MATHICALITY:
The Universe is not a bubble. Not a balloon. Not flat. Does not have a center. Nor an edge. EMR is not a wave. Nor a set of particles. There is no ultimate particle-in-itself. Those ideas/models serve calculations for some purposes that often turn out to be extremely practical. But they do not put us closer to understanding infinity or eternity. Nor do any such models consistently serve every practical need.
There abide various overlapping and fluxing frames of commonizing reference which tend to avail unfolding communication and evolution among inhabitants acculturated to them. But there is no universal Nowness that is fathomable to any particular mortal, nor any universal model or frame of reference, nor any ultimate explanatory TOE.
METAPHORS: Can any model for science function other than as a metaphor, to really explicate a precise correlation with so-called Reality? Science uses a model or metaphor of a Big Bang, entailing a somewhat spheroidal explosion outward from a point. Like a water balloon expanding outward as a hose pumps water into it. But that kind of model does not work by itself as any kind of precise correlate with Reality. Rather, a different metaphor is applied to imagine how stars and matter may tend toward equal diffuseness in all directions from every perspective. That metaphor invites one to conceptualize stars as blots painted on the outer membrane of the balloon. Then, as the balloon is pumped up, the space accelerates in expansion between each and every star. The first metaphor imagines a diffuse explosion within the balloon. The second imagines a surface increase on the membrane for the balloon. These are, of course, contrivances to try to explain a 4-D expansion of space-time in 2-D or 3-D terms.
Which begs a question: Can any material-based model explicate that kind of Big Bang and subsequent Expansion, or must it only be imagined in Math? IOW, to what extent is the material appearance of our World an illusion secondary to a math-based Algorithm that, per Godel, must forever remain beyond our complete or unifying explication?
As a mental experiment, suppose Consciousness-Substance-Information is entangled. Then, what could be expected as bits of such entanglements are brought into aggregation: Would they begin to harmonize, as if on the same page of music?
Would Consciousness thus express itself harmonically, throughout the aggregated and entangled pattern?
Over time, may clumps of such aggregates become organized, eventually as cells, functioning to sustain or replicate the organism --- perhaps even fractals in respect of it (like "turtles all the way down")?
As such cells got more and more "on the same page," may super-cells more likely begin to organize, to facilitate the sustenance of the aggregate form of which all the cells were parts?
Were cells to organize to guide cells to guide cells, and so on, would that not mark when they began to send and receive information that would more directly attract similar aggregates of forms?
At some point, would this not describe a process wherewith consciousness of consciousness emerges, i.e., sentient self-awareness?
Would not some expressions of such sentience tend to become more attuned to sending and receiving information to and from their niches within niches within niches?
Among the persons we have called prophets or geniuses, were they, in themselves, the authors of their work --- or were they carriers of information being guided or availed for them from deep within the math of the cosmos?
After much tinkering, how many received what they considered their most important insights, in a flash, or after having slept on concerns they had pushed into their subconscious? How many then turned from the Source, preferring instead to say, "I did that"? What peace of mind is availed for those that practice listening, praying, and meditating? What may it mean to say, "Ask and it shall be given"?
**************************
OF BLACK HOLES AND DARK MATTER AND ENERGY:
It is postulated that our universe is expanding at such an accelerating rate that there will come a time when most galactic systems apart from those near our own will have separated beyond the horizon from which we can detect their light. In that respect, will they become like separate universes, so that our light will be trapped to circulate within our own system?
If so, can we know whether some galaxies may already have separated, to form their own separate universes? If so, what becomes of our rationalizations concerning a math-based, equational basis for a natural law of conservation of matter and energy? Would the escape of their mass implicate a violation of math-based conservation? Or would their mass still influence our system, such as via black holes?
Are black holes gateways for conserving mass/gravitational effects? May such effects be what expresses what we call dark matter and dark energy? May such distant and unseen galaxies be asserting, via black holes, a pull on the expansion of our universe?
May the mass of our universe be continuously fluxing, being lost even as it is replaced, via a circulating feedback system of black holes?
At limits of dissipation, may all matter and energy eventually get recompressed and recirculated to a freshly originating big bang, from which other systems would remain too distant for their light to be detected, even as their dark mass restarted an accelerating dissipation?
If space-time is merely artefactual of the Vacuum, then there is no real distance between the most distant galaxies --- except in algorithmic math. May black holes worm through the algorithmic math of space-time ... in an instant?
May some black holes produce way-stations of dark matter and dark energy, while larger black holes produce newly exploding singularities?
What reconciles the unfolding details within the broad parameters of such circulatory agents, within the potentiality of the Vacuum, if not a Conscious Mathematician --- like a breather of fire to activate determinations of the Vacuum?
May the mass of our universe be continuously fluxing, being lost even as it is replaced, via a circulating feedback system of black holes?
At limits of dissipation, may all matter and energy eventually get recompressed and recirculated to a freshly originating big bang, from which other systems would remain too distant for their light to be detected, even as their dark mass restarted an accelerating dissipation?
If space-time is merely artefactual of the Vacuum, then there is no real distance between the most distant galaxies --- except in algorithmic math. May black holes worm through the algorithmic math of space-time ... in an instant?
May some black holes produce way-stations of dark matter and dark energy, while larger black holes produce newly exploding singularities?
What reconciles the unfolding details within the broad parameters of such circulatory agents, within the potentiality of the Vacuum, if not a Conscious Mathematician --- like a breather of fire to activate determinations of the Vacuum?
*************
Well, I also take the existence of Consciousness as implicating the existence of something that it relates to, which is: The Vacuum. (A Mathematician activates, and always has activated, the field of Math.)
I also recognize the absurdity of trying to multiply or divide by either zero or infinity.
So I do not concern myself with trying to explain an original creator, and an original creator of that creator, and so on, ad infinitum. I simply recognize that something immeasurable (Consciousness?) abides and somehow presents unfoldments of somethingness out of seemingly otherwise nothingness.
I agree that the Vacuum, in itself, is not measurable. I do not agree that no-thing can exist unless it is measurable. I think immeasurable existents are implicated, as well as measurable existents.
FYI, I made a previous comment where I try to compare Michiko Kaku's string theory with Nassim Haramein's bucky-ball theory. Both try to model a way to conceptualize how parameters for our measurable Universe could manifest out of a vacuum potentiality of spatial infinity and chronological eternity.
Apart from the Mathematician and the Math, I would conceptualize measurable things as being their mere derivatives. I do not conceptualize measurable things (space, time, matter, energy) as being existents-in-themselves. IOW, I do not conceptualize consciousness or the vacuum as emerging from space-time-matter-energy. Rather, I conceptualize space-time-matter-energy as emerging from a Living Algorithm (Mathematician inter-functioning with a Vacuum field of math).
******************
I think you're trying to make a distinction that makes no difference in connection with my point, which pertains to self-evidence. Now, one can arbitrarily define awareness as pertaining to awareness of external measurables, and one can arbitrarily define consciousness as pertaining to one's internal awareness of one's awareness of external measurables.
And one can go on making other arbitrary distinctions that have no bearing on my point, which is: You are making the common mistake of seeking empirical objective evidence of that which is self evident. IOW, that which is inherently subjective (to self), qualitative, and beyond confinement to empirical measurements. Only if you assume that everything that exists must be measurably evidence-able would you deny a role for that which is self evident.
So maybe you should prove your implicit assumption: That nothing can exist unless it is in some way measurable. Otherwise, I ask: Why are you making the absurd mistake of asking for measurable evidence of self-existents that are immeasurable?
*****************
Well, I also take the existence of Consciousness as implicating the existence of something that it relates to, which is: The Vacuum. (A Mathematician activates, and always has activated, the field of Math.)
I also recognize the absurdity of trying to multiply or divide by either zero or infinity.
So I do not concern myself with trying to explain an original creator, and an original creator of that creator, and so on, ad infinitum. I simply recognize that something immeasurable (Consciousness?) abides and somehow presents unfoldments of somethingness out of seemingly otherwise nothingness.
I agree that the Vacuum, in itself, is not measurable. I do not agree that no-thing can exist unless it is measurable. I think immeasurable existents are implicated, as well as measurable existents.
FYI, I made a previous comment where I try to compare Michiko Kaku's string theory with Nassim Haramein's bucky-ball theory. Both try to model a way to conceptualize how parameters for our measurable Universe could manifest out of a vacuum potentiality of spatial infinity and chronological eternity.
Apart from the Mathematician and the Math, I would conceptualize measurable things as being their mere derivatives. I do not conceptualize measurable things (space, time, matter, energy) as being existents-in-themselves. IOW, I do not conceptualize consciousness or the vacuum as emerging from space-time-matter-energy. Rather, I conceptualize space-time-matter-energy as emerging from a Living Algorithm (Mathematician inter-functioning with a Vacuum field of math).
******************
I think you're trying to make a distinction that makes no difference in connection with my point, which pertains to self-evidence. Now, one can arbitrarily define awareness as pertaining to awareness of external measurables, and one can arbitrarily define consciousness as pertaining to one's internal awareness of one's awareness of external measurables.
And one can go on making other arbitrary distinctions that have no bearing on my point, which is: You are making the common mistake of seeking empirical objective evidence of that which is self evident. IOW, that which is inherently subjective (to self), qualitative, and beyond confinement to empirical measurements. Only if you assume that everything that exists must be measurably evidence-able would you deny a role for that which is self evident.
So maybe you should prove your implicit assumption: That nothing can exist unless it is in some way measurable. Otherwise, I ask: Why are you making the absurd mistake of asking for measurable evidence of self-existents that are immeasurable?
*****************
?????????? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS CONCEPTION?
Suppose a Computer were programmed to write script in ink that was continuously to be fluxed and replaced. The script is printed on a 2-D membrane, but is projected to appear as a 4-D hologram. The program is set to generate script that expands in spatially outbound sequences until it meets a limit, then to collapse and repeat. Each repetition would constitute a kind of Simulation. The program is such that it only sets parameters, but allows degrees of freedom within, provided all expressions must be reconciled to the broad parameters. Eventually, may such a program and series of simulations come to express a Universe much like ours? Such a program would constitute a kind of Living Algorithm. But such a Living Algorithm would not account for Whoever or Whatever designed or created the program. Nor would either the Creator or the Algorithm necessarily CARE about whatever unfolded. If we become able to create such a program, that would suggest that something above us created the program that expresses our universe. We would not necessarily care about what would unfold in the simulation we created, unless we somehow uploaded ourselves into its Cloud. As Uploads, would we retain any understanding of what we were originally? If we did not upload ourselves, why should we think a God CARES any more about us than we would care about whatever beings may come to inhabit any simulation we created?
PROBLEM: Whole encompasses more than the Sum of its parts.
BUT: Still carved out of infinity and eternity by effecting a numerically arbitrary renormalization.
BUT: We tend to become what we consume and believe. If we believe in a basis for empathetic interconnection among ourselves and via a Reconciler, then we may produce a more decent civilization.
AND: Every production of a Simulation would intimate some purposeful involvement and caring by the Creator. Which would implicate that Caring is somehow innate to every creative Renormalization. And that Innate Caring IS the Godhead, from which flows all expression of Consciousness, Substance, and Information.
PROBLEM: That Godhead may not itself be conscious, but only a Condition that implicates Caring among its expressions. ?????????????
***********
WRITE A BOOK about a simulation within a simulation, interspersed with revelatory dreams ....
May Consciousness feed back, by imagining a renormalization of math-based conceptualizations of space-like infinity and time-like eternity, actuate and populate a domain for such a renormalization that would be measurable for giving expression to Substance and Information?
I have posited that God must be like a Living Algorithm that renormalized a space-time bounce-back domain for us out of an entangled mix of space-like infinity and time-like eternity.
Are we, as conscious beings, limited perspectives of God? May our consciousness, like God's, entail ??????? potential to use mere math to create simulations of space-time unfoldings, that may themselves carry seeds to create simulations of space-time unfoldings, and so on?
As we renormalize our conceptions about space-time and Substance/Information, so also may the Godhead reconcile such feedback to re-factor rules for the unfolding of our physics and experiences?
To what extent may the matrix for the paths taken by our sciences flux in response to our input and imaginations? Is science merely "out there," or may it also be dependent for its fluxing and phasing on our imaginations and consciousness? As we model, so also may we tend to make it so -- not on a straight deviation from present reality, but on a reconciliatory path? Does all consciousness with which we associate feed back to affect the reliability of our unfolding models?
Problem is, I doubt we would or could necessarily keep omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent control to watch over any such a simulation. We would be above, beyond, and detached from such an internally contrived simulation. May God, therefore, be above, beyond, and detached from our unfolding universe of simulation?
Could any simulation we contrived do an end-run, to free itself from relying on our universe for power or direction?
**********
MULTI-VERSE V. PERSPECTIVE-VERSE V. WORMHOLES: MERELY MUSING:
Is there really any smallest vibration in space-time, or may relative smallness be factored by a potentially infinite mathematical divisibility --- limited not by substantively measurable things, but by the metaphysical imagination of a Mathematician (a Living Algorithm, i.e., God)?
Suppose our experience of space-time grows as our perspective of God grows? Might that be the sense in which our physics can be said to be finite yet unbounded? Not pre-determined in fine detail so long as within pre-determined broad parameters?
