cosmic wave function to collapse. Furthermore, we cannot describe the cosmic causing consciousness beyond stating that it is conscious.

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

Your train breaks down, especially at Point 3.  Our one unifying universe, given a connecting sense of the Cosmos, connects everything -- including the wave function, the particular observers, the ongoing series and unfolding of collapses and events, the laws of Nature, the record of the past, the flux of the present, the potentiality of the future.
[EDIT:   Instead of unifying universe, I should have said unifying cosmos.  The intuition being that every math-verse of the cosmos is an expression of Consciousness, that avails the (derivative) expression of measurable appearances (Substance) and an accumulating record (Information).  And that such Consciousness feeds back to guide every perspective of it, in every math-verse.  How could IT leverage such power?  By math, delegations, fractal iterations?  Why should such power be intuited?  How could IT know each of us intimately, and yet be a-part from us?]
The idea, as I would have it, does not conceptualize anything -- measurable or immeasurable -- that is not connected as a part or aspect of the Cosmos.  (If space-time is a secondary illusion, derivative of Consciousness and Math, then it is an illusion that any thing other than appearance collapses "inside" the Cosmos or that any perspective of Consciousness actually resides "inside" space-time.  Rather, the encompassment is of a connecting and math-based fluxing nature, not a spatial nature.  I do not envision bubbles of universes "inside" spheres of soap-like films.)
That's why the model conceptualizes our Cosmos as the re-presentation of one Godhead, functioning in 3 fluxing aspects:  present Consciousness, past accumulation of Information, and future potentiality of measurable Substance. 
I did not suggest that present Consciousness is the only face/aspect of the Trinity.  I agree that present Consciousness does not simultaneously perform the function of the other two aspects of the Trinitarian Godhead.
*****************
You still haven't answered WHY any perspective of Consciousness should apply the Golden Rule, rather than simply do what its glands want, and then call that "moral."  IOW, your solution seems to remain trivial.  I agree we should respect the Golden Rule.  But I say it has a spiritually immeasurable and innate basis that is beyond triviality, glands, lusts, feelings, instincts, and pleasure.
Why, for example, "should not" a culture of elitists seek by using its accumulated control over all institutions of persuasion, to fool the masses into believing they are subject to a rule of law, which the elites intend "should not" apply to them?  IOW, do you believe the Golden Rule actually abides as a fundamental aspect of the Cosmos, or just as a contrivance of convenience for pleasuring gang-bangers and elites while they loot or rule the masses?


You have not explained how your idea of morality can inspire any society to determine or condemn that which is poisonous to it.
Yes, I can act morally on your behalf. When I acted to earn a living to support my children, I was acting morally on their behalf.
I think you meant to ask, can I be moral in your stead? On that, I may agree with you -- No.
Which is why I have a problem with the Jesus-as-sacrificial-appeasement model. What I don't have a problem with is the idea that being moral entails choices, which entails foregoing alternatives, which entails sacrifices. (If Jesus is God, then Jesus was not sacrificing to appease Himself, but to inspire humanity to apprehend the general necessity of sacrifice in order to function morally. IOW, to make choices within a system of conservation, even when hard, and not to try to tolerate everything.)
My only evidence of higher mind is my own direct experience of consciousness, together with my observations about how consciousness seems to emerge, unfold, compete, cooperate, and reconcile.
Perhaps you mean to ask what is the evidence that the cosmos requires observers? That consciousness seems to be required to collapse the wave function?
There are various models and interpretations about that. I tend to skip those and go to this: If in the beginning there was no-thing, because everything was in a state of annihilation on account of being erased by mutually opposing charges, then what we experience as manifest existentiality arose because of a crack in that symmetry, whereby much of what we interpret as matter and anti-matter split to opposing camps.
So that "no-thing-ness" was not entirely nothingness, but an immeasurable kind of "somethingness."
I can think of two fundaments, in innate connection with that which we interpret as the physical things that can be measured, but which themselves are not measurable. Those two things are math itself, and the qualitative aspect of consciousness (which may be imperfectly rationalized at various times and places as love, empathy, enmity, joy, fear, avarice, astonishment, respect, awe, etc.).
Once things split, that consciousness associates -- at higher level to preserve unitary connection, and at lower levels to experience perspectives from variously split loci in space-time.
While thus associated, those perspectives that are dependent on their attachments to local patterns are subject to disruption upon the disruption of those patterns. They are mortal.
Although they are mortal perspectives, that of which they are perspectives, i.e., consciousness, is of the same enduring and fundamental essence. Consciousness is consciousness.
To me, that seems intuitive almost to the point of being self-evident. Being the a-priories, that math and consciousness cannot be proven by their derivatives --- i.e., systems of math that are stored as In-form-ation, aka matter, and transmitted as in-form-ation, aka energy.
IOW, as a model, this can at best be intuited, but it cannot be subjected to empirical proof or falsification. What it can be tested for is internal consistency, coherence, and/or completeness.
Why do I think this to be important? Because the idea that we are each a perspective of the same fundamental aspect, Consciousness, is a basis for inculcating respect for decent empathy, i.e., good faith and good will. Which leads directly back to Jesus and the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.
From that, if one wishes to sustain himself, his family, progeny, culture, and nation, he must judge (even when he cannot know) what is required for that sustenance.
A citizenry, to assimilate and endure as a nation, requires common standards (not just common approval or omni-tolerance) by which to judge what is necessary to sustain it.
Neither an individual nor a nation can long endure by tolerating everything and everybody.
From human perspective, by what standards are (or should) part or all of what unfolds in space-time be thought to be pre-determined, contemporaneously determined, or post rationalized?
Because I believe in contemporaneous participation in the effecting of determinations, I believe, not in Free Will, but in a feedback process of reconciled and Participatory Will. Of that Will, the moral absolute requires good faith and good will. But the particular aspects of that depend on assimilations of judgment.
For that, a test is this: What kind of society do we want to try to establish, and what principles are needed to nurture it?


If acting morally is entirely an individual action, then does not your concept of morality reduce to a trivial label, to call whatever you choose to do "moral"?
I don't think the standard of morality is entirely objective or subjective. I think it is a reconciliation of a Higher Mind to different individual contexts and subjects (persons). For example, Jesus did not command us to come to Him, nor did He prescribe detailed rules for every situation, as law-drooling Pharisees seem to do. Rather, He spoke in parables and of the Great Commandment (good faith) and the Golden Rule (lynay -- good will). To me, a tendency towards good faith and good will is innate to the Cosmos. I believe an aspect/face of the Trinitarian Cosmos is necessarily conscious of that reconciliatory unfolding. Something about the unfolding of the Cosmos seems to require a coordinate Consciousness/Awareness/Observer.
Isaac Asimov played with such an idea. He seemed to believe it. I don't know how he did that and still thought he should label himself as an atheist. Maybe he thought he must be an atheist if he did not believe in the Bible literally?


You "am that you am"? I wonder if a Reconciling Principler believes that "He just am"?
To justify Morality, I think you're putting a lot of faith in (pre-determined?*) Nature.
The Founders provided the language you borrowed: "right to life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness." Most of them expressed belief in "Nature's God."
I am glad you believe in moral principles beyond yourself. I wonder why you believe your moral principles should apply to anyone else?
You think your basis is other than metaphysical, even though it is "evidenced" only by self-referring intuition and empathy. IOW, nothing in science-based, measuring empiricism evidences that your moral principles "should" be applied to judge others.
I also believe "you am." I just believe "you" are among many other perspectives of am-ness ... that are necessarily judged and reconciled in respect of a Moral Principler.
********************
*Many quantum thinkers do not believe each succeeding event has been pre-determined. To get around that, they necessarily resort to metaphysical leaps of faith -- such as by imagining Many (non-testable and parallel) Worlds, or by supposing that a Godhead contemporaneously reconciles the unfolding choices. Either way, a non-empirically provable leap of faith is entailed.