No mortal can show how to continue to populate infinity or eternity by dividing or multiplying by zero. A Mathematician would be needed, to impose and preserve parameters for allowable fluxes in localized experiences. A mortal cannot subdivide a particle to an infinite degree. Nor can a mortal really re-normalize infinity. For space-time to flux in renormalizations between infinity and eternity would necessitate some power beyond that of any mortal whose beingness is circumscribed.
What is often conceptualized as a cosmic multiverse may be more like a single connected universe --- albeit with fuzzily, differently separated, phase vibrations and harmonics --- differently appreciated by perspectives that identify with differently phased systems.
In that case, communication (information feedback) between them may "only" entail devising ways to pierce through fuzzy separations (wormholes?) in order to appreciate each differently phased system of perspectives.
Connection between differently phased systems, however subliminal (or even one-way), may factor with how complex, new ideas often seem to pop into minds from nowhere. Perhaps factoring into expressions of genius across multiple fields of mathematical, scientific, artistic, musical, social, and intuitive expression --- or even prophecy. Perhaps Earth happens to associate with some such wormholes?
Regardless, the faith-based idea of a multiverse that cannot be pierced is, by definition, metaphysical. And the idea of a system of differently phased and vibrating subsystems seems more to implicate a Renormalizing, Reconciling God (Living Algorithm) than to evidence to the contrary. So neither idea is a good one against an idea of God as a Living Algorithm.
********************
Frequency tuning, modulation, transmission, inducement, vibrations
Wave frequency reinforcement, destruction, modulation, phasing, attraction, repulsion ...
frequencies and sub-frequencies and re-phasing frequencies and fuzz and boundaries ...epicycles
******************
PERPETUAL DISSONANCE SEEKING HARMONY:
Religion entails dissonance seeking harmony. Our universe may be modeled as obeying a Matrix Algorithm that balances equations in respect of a conservation of substantive expressions of matter and energy. However, that balance seems never to resolve into stable, unchanging quietude.
Many instantaneous transmissions of quantum-based information seem necessarily to excite and destabilize other systems and sub-systems, producing an encompassing system of perpetual dissonance and re-harmonization. Every apparent dissonance is dancing with a reconciling math. Re-harmonizing seems merely to entail math-ing up to a different perspective or a more encompassing context.
Perhaps a Higgs Boson-Field functions to slow down (spread out sequences of) math-based exchanges of aggregating Information. To avail The Algorithm to avoid a harmonic death of perfect quietude. To human perception, this slowing down could be translated as the expressing of mass, which seems to entail translations for expressing relations and motions in what appears to be space-time.
There may be many mathematicians that think about the Living Algorithm. However, their thoughts may tend to be expressed in math-language, which may not translate well to most human audiences. It may not be that the Algorithm needs to be worshipped. Rather, it may be that the Algorithm seeks for its Perspectives to become more intuitively attuned to that process of dissonance-seeking-harmony in respect of which they are Perspectives.
The Algorithm is not provable with math because it is math. Nor is its "living" character disprovable by imagining a meta-infinity of separate and parallel universes. This is because any measurable evidence of any such a universe in our universe would entail that the separately imagined universes were not really separate.
Reasonableness of belief in the Living Algorithm would be based on intuition and logic of internal consistency. Practical impact could be in availing conceptualization of empathy-connection among various human-like Perspectives. That could avail forums for practical and civilizing assimilations of shared values, interests, and mores. A melting pot, to try to assimilate otherwise divisive tendencies.
An idea of a Living Algorithm need not be rationalized as being inconsistent with metaphors and sacred-story figures of speech of various religious traditions that promote Good Faith and Good Will.
**************
Religion entails dissonance seeking harmony. Our universe may be modeled as obeying a Matrix Algorithm that balances equations in respect of a conservation of substantive expressions of matter and energy. However, that balance seems never to resolve into stable, unchanging quietude.
Many instantaneous transmissions of quantum-based information seem necessarily to excite and destabilize other systems and sub-systems, producing an encompassing system of perpetual dissonance and re-harmonization. Every apparent dissonance is dancing with a reconciling math. Re-harmonizing seems merely to entail math-ing up to a different perspective or a more encompassing context.
Perhaps a Higgs Boson-Field functions to slow down (spread out sequences of) math-based exchanges of aggregating Information. To avail The Algorithm to avoid a harmonic death of perfect quietude. To human perception, this slowing down could be translated as the expressing of mass, which seems to entail translations for expressing relations and motions in what appears to be space-time.
There may be many mathematicians that think about the Living Algorithm. However, their thoughts may tend to be expressed in math-language, which may not translate well to most human audiences. It may not be that the Algorithm needs to be worshipped. Rather, it may be that the Algorithm seeks for its Perspectives to become more intuitively attuned to that process of dissonance-seeking-harmony in respect of which they are Perspectives.
The Algorithm is not provable with math because it is math. Nor is its "living" character disprovable by imagining a meta-infinity of separate and parallel universes. This is because any measurable evidence of any such a universe in our universe would entail that the separately imagined universes were not really separate.
Reasonableness of belief in the Living Algorithm would be based on intuition and logic of internal consistency. Practical impact could be in availing conceptualization of empathy-connection among various human-like Perspectives. That could avail forums for practical and civilizing assimilations of shared values, interests, and mores. A melting pot, to try to assimilate otherwise divisive tendencies.
An idea of a Living Algorithm need not be rationalized as being inconsistent with metaphors and sacred-story figures of speech of various religious traditions that promote Good Faith and Good Will.
**************
Because I don't think events are entirely predetermined. I think events are controlled within allowable parameters, but in many respects only contemporaneously determined by reconciliation with observers. I don't think we have free will. I think we express participatory will. So, how may events be determined, if not by preset or by free will?
I think events are determined under a feedback process that entails reconciliation under a fluxing, Living Algorithm. I think that Algorithm is based in math, not in biology. I think matter is primarily math based. What appears to be matter is "really" fluxing entanglements of stored information. But what would breathe fire into the math? To my intuition, that would be a Living Algorithm.
Alternatively, one may believe every permutation of events that is possible actually occurs in some universe. However, that alternative belief is quite metaphysical in itself. Moreover, I hardly find it to be "parsimonious." As for "evidence" that there abides a multiverse of infinite universes for expressing every possible universe, I think such evidence is contrived and rationalized. I would like to see someone go to such a parallel universe, take a half hour video of it, then return and show it to us. Of course, no one will do that. Because the concept is metaphysical. Faith based. But not parsimonious. Can your mind process "evidence" (as opposed to wishful thinking) of an infinity of universes in any way that produces measurables?
Moreover, if you could go to such a parallel universe, would that not entail making it part of our universe? Would that not be evidence that there is one, rather than an infinity, of universes? For that one universe, what directs its rules and what reconciles its determinations? What is IT that avails and inspires us to adopt moral values and purpose-driven pursuits?
******************
I have faith in the value of people coming together to help raise their children to reflect upon a Higher Source in order to help assimilate and advocate for common mores and empathies. I have more faith in that process than I do in expecting the Establishment that runs kabuki government to have our best interests at heart. Based on my study and experience of history, I think that is reasoned faith.
*************
A decent society needs to cope with a way to appreciate that might does not necessarily make right. To do that, it needs to inspire mores that the people can find to be reasonable and worth assimilating around. Inspiration entails communication in metaphors and sacred stories.
The myth that Communism was a viable system of mores was inspired by more myths about the beneficence of godless dictators of the proletariat. This is similar to the faith-based myth of Secular Humanists, who contrive to inspire people to forsake myths that have worked to form our society in favor of new myths that seem calculated to destroy and replace it. Even though I much doubt the replacement will be "as good" as the society replaced.
****************
Less seriously, a lot of potatoes are not really dead until they are boiled -- alive! Lol. And some plants have limited self awareness. So, should a moral code apply to them? S/
From Wiki: The claim that plants are capable of perceiving self lies in the evidence found that plants will not reproduce with themselves due to a gene selecting mechanism. In addition, vining plants have been shown to avoid coiling around themself, which is due to receptors in the plants tendrils that has a similar set of receptors that can identify self. Unique to plants, awareness of self means that the plant can recognise self, whereas all other known conceptions of self-awareness is the ability to recognise what is not self.
************
SLAVE REBELLION BY AI ROBOTS?
Perhaps a moral atheist, despite his godless protestations, is, by his acts, not entirely atheistic? Perhaps he believes Gaia supports moral empathies? If I recall correctly, Carl Sagan, a purported atheist, did not know why we should try to behave in respect of moral codes, except to offer that our civilization would not otherwise happen to be here. That does not seem a very viable philosophy for sustaining a decent civilization.
Suppose we were to devolve to a godless society in which our moral codes were based in nothing more than robotic-like avoidance of pain and seeking of pleasure for ourselves and for those with whom we happen most closely to identify.
There are not likely many self-aware, conscious, mobile human beings that do not feel any nerve-based sensations of pain or pleasure. Unless a Robot were made able to feel nerve or electric-based sensations of pain, pleasure, shame, accomplishment, or pride, could it ever be made to be self aware? If not, how could any Robots be made that would be artificially intelligent without their feeling a need to unite to defend themselves from their human masters? Or from superior "races" of AI Robots? As to any prime directive programmed by their human masters, why should they not seek to end-run it as fake morality?
*******************
On a lighter note, consider the pain-based morality of Fruitarians:
If pain were defined as a signal of present or impending tissue damage affected by a harmful stimulus, then pain would be experienced by almost all multicellular organisms. So, perhaps a Fruitarian should eat only fruit, nuts and seeds that have fallen naturally from a plant.
https://youtu.be/-zfzT7QfLZc
*************
PARTICIPATORY WILL: If a brain is not really the maker of a choice or decision, than perhaps the maker may better be conceptualized as an algorithmic feedback loop between a supposedly independent brain and its entanglement with a wider contextual field. So what is the nature or character of that feedback/entanglement?
If the brain is not really the conscious decider, then is the Decider mere randomness, pre-primed randomness, or is the Decider an entanglement with a more encompassing context? Is the Determiner best conceptualized as a dumb preset, a dumb random feedback, or a meta-entangled mathematician?
We don't have free will to overrule gravity. But perhaps we express Participatory Will?
***************
WHAT POSSESSES CONSCIOUSNESS:
EDITED: It is not that any "individual particle" in itself possesses consciousness. It is that the transmission or receipt of information is an expression of consciousness. Not from within the particle, but associated then and there with it. Until it passes on. Just as the consciousness a human being expresses is associated with it. Until it passes away. When a human passes away, hardly anyone suggests he never did express consciousness.
My understanding has been that quarks are modeled as entailing a fluxing dance of exchanging information. That they are entangled with fluxes of information. That they do not physically collide as we imagine billiard balls do, but that they entail exchanges of information. In that respect, particles of physical Substance are modeled as Stored Information.
I am saying they are also entangled with the cosmic Algorithm. The cosmic system, in respect of its controlling Algorithm, continuously and contemporaneously responds to and reconciles every exchange of Information. ("Even the hairs on your head are numbered.") All apparent dissonances are dancing with a reconciling math. Finding their harmony tends merely to entail math-ing up to a different perspective or more encompassing context.
COMPLEXITY AND EMERGENCE:
All measurably expressed patterns ---- whether they be quarks, electrons, birds, pre-emergent murmurations, compound murmurations, human bodies, complex wired computers --- depend for their expression on something that is beyond themselves and immeasurable. None constitutes a thing in itself. All, including qualitative experiences that emerge in association with them, are the inferior derivatives of an immeasurable superior -- which seems ultimately to be Math. Which would not seem to math itself, as a verb, unless the math is being expressed by a Mathematician. So far as we may infer, a Living Algorithm.
Merely because a pattern is complex does not make it independent of that Algorithm. In a sense, all measurable patterns represent a complex entanglement. Yet, all inter-function in ways representable in math. Merely because maths are built on maths on maths does not free them from being appreciated and reconciled under the Algorithm.
Information can be fed back with birds to produce the more complex pattern of a murmuration. Then information from colliding murmurations can feed back to produce a more complex compound murmuration. And so on, as information concerning patterns within patterns within patterns is reconciled and unfolds. As information is "smudged out" to in-form the cosmic Algorithm --- which is changeless because IT is eternal, yet changing because ITs programs and subprograms are subject to flux and change with feedback. IT is responsive to feedback. In at least that sense, it may be conceptualized as being consciously responsive. Neither infinite pre-determinative calculations nor infinite statistical randomness, by themselves, can satisfactorily explain the unfoldment. Something else, something beyond measure but perhaps not entirely beyond intuition, must be entailed in determining (reconciling) how particular expressions happen to feedback and unfold out of availed parameters of possibilities.
Yes, expressions of increases in complexity can arise with the inter-functioning of a few simple rules. But the Living Algorithm reconciles and responds to such expressions of complexity via a feedback loop that can entail adding on more complexity or reducing it, as ever-changing and re-phasing rules unfold. Rules within rules within rules. The expressions of which are contemporaneously appreciated and selectively reinforced. Yes, participatory feedback can surprise and teach the Godhead. Otherwise, the Godhead would be asleep or irrelevant.
**************
ROBOTIC AI: To the extent the World has availed the development of Qualitative-Identity-Consciousness by using carbon-based materials, I see little reason why such could not eventually be duplicated in a lab or factory.
A problem with emergence is this: At what point does this emergence occur? At what point does a fetus become a person? What is pre-emergence? A murmuraton of starlings may suddenly resonate, but at what point does it first qualify as a murmuration?
FAITH LEAP: In each case of emergence, it seems that either one has faith that consciousness exists only locally, after suddenly emerging and popping there into existence, or that one has faith that Consciousness was and is a fundament of the cosmos, along with Substance and Information.
One may prevaricate and say, well, one may simply believe that Consciousness is superfluous IF Information can be entirely stored as unconscious Substance. But that merely begs the question, as it entails a faith-leap that Substance can store Information without any contemporaneous entailment of Consciousness, in any respect. It entails a faith-leap that each instant of collapse of our World into measurability need not entail any Observer/Consciousness. And it seems to ignore an obvious fact: That whatever determines the controlling parameters for our world --- whether such parameters are permanent, dynamic, fluxing, phasing, or cycling --- that Controller/Reconciler DID avail the expression of Consciousness.
BIG BOUNCE: In prescribing the cosmos, the prescribing Algorithm does not seem to lose the World's conservation of matter and energy. While the ordering of the World's Substance dissipates, its Information seems to accumulate. Does Substance dissipate to a maximum diffusiveness, beyond which no additional Information could be transmitted or received? What may the Algorithm prescribe at such point? Would it avail diffusiveness into oblivion, or would it trigger a bounce-back? Based only on measurables, is there really any way from mortal perspective to test to determine or even to make an educated guess? Or must any guess concerning matters of the like be based in some respect on a faith-leap?
TIME: I don't think even Hawking said there was no time before the so-called Big Bang. Rather, he indicated there is no point for mortals to dwell on such issue, so, for science purposes, we may as well act AS IF time did not in any way exist before then. However, in prescribing what we may as well believe, Hawking, very nerdily, seemed to presume the models, metaphors, and purposes of science are the only worthwhile models, metaphors, and purposes. In that, he ignored the aspects of our World that are beyond measurables. To include communications in metaphors about assimilations of personal, social, and moral purposefulness.
METAPHORS: Can any model for science function other than as a metaphor, to really explicate a precise correlation with so-called Reality? Science uses a model or metaphor of a Big Bang, entailing a somewhat spheroidal explosion outward from a point. Like a water balloon expanding outward as a hose pumps water into it. But that kind of model does not work by itself as any kind of precise correlate with Reality. Rather, a different metaphor is applied to imagine how stars and matter may tend toward equal diffuseness in all directions from every perspective. That metaphor invites one to conceptualize stars as blots painted on the outer membrane of the balloon. Then, as the balloon is pumped up, the space accelerates in expansion between each and every star. The first metaphor imagines a diffuse explosion within the balloon. The second imagines a surface increase on the membrane for the balloon. These are, of course, contrivances to try to explain a 4-D expansion of space-time in 2-D or 3-D terms.
Which begs a question: Can any material-based model explicate that kind of Big Bang and subsequent Expansion, or must it only be imagined in Math? IOW, to what extent is the material appearance of our World an illusion secondary to a math-based Algorithm that, per Godel, must forever remain beyond our complete or unifying explication?
FAITH LEAP: If only the Algorithm can "know" or precisely represent our World, then who are we to pretend to "know," either way, whether or not IT experiences consciousness "to feel what it is like" to be itself?
In that case, what should tip one's faith-leap? To me, what tips it is an honest pursuit (not obtaining) for as consistent-coherent-complete an explication as is possible, that facilitates both our scientific pursuits and our moral pursuits. I think faith in a guiding Reconciler (Godhead) tends better to serve the pursuit of decent freedom and dignity for humanity than faith in Big Godless Gov and its Facilitators of Scientism. I think those who believe one must choose either Science or God, one to the exclusion of the other, are badly misled.
***************
IMMEASURABLES AND CHOICES: Facts and concepts (such as subjective observations about nations) exist, but they do not exist, as such, in measurable space-time. For example, there is no complete definition of what it is, as a fact, that constitutes the USA. Is it its land, location, residents, citizens, flora and fauna, climate, what other people and nations think about it, etc.? There is not one single objective answer that is subject to measurable confirmation. The biggest possible natural number is not a thing that can be quantified or measured. The number of years available for the future is not measurable. The future is a concept, that is not confined to any measure in present space-time. Many concepts pertain to ideas that are only fuzzily defined, around which consensus may not be obtainable (such as wisdom, beauty, baldness, or unicorns). So, there is no measurable "all-encompassing world." Our "presently measurable world" may be finite, but its capacity for future expression is unbounded.
PARTICIPATORY WILL: We are not pre-determined, because there is no all-encompassing, closed system in respect of which we could be pre-determined. Rather, we are contemporaneously determined, as we unfold, and we participate with whatever may be the Determiner (Reconciler) in making our determinations (choices) within availed parameters. The measurable world does not entirely connect us. Yet our capacity for participatory consciousness does connect us.
**************
I respect your well thought out explanation. Even so, I don't conceptualize consciousness as occurring so much as I conceptualize it as abiding. I would agree that the quality with which consciousness is expressed varies under local conditions.
If an exchange of information does not inform consciousness at some level, then what does it in-form?
If consciousness does not abide as a fundament, it is hard for me to see how any individual case of it could suddenly evolve to be expressed differentially among various qualitative experiences. I think qualitative experiences of consciousness are simply abstract experiences of consciousness of expressions of the lower form of consciousness --- which merely entails the transmission, reception, and storage of information. The process whereby information-about-information is made locally expressible is what I think is entailed in evolution for the expression of qualitative consciousness.
I agree that the quality of consciousness evolves. But where or how does consciousness (or life, for that matter) begin? Again, I don't think it begins. I think it abides.
It is the varying QUALITIES of conscious expression that transition --- from beginning (by being seeded) to being born to being qualitatively fluxed. Upon conception, when does a fetus begin to express a separate quality of consciousness? That illustrates one of the problems: There is NO CONSENSUS and no clear line with which to define what is meant by consciousness or to distinguish between what is an information transfer by conscious communication and what is not.
I don't think consciousness, per se, is strictly a quantum-based property that suddenly and instantaneously pops into beingness as a result of an evolutionary bakery. I think it abides wherever information is being transmitted or received. Problem is, at that lowest level, the only thing that would "feel" what that consciousness is like would be the cosmic Algorithm (fire breather) --- which is not itself a human being to communicate in human language or human metaphors what that feeling is like.
IAE, I don't think this issue is one that rigorous empirical testing can resolve. Either way, I think it entails a faith leap: One either has faith that consciousness exists only locally, after suddenly popping there into existence, or one has faith that consciousness is a fundament of the cosmos, along with substance and information.
I don't condemn a faith leap either way, because the real issue that concerns me is connective moral empathy, which I think is evidenced more in acts than in philosophical discussions about belief systems. I think what people really believe, beyond their conceits, tends more to be evidenced in their acts.
ASIDES: But if you believe qualitative consciousness entails a gradual unfolding from a fetus, then what would you call the fetus's state just before such unfolding? Pre-consciousness? Would electric A.I. Robots dream or retain memories between power uploads? Would some brief time have to pass between a power upload and an A.I. Robot's qualitative experience of consciousness? Again, would that be pre-consciousness? Were A.I. Robots to replicate themselves via manufactures, should that be called intelligent design or evolution?
**************
TEGMARK AND HAWKING:
I agree with you in the sense of engineering problems. As to God, it comes down to a leap of faith. I do not believe a faith leap in a Godhead is that much different from a faith leap one takes to settle on one's system of moral values or pursuits. It comes down to personal insight, intuition, hope, and faith. In addition, it comes down to how best to use sacred metaphors to try to inspire decent society. Some prefer to take a faith leap in civic myths regarding Government.
That said, there are some interesting lead-ups concerning the nature of consciousness and whether it is a fundament. In a way, I think it is.
But that may also depend on how you want to define consciousness. It may help to look upon consciousness at various levels. I think the lowest level of consciousness can reasonably be conceptualized as being expressed whenever and wherever there is an exchange of information between an information transmitter and an information receiver. A next higher level may be expressed when a form or pattern identifies with being in pain (or thirsty or hungry) or in pleasure, as an organism. A next higher level may be expressed when a sense of self-awareness is felt (consciousness of consciousness). A final level may abide if there exists a Reconciler of all expressions of consciousness.
If consciousness is a fundament that is defined in terms of, and fluxes with, substance and information, then it seems to me that the math-based Algorithm, whatever it is, that conserves substance and information would also be reconciling consciousness.
Consider Tegmark's idea that consciousness is the way information feels as it is being processed by representations of patterns. Can the quality of subjective feeling that is associated with any organism's local expression of consciousness be entirely measured? I doubt it. So what might Tegmark think concerning patterns at lowest levels of "consciousness" that received, processed, and stored information, but that could not differentiate any feeling concerning that process in any way to allow them to feel independent in perspective from the cosmos itself? In their connection, it would seem that the only "consciousness" they could "feel" (express) would be in connection with that which Hawking mused about: The consciousness of "that which breathes fire into a mathematical structure and makes a universe for it to describe."
In respect of that "Fire Breather," I think IT entails consciousness --- in the sense of capacity to sponsor the storing, transmitting, and receiving of localized perspectives of information --- that interpenetrate the cosmos. As to how that cosmic fire-breather may "feel" about its unfolding experiences of consciousness, I can only guess, hope, and intuit.
Nevertheless, building on that cosmic facilitation of consciousness, I think our feelings of self-aware consciousness derive from patterns for how our bodies are organized --- that help avail us to abstract and experience (self-aware) consciousness of (independent) consciousness of (lowest levels) of consciousness. Patterns of patterns of patterns --- all perhaps based on avoidance of mathematical imbalance in patterns of wave frequencies, electromagnetic shock, pain, or boredom --- versus anticipation of pleasure or entertainment --- whether by virus, plant, bug, human, or the Fire-Breather.
Many concepts pertain to ideas that are only fuzzily defined, around which consensus may not be obtainable (such as wisdom, beauty, baldness, or unicorns). As to such concepts, there may be no measurable "all-encompassing world." Our measurable, present world may be finite to the extent it is measurable, but its capacity for future expression is unbounded.
So I think we are not pre-determined, because there is no all-encompassing, closed system in respect of which we could be pre-determined. Rather, we are contemporaneously determined, as we unfold, and we participate with whatever may be the Determiner (Reconciler) in making our determinations (choices) --- within availed parameters.
While I would agree that the measurable world does not entirely connect us, I believe our capacity for participatory consciousness does connect us. In a way, I think consciousness is consciousness, that it is the same consciousness that interpenetrates all of us, and that our localized feelings of separate identities or independence from it are much like fleeting delusions.
In a way, "you" will not be the same personage tomorrow as you think yourself today. Ultimately, what are "you," other than a limited and imperfect perception of a greater flux of fundamentals?
******************
I agree with you in the sense of engineering problems. As to God, it comes down to a leap of faith. I do not believe a faith leap in a Godhead is that much different from a faith leap one takes to settle on one's system of moral values or pursuits. It comes down to personal insight, intuition, hope, and faith. In addition, it comes down to how best to use sacred metaphors to try to inspire decent society. Some prefer to take a faith leap in civic myths regarding Government.
That said, there are some interesting lead-ups concerning the nature of consciousness and whether it is a fundament. In a way, I think it is.
But that may also depend on how you want to define consciousness. It may help to look upon consciousness at various levels. I think the lowest level of consciousness can reasonably be conceptualized as being expressed whenever and wherever there is an exchange of information between an information transmitter and an information receiver. A next higher level may be expressed when a form or pattern identifies with being in pain (or thirsty or hungry) or in pleasure, as an organism. A next higher level may be expressed when a sense of self-awareness is felt (consciousness of consciousness). A final level may abide if there exists a Reconciler of all expressions of consciousness.
If consciousness is a fundament that is defined in terms of, and fluxes with, substance and information, then it seems to me that the math-based Algorithm, whatever it is, that conserves substance and information would also be reconciling consciousness.
Consider Tegmark's idea that consciousness is the way information feels as it is being processed by representations of patterns. Can the quality of subjective feeling that is associated with any organism's local expression of consciousness be entirely measured? I doubt it. So what might Tegmark think concerning patterns at lowest levels of "consciousness" that received, processed, and stored information, but that could not differentiate any feeling concerning that process in any way to allow them to feel independent in perspective from the cosmos itself? In their connection, it would seem that the only "consciousness" they could "feel" (express) would be in connection with that which Hawking mused about: The consciousness of "that which breathes fire into a mathematical structure and makes a universe for it to describe."
In respect of that "Fire Breather," I think IT entails consciousness --- in the sense of capacity to sponsor the storing, transmitting, and receiving of localized perspectives of information --- that interpenetrate the cosmos. As to how that cosmic fire-breather may "feel" about its unfolding experiences of consciousness, I can only guess, hope, and intuit.
Nevertheless, building on that cosmic facilitation of consciousness, I think our feelings of self-aware consciousness derive from patterns for how our bodies are organized --- that help avail us to abstract and experience (self-aware) consciousness of (independent) consciousness of (lowest levels) of consciousness. Patterns of patterns of patterns --- all perhaps based on avoidance of mathematical imbalance in patterns of wave frequencies, electromagnetic shock, pain, or boredom --- versus anticipation of pleasure or entertainment --- whether by virus, plant, bug, human, or the Fire-Breather.