I don't see it that way. I think we journey as imperfect, mortal perspectives of God. The Godhead is the Reconciler, in a feedback relationship with each of its Perspectives of Consciousness.
***********************
MUSING With A Word Salad --- Not To The Taste Of Many:
To seek explanations for moral purposefulness is to necessitate reasoning (that something more than math-in-itself and/or particles-in-themselves be modeled) ... to account for our pre-determinative choices.
We cannot fathom the ultimate cause of ourselves. So, looking into ourselves, how do we choose which causes to serve? Well, looking into ourselves, we intuit and empathize, to suss our purposefulness, based on a leap of faith that something immeasurable, beyond ourselves and our cosmos-as-sensed, is purposeful.
Regarding Purposefulness and Salvation, I would suspect/model:
IDENTITY: Our separate experiences of Identity serve a Reconciler of Consciousness. Information regarding our Identities is preserved/carried forward to the extent we continue to serve the spiritual tastes of the Reconciler with regard to unfolding pursuits of truth, beauty, and artistic expression.
SALVATION: Not all Information is preserved, but Information that is lost is removed from the memory of all lesser spirits and mortals. Their ways of modeling and thinking will renormalize, as if the lost information had never been manifested.
ILLUSION (Maya): What we take to be Matter and Energy are, more fundamentally, re-presentations for the manifesting, transmitting, and storing of Information.
Matter, Energy, Bodies, Brains, Senses seem to exist in local contexts because our perspectives are renormalized to seem to exist with local contexts.
However, at a quantum level, possibilities for newly unfolding expressions of relationships among matter and energy may be as infinite as math -- and math, itself, need not occupy local space or time.
ART:
To deny a thing is just (that it ought to be a certain way) is to affirm that the thing should be a different way. To deny a thing is beautiful is to affirm that it is not beautiful, which is to presuppose a sense of beauty. To deny a particular responsibility is to affirm a responsibility to do otherwise. Consequently, the sense of justice, beauty, responsibility, is self-evident and known from within. To consciously deny the existence of these qualities is to affirm conscious appreciation for what they are. To rationalize the lack of a meta a priori, one must invoke an a priori. Thus, no one can proceed in this life without a leap of faith of some kind.
I do not think general truth, beauty, and morality are the OBJECTIVE specific same to every SUBJECTIVE perspective of consciousness. However, I do think they represent a general ideal or truth that applies to each subject perspective, as he/she seeks after them in his/her context of experience.
IOW, the Objective (changeless) Source (Godhead) is in a state of (changing) feedback with each of its perspectives, as it guides them towards enlightenment --- even though no perspective that is attached to a local contextualization can ever achieve perfect enlightenment or become or replace God. Mortals pursue enlightenment, but do not achieve it.

Body, Soul, Spirit: Substance, Information, Consciousness: Re-present-ation of Information, Accumulation of Past In-form-ation, Present Apprehension of Information.

Well, define what "Moral" means to you, in a way that is meaningful, i.e., not trivial to subjectively conditioned pleasures. Can you be compassionate, tolerant, and respectful for everyone and everything? I don't see how such a mind set (weak willed leap of faith?) could long survive, in an individual or a nation.
"If" presupposes a logical construct, which seems to presuppose a logician. Math itself is not a verb. Math does not math itself. Math is activated by a Mathematician.
As you presuppose a logical construct, I think you are presupposing a Logician. If you think you are not, I think you are engaging a Leap of Faith, i.e., a faith that no logician is requisite in order for logic to "exist."

Son of God is a metaphor. It gives a poetic, shorthand way for assuring that God, more like a parent than a distant monster, is concerned with the unfolding development of each individual. If more explanation is desired, instead of arguing literalism against a metaphor, delve into philosophy.
Moreover, our cosmos DOES appear to us as an ineffable, trinitarian mix of consciousness, measurable appearances, and cumulating records.
The idea of a single changeless originator (like a thing-in-itself) makes little sense when we see that every measurable thing in fact does appear to change. Though it may seem to jump logic, the apparent FACT IS that an essence sponsors change, i.e., a Changeless-Changer, i.e., the Godhead --- not an impotent or monster-grooming idea of a singularity-by-itself.

No conception or story about God can be other than a less than perfect re-presentation of God.
I think an adult parent tends to want to raise a child to become a responsible individual. Along the way, this entails a lot of tactics, often including tough love.

Well, there is no coherent sense involved in your position. If no faith is involved, are you saying you know? Dang! You should write a book to reveal your great knowledge! Or maybe you have scientific proof you can submit to Michio Kaku for peer review?
What kind of agnostic are you? Are you the doubting kind, the knowing kind, or the dramatic kind? In the sense that I do not claim to know, I share some doubt. Does that make everyone who does not know but who tends to believe, an agnostic in your intended meaning? Do you have any idea what your intended meaning is?

Where did I claim to be morally superior? What I claim, Dimmy, is that a cultural assimilation of a sense of morality is essential if a representative republic is to be sustained. Learn to read.

What do you mean by personal morality? Is it like moral anarchy? Is that represented in some parade alongside the proud genitalia marchers? Do you imagine manmade laws do not take public mores and sensibilities into account?

My faith, properly understood, is copasetic with the faith of every decent person who believes in the representative republic. Your faith in being able to divine my faith from a single comment is incredibly shallow. Perhaps your faith is mainly in your genitalia and gratifications. I don't know -- just asking.
Btw, even a-theism entails a leap of faith. If you think a clear wall can separate what is religious or spiritual from what is morally philosophical or a proper subject for political law making, you are one very deluded puppy.

The Ten Commandments are an historical specification for rules of good faith and good will. A person who does not believe there abides any reality behind such rules of intuition and empathy, who believes he should instead be his own god/force seeker of pleasure, will not want any contrary moral teaching or specification to become popularized. Such incorrigible corrupti and ignoranti will celebrate when such a monument is smashed, just as they will celebrate when the faith, family, and fidelity needed to sustain a representative republic are smashed. They care not and know not what they do, because all their moral instruction comes from their hormones, children and succeeding generations be cursed.

I am in accord.
Regarding Purposefulness and Salvation, I would suspect/model:
IDENTITY: Our separate experiences of Identity serve a Reconciler of Consciousness. Information regarding our Identities is preserved/carried forward to the extent we continue to serve the spiritual tastes of the Reconciler with regard to unfolding pursuits of truth, beauty, and artistic expression.
SALVATION: Not all Information is preserved, but Information that is lost is removed from the memory of all lesser spirits and mortals. Their ways of modeling and thinking will renormalize, as if the lost information had never been manifested.
ILLUSION: What we take to be Matter and Energy are, more fundamentally, re-presentations for the manifesting, transmitting, and storing of Information.
Matter, Energy, Bodies, Brains, Senses seem to exist in local contexts because our perspectives are renormalized to seem to exist with local contexts.
At a quantum level, possibilities for newly unfolding expressions of relationships among matter and energy may be as infinite as math -- which need not itself occupy any local space or time.
**************************
OCCAM:
One way of modeling an infinite potentiality may be by way of an idea of Many Worlds, or a Multiverse --- wherewith all possibilities are expressed in some world. I think that view is more absurd than a model that intuits a Reconciling Godhead. In my view, the Reconciler guides, reconciles, effects which among possibilities to make manifest, then continues to allow them to unfold --- as a canvas of art might unfold for an Artist. The Artist engages in a feedback appreciation and unfolding reconciliation of His art. Each perspective has a personal relationship with the Reconciler.
My view detracts nothing from empiricism or math because it does not model the Godhead as giving expression to any measurables except in accord with a conservatory math. It is at least as parsimonious as a metaphysical idea of Many Worlds. Moreover, a Many Worlds idea does not dispense with an implication of a Godhead. And, an idea of a Reconciling Godhead can implicate an idea of feedback among perspectives of good faith and good will -- without which hardly any idea of a decent civilization would have a prayer (pun intended).
***********************
ART:
To deny a thing is just (that it ought to be a certain way) is to affirm that the thing should be a different way. To deny a thing is beautiful is to affirm that it is not beautiful, which is to presuppose a sense of beauty. To deny a particular responsibility is to affirm a responsibility to do otherwise. Consequently, the sense of justice, beauty, responsibility, is self-evident and known from within. To consciously deny the existence of these qualities is to affirm conscious appreciation for what they are. To rationalize the lack of a meta a priori, one must invoke an a priori. Thus, no one can proceed in this life without a leap of faith of some kind.
I do not think general truth, beauty, and morality are the objective specific same to every subjective perspective of consciousness. However, I do think they represent a general truth that applies to each subject perspective, as he/she seeks after them in his/her context of experience.
IOW, the objective Source is in a state of feedback with each of its perspectives, as it guides them towards enlightenment.