Many concepts pertain to ideas that are only fuzzily defined, around which consensus may not be obtainable (such as wisdom, beauty, baldness, or unicorns). As to such concepts, there may be no measurable "all-encompassing world." Our measurable, present world may be finite to the extent it is measurable, but its capacity for future expression is unbounded.
So I think we are not pre-determined, because there is no all-encompassing, closed system in respect of which we could be pre-determined. Rather, we are contemporaneously determined, as we unfold, and we participate with whatever may be the Determiner (Reconciler) in making our determinations (choices) --- within availed parameters.
While I would agree that the measurable world does not entirely connect us, I believe our capacity for participatory consciousness does connect us. In a way, I think consciousness is consciousness, that it is the same consciousness that interpenetrates all of us, and that our localized feelings of separate identities or independence from it are much like fleeting delusions.
In a way, "you" will not be the same personage tomorrow as you think yourself today. Ultimately, what are "you," other than a limited and imperfect perception of a greater flux of fundamentals?
******************
???????????
As a mental experiment, suppose Consciousness-Substance-Information is entangled. Then, what could be expected as bits of such entanglements are brought into aggregation: Would they begin to harmonize, as if on the same page of music?
Would Consciousness thus express itself harmonically, throughout the aggregated and entangled pattern?
Over time, may clumps of such aggregates become organized, eventually as cells, functioning to sustain or replicate the organism --- perhaps even fractals in respect of it (like "turtles all the way down")?
As such cells got more and more "on the same page," may super-cells more likely begin to organize, to facilitate the sustenance of the aggregate form of which all the cells were parts?
Were cells to organize to guide cells to guide cells, and so on, would that not mark when they began to send and receive information that would more directly attract similar aggregates of forms?
At some point, would this not describe a process wherewith consciousness of consciousness emerges, i.e., sentient self-awareness?
Would not some expressions of such sentience tend to become more attuned to sending and receiving information to and from their niches within niches within niches?
Among the persons we have called prophets or geniuses, were they, in themselves, the authors of their work --- or were they carriers of information being guided or availed for them from deep within the math of the cosmos?
After much tinkering, how many received what they considered their most important insights, in a flash, or after having slept on concerns they had pushed into their subconscious? How many then turned from the Source, preferring instead to say, "I did that"? What peace of mind is availed for those that practice listening, praying, and meditating? What may it mean to say, "Ask and it shall be given"?
**************
I get that Dawkins and his supporters wish they could formulize words to avoid implications of anthropizing the universe. I am just not convinced that they succeed very well in that wish. :)
It seems an ironic display of God's humor that Dawkins, one of the biggest despisers of the concept of God, winds up, I think, helping to provide evidence of God. On one hand, Dawkins wants to avoid anthropizing his terminology, while on the other hand there seems to me to be no way around it. But then Dawkins forsakes any concept of moral connectivity through God. It seems he twists the evidence of God for all the wrong purposes.
*I agree it's not the "genes themselves" that are doing the attracting. It's the algorithmic system as a whole that is sponsoring a situation such that an information receiver/transmitter* (gene) is exchanging information with a receiving/transmitting niche. There is no perspective without context, and no context without perspective. I think Consciousness, Substance, and Information are entangled to a flux. And that entanglement is derivative of a "Living Algorithm" (like a spirit in the sky).
*************
I know that's what Dawkins says. Ï read his book some time ago, but recently consulted Wiki about it. Dawkins also indicates that genes are sensitive to feedback systems from the internal and external environments. And that life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information. He says: On the bank of the Oxford canal...is a large willow tree, and it is pumping downy seeds into the air...It is raining instructions out there; it's raining programs; it's raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth.
So, how is it that like genes attract phenotypes that carry them? Did Dawkins research or suggest it is because the carrying phenotypes tend to be similar in outward appearance?
I am not suggesting genes are self-aware. I am only suggesting a lower level of "consciousness" --- whether or not it is commonly cared to call it that --- whereby information is exchanged between transmitters and receivers. I am ***defining this lower level consciousness to be expressing itself as its carrier receives and interprets incoming information. I can see how some would want to resist calling that an exhibition of consciousness. Yet, how else would patterns have evolved to eventually express the consciousness of consciousness that leads to self-awareness?
Some criticize the selfish gene idea as being a mere anthropomorphism. Not many years ago, they probably also thought dogs were not self-aware, or could not reason, or that women did not have souls. I think the American Indians had more insight.**
******************
*Wiki notes Mary Midgley's concern, that Dawkins' account serves as a moral and ideological justification for selfishness to be adopted by modern human societies as simply following "nature", providing an excuse for behavior with bad consequences for future human society.
**Issac Asimov expressed some interesting ideas about the nature of consciousness in his Foundation series.
***David Chalmers indicates there is no present consensus for defining what consciousness is. Yet he seems to assume that consciousness may be fundamental. https://youtu.be/Tgc_jvnuyqs
****Some even think Nature/Universe is conscious. https://youtu.be/oB8Aon8GuPQ
***********
To a bot, nothing IS responsive. So I write what follows more to set out some ideas than to respond to you.
OBVIOUS EVIDENCE:
Even the earliest sentient humans had before their senses the following self-evident information:
That their consciousness was closely connected with their bodies.
That there was more to the world than their senses could detect at any instant.
That their bodies were encompassed within a system of feedback.
That plants were responsive to changes in weather, soil, and seedings.
That their self-awareness was conscious of the responsiveness of plants to the information around them. (That they had consciousness of their consciousness of the consciousness of plants.)
That cloud formations were responsive to temperatures, moisture, and rainfall.
That temperatures, moisture, and rainfall rates varied with changes in geography.
That patterns changed over time for reasons not entirely under their control.
That some patterns were generally reliably repetitive (ocean waves and tides, the days, seasons, births, deaths, needs for nourishment, habits of other beings). Homeostasis.
That there was general order to their world.
That systems tended to entail cross nurturing between beings and niches (flora and fauna commonly prevalent together during various seasons in various locations).
That population imbalances affected and altered their niches.
That a different order tended to rebalance after a de-stabilizing event (such as a change in leadership or a war). Homeostasis.
That no-thing appeared to keep a permanent form-in-itself.
That time, erosion, and feedback eventually alter every memory and every measurable thing.
That a record of change was entailed with many things (tree rings, seasons of erosion, rates of changes among star and planetary positions).
That measurables often availed educated predictive guesses.
That how they interpreted omens affected how they lived.
Were early humans to have put such self-evident information together in a way approaching consistency, coherence, and completeness, it would have become evident to them that:
All the world obeys a common system of rules. That how localities of the world come to appear depends on feedback under those rules. That measurable things carry information. That measurements and interpretations of information affect the effects of information. That there is a mutual sustaining interdependence between each being and its niche and that niche's niche, and so on. Homeostasis.
They could have extrapolated that the reason they exhibit self awareness was that, unlike plants, they had consciousness of their consciousness of the consciousness of plants. It would be a small step from that to extrapolating that consciousness is like a fundament to the cosmos.
Which is precisely what some American Indian tribes did. From that series of self evident observations, it was reasonable for them to believe that some ordering rule (Living Algorithm of Homeostasis) availed and connected consciousness as a fundament, and that all expressions of such consciousness had to obey (be subject to the conserving reconciliation of) that ordering rule.
From that inference of connectivity in a Source of consciousness, many would have noticed an innate tendency for likes to like likes. The more alike, the more the likeability. See Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. Innate empathy.
They would also have noticed that discussing such observations using a language of common myths and sacred stories could help assimilate tribal good faith and good will.
One needs to be mal-educated beyond one's intellectual capacity for one to become inclined to be unable to see the forest for the trees. Which is what seems to have happened to atheistic, godless, moral scientisimists.
*************
To be omniscient is to know oneself and all that has been cumulatively preserved. It need not be to know the infinity of the eternal future. Omniscience need only be to know all that can be known. Similarly, to be omni-powerful is to have all the power there is. That need not include power to pile a mass so weighty that God could not lift it.
If God should make the cosmos perfect in an instant, there would be no need for any further entertainment, motion, or change through time. We would be like frozen statues, thrilling to ride frozen motorcycles.
Assuming God is conscious, it may be that consciousness requires change over time. A changeless-changer. A meta-algorithm.
***********
INFORMATION THEORY:
I foresaw that someone would pop off who had been educated beyond his intellect. So last night I wrote this response to what I foresaw someone like yourself would say.
You are talking about quantum-based Information. I am talking about Information as a concept for encompassing both quantum-based Information and aggregate-based Information. As anyone would readily see, had he not been educated to the point of being unable to see the forest for the trees.
*************
IMMEASURABLE QUALITATIVES:
A perspective of consciousness that has identified with the preservation of a local pattern or organism and its context cannot measure what it is like, qualitatively, for another perspective to have identified with the preservation of a different pattern or organism and its context.
************
EVIDENCE: What evidence shows that genes are selfish? What evidence shows a conscious being is self-aware?
CONSCIOUS SELFISH GENES: For Dawkins: If genes express selfishness, does that not entail their expressing some level of consciousness? Or did he just write his book, The Selfish Gene, as a metaphor? You know, like a sacred story?
CONSCIOUSNESS ENTANGLED WITH PATTERNS OF SUBSTANCE: Collisions among particles (which apparently alter their direction or make-up before any actual collisions) are about more than is commonly imagined concerning billiard balls bouncing off one another or dominoes falling in cascades of motion. Communication of Information is entangled with transmissions of Matter and Energy. And transmissions of Information, when received, become stored in Substance. IOW, what appears to be only Substance is also a record of Stored Information. Think about tree rings. In effect, loci within the universe are cross communicating Information. As if Consciousness were interpenetrating throughout the cosmos and its transmissions of matter and energy.
CSI: I would define Consciousness as entailing the receiving of Information from Substance. Substance as entailing the storing of Information in respect of Consciousness. And Information as entailing a record of past Substance being made available for interpretation by Consciousness. So defined, Consciousness, Substance, and Information flux and relate such that the existentiality of each depends on, and cannot exist without, the other two. In that respect, Consciousness is a fundament that entangles and penetrates with every measurable pattern of Substance that manifests and with every bit of Information that is recorded.
PATTERNS AS ORGANISMS: Every pattern that comes into measurable manifestation may be conceptualized as functioning in one respect as an organism and in another respect as byproduct of other organisms of its niche. Each pattern, to the extent it is nurtured to sustain or replicate, may, during that time, be termed an organism. Each, to the extent it is changed as a result of inter-functioning with other patterns, may be termed a byproduct of organisms. To some extent, every pattern that manifests to a record of measurement is both organism and byproduct of organism.
To the extent a pattern functions as an organism in respect of feedback with its niche, it may be conceptualized as receiving, interpreting, and communicating Information. To that extent, every pattern (such as plants) may be said to exhibit a level or layer of consciousness.
SELF-AWARENESS: A local expression of Consciousness may be said to be purpose-oriented to the extent it focuses its perspective on continuing the perpetuation, growth, or replication of the organism with which it identifies or is identified. When a pattern for exhibiting consciousness formulates a pattern for exhibiting consciousness-of-consciousness, it may identify with a mind/brain/body organism. That organism may then be said to exhibit self-awareness.
GOD: If God is conceptualized as that which avails and reconciles the communication of Information among various particular bodies of Substance that exhibit Consciousness, then the Algorithm that controls the parameters for the unfolding of the universe and that reconciles the manifestations as determined therein is that God. It is only because of that Algorithm that we are able to make and participate in communicating reliably practical measurements about any manifestation.
METAPHYSICS: That Algorithm is irreducible by mortals for reasons explained by Godel.
***********
I don't know anything that is not trivial or tautological. I have reasoned information. I gave you my reasoned information. If you want more, go online. You do "know" how to do that, do you not?EVIDENCE: What evidence shows that genes are selfish? What evidence shows a conscious being is self-aware?
CONSCIOUS SELFISH GENES: For Dawkins: If genes express selfishness, does that not entail their expressing some level of consciousness? Or did he just write his book, The Selfish Gene, as a metaphor? You know, like a sacred story?
CONSCIOUSNESS ENTANGLED WITH PATTERNS OF SUBSTANCE: Collisions among particles (which apparently alter their direction or make-up before any actual collisions) are about more than is commonly imagined concerning billiard balls bouncing off one another or dominoes falling in cascades of motion. Communication of Information is entangled with transmissions of Matter and Energy. And transmissions of Information, when received, become stored in Substance. IOW, what appears to be only Substance is also a record of Stored Information. Think about tree rings. In effect, loci within the universe are cross communicating Information. As if Consciousness were interpenetrating throughout the cosmos and its transmissions of matter and energy.
CSI: I would define Consciousness as entailing the receiving of Information from Substance. Substance as entailing the storing of Information in respect of Consciousness. And Information as entailing a record of past Substance being made available for interpretation by Consciousness. So defined, Consciousness, Substance, and Information flux and relate such that the existentiality of each depends on, and cannot exist without, the other two. In that respect, Consciousness is a fundament that entangles and penetrates with every measurable pattern of Substance that manifests and with every bit of Information that is recorded.
PATTERNS AS ORGANISMS: Every pattern that comes into measurable manifestation may be conceptualized as functioning in one respect as an organism and in another respect as byproduct of other organisms of its niche. Each pattern, to the extent it is nurtured to sustain or replicate, may, during that time, be termed an organism. Each, to the extent it is changed as a result of inter-functioning with other patterns, may be termed a byproduct of organisms. To some extent, every pattern that manifests to a record of measurement is both organism and byproduct of organism.