MUSING:
It is self evident that Consciousness exists. It is strongly evident that it exists beyond the space-time perimeter of any individual person's skin. The existence of Consciousness seems to be at least as fundamental in its expression as space-time. If there was a Big Bang out of otherwise nothingness, then that preceding nothingness must have been somethingness.
To model as if there are many bubbles of Big Bangs is just an alternative regression on the paradox. Moreover, it is absurd. Is there supposed to be some soap bubble film at the outer layer of our universe and other universes? Is there supposed to be some spatial point of beginning for the Big Bang? Is there supposed to be some fundamental building block particle-in-itself that accounts for all the matter and energy in our universe, like a system of legos blocks (in lieu of a connecting logos)? If those individual things account for all the transforming interconnections that we experience, and they are each a thing-in-itself, then how, except in respect of something beyond themselves, do they interconne and trans-form?
Fundamentally, the idea of a system of particles-in themselves as the basis for the expression of our materially measurable universe cannot be reconciled to any consistent, coherent, complete system of logic or reason.
if the preceding somethingness was more than mere math, but animated in respect of conservatory rules of math, and if it cannot be fathomed or measured as legos-like building blocks, then what was/is it? Not any thing measureable. Not any thing that makes more sense than innate Consciousness operating in respect of a chosen system of math-based rules.
Given that kind of Consciousness and Math, measurable Substance and cumulative Information seem necessarily to flow from or with it. Consciousness seems to be at least as fundamental an aspect for the expression of the Cosmos as Substance and In-form-ation. If so, the Trinitarian Godhead would seem to be expressed as (apprehensive) Consciousness, (measurable) Substance, (cumulating) Information.
Why is innate Consciousness important to any model of religion, morality, and empathy? Because Consciousness is Consciousness. A reconciling face/aspect of the CSI Trinity. A basis for empathetic connecting between each and all of its adopted perspectives.
Appearances do not exist in themselves, outside an interpretive context. As they come into appearance, Consciousness at some level must be present or in potential to sense the appearance. As appearances of what is measurable seem to expand, the experience of Consciousness seems to expand with each such appearance.
No-thing-in-itself "really" lies beyond the sensory limits of Consciousness, because there is no such a thing as any particular measurable-in-itself. There is no particle-in-itself. All appearances of Substance flux, phase, and shift, in coordination with a contextualizing flux of CSI.
Appearances to be found may contemporaneously lie beyond the senses of a particular expression of Consciousness. But such appearances cannot lie beyond the potential and contemporaneous sense of all expressions of Consciousness. As potentials for senses of Consciousness expand, so also do potentials for appearances to their senses --- coordinately.
Because all that is measurable consists of what is apparent, and what is apparent depends on senses evolving for perspectives of Consciousness, no-thing (no Substance of space, time, matter, energy) that is measurable to any mortal can come into here and now existential expression without a correlating expression of, or potential for, Consciousness for it to be presented to or recorded for.
It is not unreasonable to believe that, without a unifying and Reconciling Consciousness, the cosmos of appearances and re-presentations could not be expressed.
****************
Regarding illusions, appearances, rainbows, and renormalizations:
From Wiki --- Māyā --- a spiritual concept connoting "that which exists, but is constantly changing and thus is spiritually unreal", and the "power or the principle that conceals the true character of spiritual reality".

Do those who routinely eat babies think that what they're doing is evil? No. I don't think they tend to espouse belief that it is good or evil. Not unless they have fomented some religious notion that they have been specially blessed and chosen by Allah to devour other people's babies.
Rather, I suspect they tend to think they, and everyone and everything, are beyond good and evil. I suspect the only basis for good and evil they may espouse is pleasure, gratification, instinct. I doubt they respect any idea of sacrifice or delayed gratification in the service of an innate moral connection among and between all the various perspectives of consciousness.
This is not because such basis is beyond innate intuition and empathy, but because respect for its espousal has been brutalized, trained, or mutated out of them.