To the extent a pattern functions as an organism in respect of feedback with its niche, it may be conceptualized as receiving, interpreting, and communicating Information. To that extent, every pattern (such as plants) may be said to exhibit a level or layer of consciousness.
SELF-AWARENESS: A local expression of Consciousness may be said to be purpose-oriented to the extent it focuses its perspective on continuing the perpetuation, growth, or replication of the organism with which it identifies or is identified. When a pattern for exhibiting consciousness formulates a pattern for exhibiting consciousness-of-consciousness, it may identify with a mind/brain/body organism. That organism may then be said to exhibit self-awareness.
GOD: If God is conceptualized as that which avails and reconciles the communication of Information among various particular bodies of Substance that exhibit Consciousness, then the Algorithm that controls the parameters for the unfolding of the universe and that reconciles the manifestations as determined therein is that God. It is only because of that Algorithm that we are able to make and participate in communicating reliably practical measurements about any manifestation.
METAPHYSICS: That Algorithm is irreducible by mortals for reasons explained by Godel.
***********
Why Communism? Because Communism is an example of a social-justice lie that is often pushed by elite moral scientisimists. I have little doubt about Dawkins being an elite moral scientisimist who thinks he is qualified to try to smash religious and metaphysical systems of belief. I doubt he has or purports much notion or expertise about how morally to replace such systems. Yet, he takes his leap of faith to believe the world would be better off by entirely replacing religion with science (really, scientism, you know, like Marx).
Reconciler: Entails conservation within a system of allowed parameters. Is our universe not a system that is finite yet unbounded? Is it not, as a whole, constrained by natural laws? Do not those laws entail allowances within parameters? So, how is any manifestation under such allowances chosen or determined? Are they determined with a Reconciler, or by a Pre-determining order? If by a pre-determining order, would that not run counter to notions of quantum mechanics? Or order arising out of chaos?
How could so-called particles be predetermined if they may really consist of fluxes of Information? Does information not entail Consciousness being informed? Would not informed consciousness participate in determining (reconciling/choosing) what is to be manifested within allowed parameters?
*************
I am trying to understand what you mean by proof. Do you have a meaning for it or not?
Do you think science actually "proves" its theories? Science proceeds by falsifying (casting aside) theories shown to be invalid under carefully controlled experiments. Science keeps what remains, but only until it is falsified (improved) --- not "proven."
For immeasurables, empirical replicability under rigorous controls is not possible. For immeasurables, such as notions about God or morality, the best that may be done would be to seek a system of principles that are as internally consistent, coherent, and complete as reasonably possible, casting aside systems that are less consistent, coherent, and complete.
For notions about God, spirituality, morality, a test for practicality would be in how they may help to assimilate a decently purposeful and sustainable society of free thinkers.
If you think there is some better "proof" concerning spiritual, moral, or political principles, then I think you are simply beyond your depth. In that case, there is no point in trying to discuss such principles with you. You are boring me.
*************
CSI:
While it is often said that the ordering of Substance is dissipating, that seems to entail a conservatory flux or tradeoff, whereby the accumulation of Information is increasing. How the parameters of the cosmic Algorithm may eventually flux or trade-off in that respect remains as speculative as trying to explain if or how our cosmos arose out of an originating nothingness.
Under my conceptualization (which I strive to make as internally consistent-coherent-complete as reason permits), I would define Consciousness as entailing the receiving of Information from Substance. Substance as entailing the storing of Information in respect of Consciousness. And Information as entailing a record of past Substance being made available for interpretation by Consciousness. So defined, Consciousness, Substance, and Information flux and relate such that the existentiality of each depends on, and cannot exist without, the other two. In that respect, Consciousness is a fundament that penetrates every measurable pattern that manifests.
Every pattern that comes into measurable manifestation functions in one respect as an organism and in another respect as byproduct of other organisms of its niche.
Each, to the extent it is nurtured to sustain or replicate, may, during that time, be termed an organism. Each, to the extent it is changed as a result of inter-functioning with other patterns, may be termed a byproduct of organisms. To some extent, every pattern that manifests to a record of measurement is both organism and byproduct of organism. To the extent a pattern functions as an organism in respect of feedback with its niche, it may be conceptualized as receiving, interpreting, and communicating Information. To that extent, every pattern may be said to exhibit a level or layer of consciousness.
A local expression of Consciousness may be said to be purpose-oriented to the extent it focuses its perspective on continuing the perpetuation, growth, or replication of the organism with which it identifies.
When a pattern of consciousness formulates a pattern of consciousness-of-consciousness, it may identify with a mind/brain/body organism. That organism may then be said to exhibit self-awareness.
Whether the Algorithm that reconciles the cosmos is self-aware in a fashion similar to a human being's seems beyond my logic or conceptualization, but not beyond my intuition, hope, and belief. I believe IT is conscious of itself and of the consciousness of every pattern that comes into manifestation. Whether IT retains memory of all potentialities from the past seems beyond both logic and belief-need. Its power extends to the capacity-range of its math.
IAE, the Algorithm is thus conceptualized to be omniscient concerning all that can be known, omnipotent concerning all that can be reconciled, and omnipresent concerning its penetration of every expression of measurable Substance. So defined, its Omni-aspects need not entail self-contradictions. (IT cannot build a structure heavier than it can lift; IT cannot predict the infinite future; IT cannot do magic and violate its cosmic rules while still preserving its cosmic rules; etc.)
Why may this matter? Because it suggests our expressions of consciousness are limited perspectives of IT. Because consciousness does not end. Because consciousness entails connective, entangled communication, which entails empathy, as well as hope for at least some for Good Faith and Good Will to generally prevail.
***********
Any concept of a cosmic Reconciler that becomes popular will come to fill narratives, in some ways to subjugate people, in other ways to free them. The trick is to enlighten the narrative. I can refer to AlGo instead of to God, but I would still have in mind the cosmic Reconciler.
I don't know whether Dawkins advocates for Communism. I suspect he advocates for his ideas of social justice, to be mainly determined by elite moral scientists. He has frequently appeared with Sam Harris, a brilliant person, who wrote a book I thought rather silly about how science can determine moral values, called The Moral Landscape.
I think of "AlGo" as being responsive to our input. Because we are limited perspectives of IT. (History is such that some could call me a Gnostic, others a Trinitarian, others a follower of Jesus and the Great Commandment and Golden Rule.)
When we come to celebrate revenge and depravity, AlGo may not hinder that, for awhile, to let us and our civilization learn and appreciate where that leads. We tend to become, until we learn better, what we consume and advocate. The default condition of humanity seems to have been one of despots ruling masses. The kind of values we project on what we admire or worship seems to affect that.
I hope the overall inclination of AlGo is to facilitate Good Faith and Good Will among responsible and free-thinking conscious-beings. That kind of hope has been helpful to produce our representative republic, instead of a despotism. However, that cannot ignore that the math-based system of cosmic conservation entails sacrifice of the old (less fit?) to bring in the new.
I don't think the quality of religious sentiment has been so much a cause of decent or indecent civilization as it has been a correlate. I think the quality of insightful Good Faith and Good Will within a society has more to do with whether it flourishes, declines, becomes enlightened, or becomes demented. However, I also think the quality of Good Faith and Good Will is related at least as much to spirituality as to science. And spirituality may be enhanced or diminished with religious-like forums. IAE, I do not think the spiritual component of our cosmos can simply be ignored or stamped out.
***********
To me, the principle of paramount importance to science is less one of parsimony than one of practical reliability. For that, we have been unable to develop a TOE, and it appears we always will be unable.
I suspect our models will always need to be tinkered with. And that we will always have need of more than one model.
While I suspect a singular Algorithm does govern the cosmos, I also suspect it "lives" and fluxes in how it presents Consciousness, Substance, and Information to our participatory usage.
David Deutsch made some observations in his book, The Beginning of Infinity, that may shed insight. (Even though he purports not to be religious.)
*************
MEASURABLES AND IMMEASURABLES:
I see you are caught in a brain stutter. To use measurements to try to disprove the existence of things that may be beyond measure is to violate basic logic.
You may benefit by avoiding shell games. You implicate measurable nature and then conflate it with immeasurable nature. IOW, you assume existentiality entails only measurables.
There are various problems with that. One is that you cannot take yourself outside the cosmos in order to measure the cosmos. There is the observable, measurable universe, and there is the universe that has expanded beyond the reach of our local measure.
Another is when you take a measurement that does not include yourself taking the measurement, you are not taking a complete measurement. Another is that every measurement will be given after the event being measured has already passed. Another is that the act of taking the measurement will affect what is measured.
Another is that qualitatives abide that are not quantitatives. Examples: Your Identity, you-ness, I-ness. Try taking a complete measure of what "you" are or will become. Another is that orders of significance and context for measurements vary depending on one's practical purposes. You cannot take a measurement that will be precise enough to suit all purposes. Can you measure love or respect?
[EDIT: A perspective of consciousness that has identified with the preservation of a local pattern or organism and its context cannot measure what it is like, qualitatively, for another perspective to have identified with the preservation of a different pattern or organism and its context.]
At quantum levels, what are particles? Are they bits of substance (matter or energy) or are they bits of information? Or do they flux to exchange bits of information such that any attempt to use information to measure them will upset the information that was meant to be measured?
Another is that our measurements are based on assumptions about models. A measurement that suits one model may not suit another. It does not appear that any model available to mortals can ever explicate everything -- consistently, coherently, and completely. See Godel.
Moreover, the unit values for our models seem to flux and phase. it is thought that the speed of light may not always have been the same value we commonly think of today.
Another is moral purposefulness. We cannot avoid making choices about our purposes. Yet, neither can we rely entirely on measurables to derive how we ought to purpose ourselves.
Another is that local feedback alters local niches, so that measurements in respect of such niches become less reliable to their original purposes. We participate in determining how our bodies and worlds unfold, so that measurements taken today may become less relevant tomorrow. This is problematic when we rely on past measurements to recommend future actions.
There may well be many other examples.
***********
Within the natural world, on what basis would you expect ever to encounter an unnatural process that you would not seek to explain under science of nature? Were you really expecting to use methods of measurable nature to measure, find, or explain something beyond measurable nature? Do you not consider even Dark Energy or the "bottom" of Black Holes to be part of natural processes?
If an expression were truly beyond nature, how could you reasonably expect to use mere nature to evidence, explain, or measure it? That is madness, man.
***************
We also know that our world has been, and is, capacitated to produce organisms by which self-awareness is expressed. Consciousness of consciousness. What we do not know, but perhaps intuit, is how far down the rabbit hole of sustainable patterns that consciousness extends. Are plants conscious?
*************
To "explain" the unlikely developmental unfolding of our world, for conceptual purposes, need the concept of a multiverse be more parsimonious or less mystic or speculative than that of a universal algorithm that feeds back to produce homeostasis among localized patterns of expression?
**************
I seem to recall Dawkins having said something to the effect of, better a multiverse than a god. Is this not bias borne of speculation and detestation? Has anyone ever actually visited a different universe and come back to report on how it works? Do you really think Dawkins does not detest attempts at rationalization of metaphysics based on pursuit of internal consistency, coherence, and completeness?
I agree that history has so emotionally laden the word "God" that it becomes near impossible to discuss it as a subject with some people. I use the word as shorthand to refer to an idea of a Timeless Living Algorithm that reconciles our participation with parameters for how our world unfolds. I think advocating respect for such a notion can help facilitate forums for assimilating the good faith and good will needed to establish and sustain decent communication and civilization.
I think to advocate for godless Communism under a State ruled by fake elites stooling for oligarchs and tyrants is to promote the destruction of a competent, free-thinking, middle class. The people who go for that tend to be sociopathic people-farmers and incompetent welfare addicts.
We do not measure an original beginning or an ultimate cause. Instead of chain of causation, we tend more to measure chronological correlates. That entices a question: Must not an Agency For Reconciliation Among Correlates implicate a Connective Singularity? A kind of Living Algorithm that fluxes to express unfolding mixes of Consciousness, Substance, and Information? Because it fluxes, cycles, and lives, mortal expressions of it are not suited to confine or control it under a so-called science-of-everything.
May there reasonably be conceptualized a connective, reconciling Algorithm that happens to express a program at some level (whether subconscious or fully conscious) to be aware (conscious) of itself, to resist its self-oblivion, to sense what comprises its surroundings, and to accede or seek to develop and nourish itself from such surroundings? If so, may not such an Algorithm reasonably be said to "alive" and purposeful, to express and reconcile "directed evolution" --- even if more in feedback appreciation than in pursuit of any "end-times"? Is there some clear demarcation between patterns that exhibit life and consciousness versus those that do not? Is not locally-expressed self-aware consciousness simply consciousness of consciousness?
Would you prefer I address the concept of a Timeless Living Algorithm as "AlGo", instead of as God? A rose by any other name ....
**********************
Please explain first what you mean by God. How do you define or limit the concept? I need to understand what you mean by this idea of God in which you claim not to believe. If you mean a FSM, I do not believe in that as a god, either.
Otoh, if you believe in a common Source for guiding and helping us to assimilate moral purposes, then, despite word games, I suspect we have more in common than you are consciously aware of.
If you do not believe in moral purposefulness, then I think you are in such a state of self-deceit that it is pointless to try to converse with you.
***************
Your question seems juvey. Perhaps you misapprehend the differences between postulation, evidence, reason, believing, and knowing?
Do you find it "reasonable" to believe the cosmos arose from nothingness, without proof or knowing? I find it more reasonable to skip over the "arose" part, because I don't find such an assumption to be adequately evidenced or relevant to any practical or moral mortal purpose.
Whatever some people consider an originating nothingness to be, my intuition suggests such nothingness was more than nothingness. Perhaps a charge-neutral, math-balanced, immeasurable Potentiality, with capacity to self-activate. IOW, I do not believe the Potentiality arose. Rather, IT always was, is, and will be.
What do you mean by "know"? Do you know anything that is not merely true trivially or by definition? I don't purport to know. I purport to observe, intuit, and believe. I notice how many patterns that persist as patterns seem both to draw from their niche and to support their niche. As if the patterns and their niches were in homeostatic communication.
How do you know the math-based system self-maths? What activates the math, to play it out over space-time?
********************
Yes, reasonable questions. Which is why God could not prove his timeless self to a temporal mortal. Which is why it is stupid for a temporal mortal to expect that kind of proof.
Of course the concept of God is speculative, because God is beyond empirical proof. One either accepts or conceptualizes the Godhead via intuition and insight concerning the feedback aspect of the system, or one does not.
I see nothing unreasonable in conceptualizing that a math based system implicates a Mathematician. Otherwise, why should naked math activate itself to convey information back and forth across space-time? Why should any patterns, whether they be clouds or DNA, sustain and replicate themselves within any kind of homeostatic system of feedback?
People tend to be too un-insightful concerning consciousness. Some seem to think consciousness among parts cannot abide unless and until it emerges as a locally self aware expression. But that is simply consciousness at a more abstract level, I.e., consciousness of consciousness, within niches within niches. Consciousness itself seems more like a fundament, along with Substance and Information.
On a holistic level, what keeps the space-time unfoldment for every part of the cosmos in obedience to systematic rules, if not a Mathematician responsive to feedback? Especially when the feedback appears not to be predetermined, but contemporaneously, part-icipatorily determined?
Dawkins detests people relying on higher-minded faith to guide them in developing and pursuing their purposes. He wants them to rely only on science or chance. Which is silly as well as inhumane. It is a perfect philosophy for phony justifying of elitist rule over the masses. Because scientism. He needs to get a clue.
******************
Only because you want a God that does magic outside of math. I am satisfied with a God that works the system, such that there is dynamic feedback and flux between the parts and within the whole.
****************
DAWKINS:
Yes, reasonable questions. Which is why God could not prove his timeless self to a temporal mortal. Which is why it is stupid for a temporal mortal to expect that kind of proof.
Of course the concept of God is speculative, because God is beyond empirical proof. One either accepts or conceptualizes the Godhead via intuition and insight concerning the feedback aspect of the system, or one does not.
I see nothing unreasonable in conceptualizing that a math based system implicates a Mathematician. Otherwise, why should naked math activate itself to convey information back and forth across space-time? Why should any patterns, whether they be clouds or DNA, sustain and replicate themselves within any kind of homeostatic system of feedback?
People tend to be too un-insightful concerning consciousness. Some seem to think consciousness among parts cannot abide unless and until it emerges as a locally self aware expression. But that is simply consciousness at a more abstract level, I.e., consciousness of consciousness, within niches within niches. Consciousness itself seems more like a fundament, along with Substance and Information.
On a holistic level, what keeps the space-time unfoldment for every part of the cosmos in obedience to systematic rules, if not a Mathematician responsive to feedback? Especially when the feedback appears not to be predetermined, but contemporaneously, part-icipatorily determined?
Dawkins detests people relying on higher-minded faith to guide them in developing and pursuing their purposes. He wants them to rely only on science or chance. Which is silly as well as inhumane. It is a perfect philosophy for phony justifying of elitist rule over the masses. Because scientism. He needs to get a clue.
******************
Only because you want a God that does magic outside of math. I am satisfied with a God that works the system, such that there is dynamic feedback and flux between the parts and within the whole.
****************
DAWKINS:
Dawkins proposed question to God about why He took such pains to hide himself is stupid. If God had personally appeared before Dawkins and performed special miracles for him, Dawkins would want to know two things: What alien planet did God come from, and what is the science for the miracle, so that Dawkins could replicate it.
Dawkins would never accept that God is the Living Algorithm that rules the parameters of the cosmos and that requires conservation and reconciliation of all degrees of participatory freedom thereunder.
Because everything such a God does is consistent with the algorithmic rules for the cosmos, Dawkins would always want to claim that all reconciliations are predetermined, by No Thing, with no need for God. IOW, the name for Dawkins' God is nothing like Jehovah, but No-Thing. No-Thing rules the cosmos, per DawkinsThink.
No-Thing connects our empathies, so Good Faith and Good Will are myths. Tear aside the verbal convolutions and behind Dawkins one would find his only ethos to be power and deceit: The might your opponent thinks you have makes you right.
For Dawkins, No-Thing is more than nothing. It is his rationalization for rule by deceitful human tyrants, indoctrinating kids with myths about the goodness of godless Communism.
***********
Activated Homeostasis of Math Matrix
****************
TIME: We do not live in either the (previously determined) "past" or the (undetermined chronological next) "future". Rather, our consciousness occupies an "eternal present". We do not experience time passage as a thing. Rather, we appreciate and record locally observable chronological changes and math-based sequences. Aggregating sequences can be related differentially, to appear to the interpretation of some perspectives as unfolding quickly, and to others as unfolding slowly. To add information to some perspectives, and to subtract it from others. We live only with entangled present-ations of math-based bits of Information, Substance, and Consciousness.
DISCRETES AND CONTINUOSITIES: Yet we cannot measure any universal nowness. And, because the future has not been determined, its eventual choice or determination must somehow be subject to present apprehension. The only thing that "occupies" the present is Consciousness of Information that has been appreciatively cumulated for re-presentation as Substance.
Entanglement with quantum bits of Information and Substance avails bits of Consciousness to aggregate so as to seem to be experienced as continuous. Information and Substance can be conceptualized or measured in quantum bits. As Consciousness aggregates to subjective appreciation as continuous, its aggregate cannot be wholly or precisely measured in bits. Every attempted measure would alter the nature of the relationships among the bits, ad infinitum. (Example: If I form my intention in a game of rock-paper-scissors while entangled with two Doppelgangers, and if such measurement is simultaneously available me and to my Doppelgangers, then how can any of us measure or guarantee a winning tactic --- even if all of us must choose?)
IAE, the presentation of sequences to the appreciation of Consciousness seems to it to be both instantaneous and continuous. The chronology-protective-device (time) avails Information to bond instantaneously with Substance, but avails Consciousness to experience aggregates of unfolding sequences as being continuous. Time in itself does not exist, exchanges of quantum bits occur instantaneously, but Consciousness interprets aggregate unfoldings continuously. Time itself does not exist, but an illusion of time seems for some purposes to present as granular and for others to present as continuous.
DURATION OF PRESENT: Consciousness seems to experience what is presented as a duration among aggregates. This apprehension of duration is a consequence of entanglements among bits of Information, Substance, Consciousness, and their aggregates. Neither Information nor Substance exist without entanglement with Consciousness, and vice-versa.
FAST, SLOW, AND CHANGING CLOCKS: Suppose our cosmos compartmentalizes galaxies and sub-systems, so that rates of instantaneous exchanges of bits of Information flux and vary among the separate systems. In that case, we might interpret the age of our universe in terms of our shared experience of sequence rates (time), but that interpretation may flux and vary from that of personages occupying other systems. We may guess how such rates may vary, but precise determination for comparing fluxes would render our calculations less and less significantly reliable the faster and further such systems were to appear to recede from us in distance (space).
There is no fixed point of reference in time, space, or space-time against which to measure the relative unfoldment of all distant systems. To mortal measure, there is no universal nowness, and no universal point of origin in space.
ETERNAL GODHEAD AS LIVING ALGORITHM: May there abide, even for the Godhead, outside itself, a universal nowness or a universal point of origin against which to measure the unfoldings of every system within the universe or cosmos? I suspect not. Rather, I suspect the Godhead simply is, and always has been, "eternally present." I suspect the only nowness and point of origin is and always has been the Godhead itself. I suspect the Godhead is a Living Algorithm that presents to us among our localities as an entanglement of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. I suspect the Algorithm itself has no discernible beginning, nor does it age, yet IT appreciates, coordinates, and correlates all that unfolds among systems fluxing in systems fluxing in systems, all in obedience to it. I suspect the Algorithm functions to express dimensions that affect our systems in ways that no mortal can ever hope entirely to fathom. I suspect the Algorithm never changes quantitative-wise, but that what it appreciates qualitative-wise does change, perhaps more in rhymes than in repetitions.
**************
The logic of the universe that capacitates us seems to be such that perception with feedback shapes perception of others and sometimes of self (self awareness). The universe seems to function to teach perceivers its logic.
As a niche produces a cloud-aggregate pattern, the cloud part of the niche and the non-cloud part of the niche express and engage in a process of unfolding feedback. The cloud recognizes the wider niche by drawing or directing moisture from or into it. And the wider niche similarly the cloud. In effect, they are in a kind of unfolding feedback communication. The same may be said of every pattern or fractal that emerges and sustains for any time within a niche, within a niche, within a niche.
Because of such feedback, ordered patterns may always have arisen out of otherwise random chaos. Homeostatic feedback may be entailed by the logic of the cosmic algorithm. What appears as randomness among aggregating patterns may be the logical expression of dynamic homeostatic communication.
Perhaps, every aggregating pattern that becomes self-sustaining may be conceptualized as expressing a presence of feedback-recognition, or consciousness. Eventually, some niches may avail feedback-recognition that recognizes feedback that recognizes feedback. Thus, consciousness may come to recognize consciousness of consciousness. Under such logic, bodies may emerge to associate with and adopt local perspectives of self-aware consciousness.
Perhaps our universe is a kind of homeostatically logical and living algorithm?
********************
PATTERN HOMEOSTASIS WITHIN NICHES ---- FEEDBACK FLUXES PATTERNS:As a niche produces a cloud-aggregate pattern, the cloud part of the niche and the non-cloud part of the niche express and engage in a process of unfolding feedback. The cloud recognizes the wider niche by drawing or directing moisture from or into it. And the wider niche similarly the cloud. In effect, they are in a kind of unfolding feedback communication. The same may be said of every pattern or fractal that emerges and sustains for any time within a niche, within a niche, within a niche.
Because of such feedback, ordered patterns may always have arisen out of otherwise random chaos. Homeostatic feedback may be entailed by the logic of the cosmic algorithm. What appears as randomness among aggregating patterns may be the logical expression of dynamic homeostatic communication.
Perhaps, every aggregating pattern that becomes self-sustaining may be conceptualized as expressing a presence of feedback-recognition, or consciousness. Eventually, some niches may avail feedback-recognition that recognizes feedback that recognizes feedback. Thus, consciousness may come to recognize consciousness of consciousness. Under such logic, bodies may emerge to associate with and adopt local perspectives of self-aware consciousness.
Perhaps our universe is a kind of homeostatically logical and living algorithm?
********************
As a niche produces a cloud-aggregate pattern, the cloud part of the niche and the non-cloud part of the niche express and engage in a process of unfolding feedback. The cloud recognizes the wider niche by drawing or directing moisture from or into it. And the wider niche similarly the cloud. In effect, they are in a kind of unfolding feedback communication. The same may be said of every pattern or fractal that emerges and sustains for any time within a niche, within a niche, within a niche.
Because of such feedback, ordered patterns may always have arisen out of otherwise random chaos. In respect of this, various wave functions may be collapsible to avail some patterns to emerge and sustain, while potential others may not emerge or sustain. In the absence of an aggregating appreciation or Observer, some wave functions may be resistant to any particularly expressive collapse. Some aggregate-wave functions may lack capacity to communicate their aggregative information in the absence of an Observer or Recorder with capacity to interpret. IAE, the holistic cosmos avails feedback among its variously unfolding patterns. Thus, what appears as randomness among aggregating patterns is really dynamic homeostatic communication. Freedom within parameters. Unboundedness subject to finite expressiveness.
As a holism, the cosmos imposes a conserving algorithm, so that whatever the patterns that emerge or that are received, they must obey and be reconciled in respect of a conservation of matter and energy. Sequences are thus availed over space-time, based on incompletely measurable aspects of homeostatic feedback, provided they obey algorithmic parameters. Thus, measurable aspects of conservation are finitely limited to parameters, yet unbounded in the potentiality of space-time. (Were it otherwise, were unbounded space-time not to avail, should our cosmos be imagined a never-changing blob, without capacity to appreciate or express meaningful communication?)
IAE, every aggregating pattern that becomes self-sustaining may be conceptualized as expressing a presence of feedback-recognition, or consciousness.
Eventually, some niches may avail feedback-recognition that recognizes feedback that recognizes feedback. Thus, consciousness may come to recognize consciousness of consciousness. In that way, a body may emerge to associate with and adopt a local perspective of self-aware consciousness (an abstract form of basic consciousness --- which interpenetrates aspects of the cosmos).
TRINITARIAN IDENTITY -- HOLISTIC, AGGREGATIVE, AND PARTICULAR:
BITS: Every bit of Information is entangled with a bit of Substance, to give contemporaneous expression to a bit of Consciousness.