Well, why is it evil for people to eat babies? Why is it not just Nature, experimenting with another evolutionary pattern? Maybe the baby was very tasty. Or the participants were being prepped for some new social order. S/
Except as a label for personal changing preferences, in what way does the concept of Evil pertain to anything that commonly exists?
EDIT: To appreciate Evil, it may help to consider what Good is not. A good person does not lead other people into evil.  A good person does not, without good reason, subjugate other adults to a subhuman status. (He may defend himself from others who already have chosen a subhuman status.)
For the most part, he does not remove freedom of thought, communication, association, speech, or enterprise from another person.  He does not shout down invited speakers.  He does not seek to hire or promote waves of demented profs or talking heads, to brainwash students and citizens so as to remove their capacities to reason for themselves.
A good person accords respect to other adults who present themselves in good faith and good will, and tries for persuasion to rely on reason.  That is not to say that he fails to take into account the interests, feelings, and passions of others.  Nor is it to say that he so coddles young people as to raise them to be wussies.  Nor is it to say he is unwilling, when necessary, to be rude to persons who do not incline to present themselves in good faith or good will.

To rally condemnation against any actions or actors, you need a higher standard against which to condemn or judge them.
There are various ways to serve NO Higher Standard. The Pollyanna Doper way is to espouse that this, no matter what, is always the best of all possible worlds. The Self-Godding way is to pretend that your personal gratification, no matter how it changes, is the standard against which all others should be assessed. The Toolish way is to surrender your mind and body to the use of another Mouthpiece or Gang of Mouthpieces. The Rationalizing Indoctrinated way is to let your mind be trained to reason in circles, using slippery words to promote a program to flim-flam yourself and others. The Gamer way is to see others only as pawns in a game to test who can win by accumulating the most stuff. The Pagan way is to espouse that everyone must serve one's own needs and instincts under the Natural Order, which prescribes that everyone be good in his own way. The Homey way is to tag and gang-bang with others on some superficial basis -- like skin color, place of origin, diet, or dress. The People-Farming Law-Drooler way is to devise schemes for imposing order by using subalterns and shills to dispense favors and punishments in order to impose rules over the masses that are not applied to the elites.
The Only Way to inspire people towards an Ideal of Higher Mindedness is to rationalize a model that will inculcate a society whose members, as they pass into responsible adulthood, will each respect the freedom and dignity of the others. This requires a Leap Of Faith to inculcate generalized good faith and sustainable good will.
That is what Jesus did, under His teaching of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. That teaching is needed to inspire people to find ---- beyond all the noise of the Pollyanna Dopers, Self-Goddings, Tools, Rationalizing Indoctrinateds, Gamers, Pagans, Homeys, and People-Farming Law Droolers --- the still, quiet voice of common empathy and decency that abides with every perspective of consciousness. The Good News is: That voice is not beyond reason. And ITs significations are traced and written throughout the Good Book, the Cosmos, and the Mind of every reasoning perspective of consciousness.


The more our central gov takes on the duty to re-raise us, the less competent we seem to become as individual adults. This feeds a need for the central gov to take on even more duties to re-raise us, which makes us even less competent as individual adults. How low can we circle the drain in this way, before our society falls into it?