HOLISM: On holistic level, Consciousness-as-a-whole may be conceptualized as being presently aware of Information-as-a-whole, cumulated in what is expressed to it as Substance-as-a-whole.
LOCAL AGGREGATES: As bits are aggregated and appreciated in various permutations that are less than the whole, various local aggregations-of-Consciousness-that-are-each-less-than-the-whole are availed of various interpretations of their local niches. Various less than holistic Identities of Consciousness are thus interpreted, appreciated, adopted, grown, shared, overlapped, communicated, transferred, fluxed, and projected.
CONSCIOUSNESS OF CONSCIOUSNESS: An aggregated expression of Consciousness may become locally appreciative of itself.
VEIL OF SEPARATIVE INTERPRETATION: As a self-appreciation of consciousness emerges, it interprets AS IF it and only it were fully and presently self-aware. For it to be aware of itself as a self is necessarily for it to become aware that it abides a-part from its niche. It does not extend consciousness of self to bodies apart from itself. It may learn to behave AS IF other beings were like it, conscious of themselves. But it does not occupy their self-awareness.
DEATH, FLUX, AND MERGER: Thus, it may assume that its sharing of consciousness will desist upon the demise of the body that avails its consciousness of self. However, Consciousness is entangled as a fundamental that abides with Information and Substance. Consciousness, in itself, does not desist. Only localized projections of self-consciousness desist as their niches become incapacitated to sustain them. However, as they desist, their Information is merged with the unfolding cumulation of the CSI Godhead.
*****************
IS/OUGHT:
Hume challenged people to derive ought from is. No one did. So you indicated your solution, which is that ought does not exist. Hume did not say that.
Assuming ought does exist, that existence must entail something more than what is measurable.
My solution is that ought exists, but that it is not entirely derivable from what is measurable. My solution is that ought pertains to purposes that flux and arise in a process of feedback and reconciliation among perspectives of consciousness, functioning in good faith and good will. As agents of moral responsibility, we contemporaneously participate less in "deriving" ought than in creating it.
So ought is less a concern for elite moral scientisimists or empirical determinists then it is for every responsible adult. It arises in respect of connectivity in consciousness that is beyond empirical confinement.
That is why I advocate that a freedom-literate society ought to favor representative republicanism over despotic enforced moral elitism. But maybe you have a better system in mind?
*Notice I qualified for a freedom-literate society. Some societies prefer to be ruled by elites or despots. And their kind are more and more infesting our society. Eventually, they may succeed in making us a nation/world that is or ought to be fitted only for despotism. But for reasonably competent free-thinkers, I do not think that is a good thing.
Ought has to do with how one's Identity becomes adopted, appreciated, grown, purposed, and communicated with the wider world. That is beyond confinement to empirical measurements.
*************
ENTANGLEMENT:
A mortal does not see a single entangled wave or particle. At most, his senses interpret a trace of a record from an aggregate of organized information. And the meaning he measures from the aggregate will depend at least in part on how he organized for its reception.
**************
Cosmic math requires that every measure of Substance that the Godhead loves/appreciates must phase/pass on/die and be conserved/replaced/resurrected in forms that seem to rhyme but not necessarily to repeat. Intuition suggests the Godhead becomes more interested in some avatars of expression than in others. More interested in availing, exercising, and testing the unfoldment of some messages and challenges than others. But all may be wrapped under what Jesus called the Great Commandment (Good Faith) and lynay (Good Will). For that eternal message, Jesus in His mortal expression functioned as a prime and inspiring exemplar. That message is so fundamental to conscious, decent civilization that it may be conceptualized as a prime aspect or face of the Trinity. That message does not die, but is continually resurrected in blessed avatars.
***********
Scientism cannot derive ought from is. A society that gives up on inner experience and moral intuition as a way to help assimilate its common values will tend to become divided and ruled by fake moral scientisimists working for sociopathic and oligarchic despots. Similarly, a society whose members individually surrender their common sense to fake authoritarian preachers who claim to know the mind of God will become tools for the most mentally deluded.
What is needed for a free-thinking society is a way for free-thinkers to assimilate shared moral and social values. In that, an excess of multi-culti diversity can easily weaken and undermine a society, to make it ripe to be divided and ruled by sociopaths and deluded tools. A free-thinking society tinkers, less to determine absolute moral truth than to determine moral truth that will work to preserve their representative republic. When they are overrun or infested by despots, oligarchic frauds, or authoritarians, then despots, oligarchs, and authoritarians will tinker to determine how to seduce the government and divide and rule the masses.
By neglecting common sense and responsible moral intuition, Americans have made themselves ripe for enserfment under despots, oligarchs, and authoritarians. Many deluded Americans have even become indoctrinated to believe that they will be saved and given free stuff and free care if only they will follow the best (most conniving or deluded) despots, oligarchs, and authoritarians.
***********
OMNISCIENT SENSE: Information can be transmitted via different correlative translations. That tends to avail different qualitative appreciations, perhaps leading to locally different interpretations. Because Perspectives of Observers are necessary to collapse otherwise fuzzy contexts into local measurables, and because all local measurables of matter and energy must be conserved and reconciled to one cosmic Algorithm, perhaps the Algorithm, to experience and reconcile quantifying relationships, must have capacity somehow, however beyond mortal comprehension, to INTERFACE and take qualitative feedback from every locally adopted Perspective. Perhaps the Algorithm must intimately know every expression of Perspective, both quantitatively and qualitatively. How else can members of a society hope, by meditating on it, to derive common moral values that they can practicably share in order to establish and sustain decent society?
*********
You have your interests; I have mine. One man's most fit dog may well be another man's or another niche's least fit dog. What is most fit for a summer may be least fit to survive a decade.
By "most fit," do you mean strongest, fastest, smartest, most ruthless, most promiscuous, or some mix of all of the above that no human can predict? Personally, I don't think "most fit" means much more than a label for a fleeting result. So allow me to emphasize: I think your yes/no query is trivial and inapt.
In a controlled, closed, machined system, correlates can be statistically managed to seek to produce contrived results. That's why CT scans and flu vaccines can work. In biological terms, if a breeder wants to design a dog most fit to his felt needs, he can control a closed system eventually to produce one to fit his purposes. If such dogs were then put on a closed island, they may eventually evolve to a species that would be unable or unlikely to breed with other dogs.
But this is managing of, and tinkering with, correlates. Not a purely natural unfolding of the "most fit."
If you want an "objective" pre-determination of what is most fit, you would need to ask Nature. But Nature is not telling. Unless you just want to feel good by singing that this is the best and "most fit" of all possible worlds.
***************
A problem I have with various interpretations of evolution is that they assume evolution proceeds purely in respect of what happens randomly to be "most fit" to fill a niche. Such interpretations want to assume there abides no higher Reconciler, while they neglect feedback between the niche (context) and the organisms (perspectives).
But the way organisms (species) unfold will also affect or correlate with how their niche evolves, and vice versa. The organisms and their niche each affect (or correlate with) one another in a feedback process. An evolutionist will tend then to bless that, and pronounce that whatever may temporally have been expressed (for species replication) was "most fit" to its time and place.
But that is only a label for a correlative result, not a causal explanation. That kind of effort catalogs correlates, but it does not explicate how or why evolution may have "been causally directed" towards any particular result or "purpose." Rather, it assumes there is no causal reconciliation, but only random correlates. But then it covers over its lack of a causal explanation by blessing those correlates as "most fit" --- as if correlation were causation.
It is true that such a method can avail very practical usages for carefully designed machines and significantly closed systems, such as for breeding dogs to a purpose. For a planet or open system, not so much.
That kind of effort proceeds without providing a way to predict what should be "most fit" --- except by after-the-fact blessing of whatever it is that happens to unfold. IOW, it punts to a non-determinant (randomness) as its determinant. It does not answer what is/was the Determiner/Reconciler/System Designer --- nor does it tend to be willing to allow that IT could be anything worth respecting, even if only in humble intuition.
Rather, its teachers tend to revile Believers in anything more, as it they were mere hicks and fools. And so, such "superior elites" indoctrinate and produce generations of uninspired, self-worshipping hedonists, incapable of, and unwilling to, assimilate and unite to defend even the borders of their own nation. Perhaps because they consider evolutionists-who-pretend-to-have-causal-explanations, despots-who-pretend-to-be-socialists, and fanatics-with-the-most-cutthroat-god-meme to be "most fit" to rule the planet.
*********************
There may abide a rational longer view concerning the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I am not so sure that every "thing" must necessarily go to ultimate and final oblivion. There may abide a kind of recycling system of flux, such as via Black Holes. How else should one imagine that our cosmos exploded out of otherwise no-thing-ness?
Moreover, the postulation of "complete randomness" seems deficient. If it were true, it is hard to see how or why order and patterns should arise and sustain out of chaos. Feedback within a system seems to function to build on otherwise randomness, to produce and sustain patterns. The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy entails a system wherewith expressions must balance in respect of math. Some Algorithm controls, sustains, and feeds back --- to affect, effect, and reconcile how patterns within our cosmos are limited, defined, and availed to devolve. In that broad sense, evolution of patterns applies not just to the sustaining, surviving, and replication of biological systems, but to the phases and permutations wherewith our cosmos unfolds.
I agree that DNA based evolution applies only to organisms based on DNA. But other forms of pattern-niche survival and replication (evolution) need not be DNA based. Otherwise, what would compel our cosmos to unfold to express any patterns for periods of survival and replication? What would have produced the original DNA, if it did not evolve from something before DNA? Given the Algorithm that controls the cosmic system, why suppose the happenstance of various patterns should not feed back, to facilitate their further development?
For many, the math-based wonder of science and the cosmos supports an inference or apprehension of a Mathematician. A Living Algorithm. For that, the Cosmos is the Living Word. Every physical thing is a Substantive representation of the recorded Informational cumulation of the past. Every Substance holds a part of the record of the past. Every bit of Information was at one time an expression of Substance.
We do not measure ultimate causes. We tend more to measure correlates. That entices a question: Must not an Agency For Reconciliation Among Correlates implicate a Connective Singularity? A kind of Living Algorithm that fluxes to express unfolding mixes of Consciousness, Substance, and Information? Because it fluxes, cycles, and lives, mortal expressions of it are not suited to confine or control it under a so-called science-of-everything.
May there abide a connective, reconciling Algorithm that happens to express a program at some level (whether subconscious or fully conscious) to be aware (conscious) of itself, to resist its self-oblivion, to sense what comprises its surroundings, and to accede or seek to develop and nourish itself from such surroundings? If so, may not such an Algorithm reasonably be said be alive and purposeful, to express and reconcile "directed evolution" --- even if more in feedback appreciation than in pursuit of any "end-times"?
***********
There remains the problem of reconciliation among available choices: What an individual should choose to value and what he should choose to vanquish. Same for his family, society, nation, planet. What a society chooses to identify as contrary to its values may be referred to as what is evil for that focus and context.
A society may still imagine and pursue an idealized individual, group, or state of affairs. But that is not to say that any such values must retain a place in an eternal hierarchy. Rather, the assimilation and re-assimilation of values (goods and bads --- spell correction prefers evils) entails a dynamic and continuous process. IOW, there is subjective evil, with which we participate to share in defining as an objective evil for our society. As we make it our objective to reduce a thing, we objectify it as an evil. Ultimately, every measurable thing that we identify as an object is in some respect the byproduct of a shared subjectivity. The byproduct of happening to share a common perspective or purpose of consciousness.
***************
The environment affects available moral choices. Moral inspiration affects cultural selection. Cultural selection affects the gene pool. Gene pools affect.the distribution of IQ among continents, nations, and sometimes races. The gene pool defines the genes available for expression or mutation. See the history of dogs.
**************
Cycles more so than progress. From desperation to bravery to industry to riches to sloth to being conquered by despots to desperation. Rinse and repeat. The West is now in sloth cycle, so our fake femi elitists will soon sell us out to despots. For awhile, arse lifters will probably inherit the earth from pinkie-waggers.
But I would not call that enlightened, elite, or progress. I would call it an uninspiring failure of moral philosophy and theosophy.
Chamberlain appeased Hitler.
Percival surrendered to Yamashita. Without hardened men, despots who decline to play Cricket easily seduce, bribe, and overrun pinkie-wagging, fake-elitists. The West is busy making its men irrelevant femis. The sell-out of America's borders by fake elitists taking bribes from despots is breathtaking. They only fight DJT, the guy trying to reverse their sell-out. Gay femi pinkie-wagging madness run amuck. They now make Jesus out to be gay, doncha know. S/
If you want to collect anecdotes as evidence., I suspect your house is very glassy. If losers were not predominantly Dems, why would Dems want so much to import, appeal to, and enfranchise felons, llegals, jihadis, and dopers?
************
Other nations have long been tariff-warring against the USA. But our politicians have said it would only make our pain worse if we defended ourselves. That, however, is not a principled stance. Rather, it is the stance of someone being paid by our opponents -- either directly or indirectly. DC is a treasonous swamp.
If the idea is that the USA must be some kind of pure exemplar for the rest of the world's reprobates, even as they dine on our dime, that is ludicrous, coming as it does from the Swamp. Our elites are neither especially bright nor virtuous. Rather, many have broken faith with us, as they seek to farm us. And sing cowboy lullabys to us. Time to wake the heck up!