FWIW, here is what I think.
Trivial truth, mathematical truth, does not change. But the truth about what may be morally best for a particular person or society fluxes and changes frequently, as opportunities change. So I don't think it sheds light to proceed from an axiomatic belief that moral truth does not change in its applications depending on changes in contextual relations.
For example, a representative republic based on general respect for individual rights and responsibilities may be best for one society, but inappropriate for others. When a people are ready for it, a representative republic seems best. When they're not, trying to force it on them can be a fool's errand.
A society that was appropriate for a representative republic may become not appropriate, if it is flooded with liberty-illiterates or if its replacement generation is wrongly schooled or indoctrinated. If you drive a person or child or moral cripple to the middle of a desert and force him to get out, without water or food or clothes, and tell him to go now and be free, that tends not to be in the practice of a timeless and good principle.
There abide general moral principles whose truths do not change. They are the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. However, in specific and material applications, because different mortal perspectives are necessarily different, those absolute principles are applied differently to the different perspectives of each subject participant.
This is not strictly situational ethics or absolutist ethics. Rather, it is objective ethics reconciled to the perspectives of various subject persons. This is why we leave it to God to judge the souls (essential essences) of people, but we take responsibility ourselves to decide how to deal with them on earth.
Man-made law is filled with prescriptions and proscriptions, but nearly all of them are subject to exceptions, not all of which have been specifically provided for. To try to nail all those down tends to become errands for law-drooling fools. If there is a place where absolutes always apply equally, I doubt it is inhabited by human beings.
As an aspiration, I do believe it best for a person and society to aspire to become individually responsible, free, competent, and decent. We can try to teach that to children and to people who have lost their way. Moral truths can abide as general ideals. As detailed instructions for every particular application, not so much.
Unfortunately, it can also become necessary, if a representative republic is ever to be restored and not to perish from the earth, to make tough decisions to separate from or banish certain kinds of hard corps moral delinquents. Drastic times may call for drastic measures. This is why a sustainable republic has to establish and enforce borders. It cannot fix or ensure the physical or moral health of everyone. Of course, those who are banished will tend to curse the ones who are trying to banish (or change) them.

No measurable thing would exist, but for cracked symmetry. It is asymmetry that gives us matter and anti-matter. IOW, the cosmic big bang. Asymmetry means innate in-equal-ity.
No pattern or form becomes receptive as a perspective of consciousness unless it is specially (unequally) favored and reconciled. Without inequality (symmetry breaking), there would be no measurable thing to manifest, no basis for any equa-tional unfolding.
Maybe Dems bent on equality hate their very existence? Maybe they have a beef with the Almighty for "making" them be miserable?

On a meta level, consciousness is consciousness. On a mortal level, "all people should be equal before the law" is something a proponent of a decent and representative republic should say. It has to do with rule under a framework of law, as opposed to rule under despots over minutiae.
In that respect, I believe in the Golden Rule and the Veil of Ignorance. But I apply them differently from most Proggies. To love your child as yourself is not to give him everything you have, but to help him learn how to become responsible for himself.
I believe in tough love. I don't believe entitlement-teaching is "love." I do not believe in trying to impose perfect equality in results, but I do believe each person should try to respect what seems to him/her to be the unfolding concerns of the Reconciler.
I think human freedom and dignity necessitates that each and every subject adult learn to take subjective responsibility for his/her own pursuits, raising his/her own family, and preserving his/her own values, culture, and republic.
I believe the existence of a Source of Higher Mindedness is a Reality, under which all mortals are subject. But I believe the last thing that Source seeks is to make every human being an equal replica of every other human being. Or to dictate minutiae of diets, dress, and ceremonies. I loath the tendency towards hive-mindedness of incompetents, losers, perpetual infants, wussie-people, and conning parasites and moochers.

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

What I love is a society that defends the freedom and dignity of its members.   For that, some things about Canada and the U.S. are admirable, and some are not.  I do not admire the willingness of many Canadians and Californians to enforce pc with criminal punishment. 
You might also suffer from a distorted or overly literalistic belief about the god you say you don't believe in. 
I don't believe in an old guy in a long beard, either.  To me, the Trinitarian Godhead is what reconciles the fluxing expression of qualitative Consciousness, measurably manifesting Substance, and accumulating Information.  (Do you believe in consciousness, substance, and information?)  For substance, matter is stored information, while energy is transmitting information.  No expression of substance is entirely matter or entirely energy, but a mix.
In practice, Atheists tend to indulge their own leaps of faith about moral connections and reconciliations (good faith and good will), but they have a fetish-like aversion to the letters G o d.  Also, a metaphysical belief that banishing the sequential use of the letters G o d would result in more happiness and fewer conflicts.  I agree, it's not a fancy belief, just a simplistic one.
Do Canadians need more hugs?  The thing about churches (forums for assimilating community good will) is that they tend to dispense hugs and help assimilate feelings of moral purposefulness.  Which tends to help strengthen and preserve societies and nations.