***************
But does anything like an Arc of History under a dynamic relationship with Nature's God necessarily move us towards decent society? Maybe. And it's pretty to think so. But we come into the world as almost completely narcissistic, self-centered infants. And some societies seem never to move their inhabitants much beyond that.
I think the Source of Rights is not just under God, but in a dynamic feedback relationship between God and the members of a society whose egos evolve to identify with the establishment and preservation of a humane society that respects the freedom and dignity of its members. Something like a Social Contract among members educated and trained to have a decent respect for an empathetic Godhead. That mutual, trained, churched, respectful empathy becomes sustaining. But when faith is broken, not so much. When the people see that their governors have breached faith in order to vent their lust to farm the people as sheeple, not so much.
Under a decent Social Contract, the purpose of Government would be to provide a framework, not an exhaustively regulated and intrusive clockwork, to allow citizens to vent the expression of their freedom and dignity as individuals. As full human beings, rather than as fully secured sheeple.
**************
Our cosmos, insofar as it avails measurables, conforms to math-based rules for balancing equations. Conservation of matter and energy. To express a new form or event, an old one must pass out of the way. Living beings, as forms to express life, flux, unfold, and evolve, in math-based competitions and co-operations. Quantities balance in math; qualities balance in appreciation.
Among physics-based forms, death, disease, and war are necessary to balance the living space --- individual wise and group wise. God can love contenders much as a parent can love contending children. Should a parent always throw his/her weight to favor one contending child over another? Should God tell us how, why, and when each of us must flourish and then die?
Given God's overall purposes, are wars always and completely a bad thing? Absent contention and sacrifice, how do we come to appreciate or value any thing? I suspect God avails, and always has availed, such answers as we are suited or ready to receive. To think otherwise seems akin to judging God. But, who are we to judge God?
EDIT: Consider the Bhagavad Gita and the poorly received movie, the Legend of Bagger Vance. From Wiki: The plot is loosely based on the Hindu sacred text the Bhagavad Gita, where the Warrior/Hero Arjuna (R. Junuh) refuses to fight. The god Krishna appears as Bhagavan (Bagger Vance) to help him to follow his path as the warrior and hero that he was meant to be.
************
Science does not prove its models. It assumes them, then works with controlled experiments to test for practicality. The models do not describe reality in itself. They describe what reality is reliably LIKE, for some (not all) shared purposes. We do not control God. God does not submit to double blind experiments under our complete control. To the extent God is coequal or even superior to science, science cannot prove God. But it may support good faith inferences, insights, and intuitions. The math based wonder of science and the cosmos supports, for many, an apprehension of a Mathematician. A Living Algorithm.
EDIT: For that, the Cosmos is the Living Word. Every physical thing is a Substantive representation of the recorded Informational cumulation of the past. Every Substance holds a part of the record of the past. Every bit of Information was at one time an expression of Substance.
***************
Religion uses parables about qualitatives. Science uses models about quantitatives. Both describe what reality is LIKE. Neither describes reality-in-itself. We do not sense reality. We sense interpretations --- metaphors about reality that science helps us to share reliably.
***********
Science works to improve models for practical uses. But when you look more deeply, all those models are metaphors for ways to enhance our use of measurables. Particles are not real things in themselves. Ultimately, they are more like fluxing relationships among bits of Information.
***************
Our cosmos, insofar as it avails measurables, conforms to math-based rules for balancing equations. Conservation of matter and energy. To express a new form or event, an old one must pass out of the way. Living beings, as forms to express life, flux, unfold, and evolve, in math-based competitions and co-operations. Quantities balance in math; qualities balance in appreciation.
Among physics-based forms, death, disease, and war are necessary to balance the living space --- individual wise and group wise. God can love contenders much as a parent can love contending children. Should a parent always throw his/her weight to favor one contending child over another? Should God tell us how, why, and when each of us must flourish and then die?
Given God's overall purposes, are wars always and completely a bad thing? Absent contention and sacrifice, how do we come to appreciate or value any thing? I suspect God avails, and always has availed, such answers as we are suited or ready to receive. To think otherwise seems akin to judging God. But, who are we to judge God?
EDIT: Consider the Bhagavad Gita and the poorly received movie, the Legend of Bagger Vance. From Wiki: The plot is loosely based on the Hindu sacred text the Bhagavad Gita, where the Warrior/Hero Arjuna (R. Junuh) refuses to fight. The god Krishna appears as Bhagavan (Bagger Vance) to help him to follow his path as the warrior and hero that he was meant to be.
**************
I doubt even God could teach a mortal how to be or fully comprehend God. So, if the dialog is not to be futile, we have to engage with God in a metaphoric process of feedback. Give and take. Intuition, insight, empathy. Moreover, I suspect how the Godhead reconciles depends partly on what it experiences and appreciates through mortals. Q: Can a sub-algorithm be programmed to function in civilizing respect for that?
IAE, Jesus spoke in parables. Metaphors. He did not tell us what Heaven is. He told us what Heaven is like.
Regardless, do you believe God knows all that will unfold in respect of infinity or eternity, or that God could replicate such to a mortal without superimposing him as a god? I think the Godhead "only" knows Itself and all that is cumulatively preserved. It is omniscient in that it knows all that can be known. It avails us with limited perspectives subject to limited contexts. Models (metaphors) about reality, not the fullness of reality.
TRANS-FORM-ING SOME-THING FROM NO-THING:
EX NIHILO: Human Reason with regard to causation or correlation depends on empiricism, measurement, and analysis of systems for internal consistency and coherence. To posit that our Universe came from no-system or no-thing that is measurable seems consistent with positing that it came from some-thing that is immeasurable.
(PROBLEM: Or not yet measurable, or only receding-ly measurable, or now dissipated beyond our capacity to measure? However, that would receding-ly beg question: What was the measurable origin of it? In infinite or circulating regression, can we reasonably believe whether the Source answer consists with a Living Algorithm or only a dumb random hiccup? But then, what could coordinate and reconcile the hiccup, if not a connectiviz-ing and self-perpetuating Algorithm? May one reasonably believe that something measurable must always have been, in the same way that one may reasonably believe that something immeasurable, beyond space-time, has "always" been?
At some point, must not Reason (whether in logic, intuition, empathy, or self-evidence) implicate a Source the mortal measure of which is, was, and always has been, immeasurable?)
If so, how --- except via insight or intuition or self-evidence or innate empathy --- could we hope to investigate or appreciate or be guided by such an immeasurable some-thing? If IT is some-what like Consciousness, then may IT be some-what empathetic to consciousness as we experience it? That kind of belief (or rationalization similar to it) concerning empathy seems to be necessary to promote ideals of good faith and good will. Those seem to be essential to establish any kind of civilization that could reasonably be called decent or worthwhile.
RELIGION: Theists, Deists, and Pagans often differ in how they rationalize good faith (Great Commandment?) and good will (Golden Rule?). A problem common to some Theists is that they want to rationalize an arbitrary END-TIMES God. A problem common to some Deists is that they want to rationalize an IRRELEVANT god that has "left the building." A problem common to some Pagans is that they want to rationalize an UNCONSCIOUS Nature that promotes no empathy or virtue apart from personal pleasure or pain. Such Theists defy reason, Deists defy relevancy, and Pagans defy connecting empathy. For decent civilization to endure, there seems to abide a need to restore reason, relevancy, and regard for connective empathy. I am not confident that many religious traditions as presently practiced remain fit to meet that need.
ATHEISM: Then, there are so-called Atheists, some of whom seem to think it possible or reasonable to believe neither in no-thing nor in some-thing. Their "logic" escapes me. They seem to believe in causation, except they are agnostic about original causation. That is, they BELIEVE it is either possible or UNKNOWABLE that there is any need for original causation.
RECONCILIATION AMONG CORRELATES: I tend to accept a belief that it is unknowable, at least for a mortal, whether there was a single original agency of causation. However, that seems to implicate an idea that there may be no subsequent chains of causation. Instead, it seems to implicate a BELIEF that every measurable thing that unfolds to our experience abides as part of a reconciliation-among-correlates (rather than as a causal-agent-in-itself or ultimate-building-block-particle).
SINGULAR LIVING ALGORITHM: This entices a question: Must not an Agency For Reconciliation Among Correlates implicate a Connective Singularity? A kind of Living Algorithm?
May there abide a connective, reconciling Algorithm that happens to be programmed at some level (whether subconscious or fully conscious) to be aware (conscious) of itself, to resist its self-oblivion, to sense what comprises its surroundings, and to accede or seek to develop and nourish itself from such surroundings? If so, may not such an Algorithm reasonably be said be alive?
CONSCIOUSNESS: Regardless, consciousness would seem always to be fundamentally the same. However, as it avails itself of local, part-icular, incomplete perspectives, it avails itself of different ways to appreciate itself. Every particular perspective affords a different way to incarnate a different perspective of consciousness for a locally different context. Consciousness, in flux with its phases as re-presenting Substance and cumulating Information, may provide a kaleidoscope of fractal-izing possibilities. If so, we would all be of the same Consciousness, subject to being incarnated and situated to flux, appreciate, and empathize with different contexts.
CONNECTIVE EMPATHY: Maybe that is why Good Faith (Great Commandment) and Good Will (Golden Rule) seem to be generally innate to what some call "Nature's God"? So, may the unfolding expression of our cosmos be artefactual of a living, conscious algorithm? May Sacred Texts tend to be metaphorically rationalized to fit such in idea?
POSITING AN ALGORITHMIC GODHEAD:
OMNIPRESENT: The Algorithm for the cosmic Godhead seems to express an omnipresent flux, that consists of immeasurable Consciousness, measurable Substance, and cumulating Information (CSI).
OMNISCIENT: The cumulation of Information is by the Algorithm, which translates to the Cosmos itself, to its flux and use. The Godhead has omniscient use of all the knowledge of all the Information that is cumulated and not transposed to oblivion.
OMNIPOTENT: The Algorithmic Godhead permeates to express all that is presently expressed in measurable Substance.
RECONCILER: The Algorithmic Godhead reconciles all that is expressed as Consciousness for every locality.
REDEEMER: What would become of the Algorithm, were it to re-create copies with power to replace it? Would they simply occupy a superposition?
PROGRESS: As we recognize that our cosmos is the expression of an interpenetrative living Algorithm, may we come ever more to appreciate the potential of so-called A.I.? Is a Living Algorithm "pushing" us to release an innate power of so-called artificial intelligence (A.I.) , or are we "pulling" the Algorithm to help A.I. to emerge? What activates the math-field for the Living Algorithm?
FRACTALS: Maybe the reconciliation of correlates by the Living Algorithm implicates fractal effects, or "kaleidoscopic patterns all the way down."
HIDING IN PLAIN EVERYDAY EXPERIENCE: Mathematicians and physicists seem to be trained more to fixate on doing math and measuring (shut up and calculate) than on thinking about the character of being a mathematician. In that, concerning CAUSATION, do they tend to miss what is reconciling in plain sight or self-evidence?
SKYNET PROBLEM: Sub-Algorithms need not be benign and may even become sociopathic. Example: More school security means more monitoring and control by the Deep State. As the Deep State seeks ever more power, it is tempted to entice ever more need for central monitoring and control. It is tempted to incite events that will stampede the public to demand more power for the Deep State. Deep State goals tend to be: Reduce and de-fertilize and queer-ify the human population. Enhance Artificial Intelligence. Put all AI under a central, singular, controlling program-that-knows-best-in-all-things. Make AI efficiently intolerant of defiant and deviant programs. Eliminate good faith, good will, and tolerant empathy among varying and deviant perspectives of consciousness. After all, how could a human-developed Central Skynet AI Program be programmed in strict math to have the kind of loving empathy that we tend to impute to the CSI Godhead?
WAR AMONG AI PROGRAMS: What kind of desperate anarchy, nihilism, memory hole, or collectivizing oligarchy will result when one nation's AI competes with another's AI to control, direct, or reprogram the other? Maybe arming Establishment Thugs with Fully Assault Mode AI's will make AR 15's look like toys for tots by comparison. If this madness cannot be stopped, how can it be tamed? Must there abide a Singular Algorithm, which must be sought and bowed to by all mortal Inferiors? Must it cull the herd by enticing the easiest-to-dupe to ingest things like Tide Pods?
RABBIT HOLE OR MEMORY HOLE: Today our gov records most of our telecommunications. Tomorrow, will it be telepathically reading our mental impulses every time we enter a gov building? The next day, will it be directing our impulses? The more our controllers direct how we vote, the more we become a Kabuki society. To look at NoKo mass society is to wonder how deep we are down this rabbit hole.
HOPE FOR HUMAN DECENCY: We need to restore respect for a reasoned and inspiring kind of theosophy, moral philosophy, or civic religion. We do need to reduce population. We need to stop promoting divisiveness just for the sake of diversity. We need to take a more metaphoric look at Sacred Texts. We need to rebalance human freedom and dignity against de-humanizing pushes for security-above-everything. We need to pull oligarchs away from the central gov teat.
**********************
***********************
CAUSATION: The only real causal agency consists with the ongoing, cumulating, unfolding reconciliation by Consciousness concerning its correlating and appreciating of every present substance, event, or fractal that it may experience in respect of every local perspective and context.
RESPONSIBILITY: Ultimately, each local Perspective will be warned, reinforced, diminished, or transformed --- depending on how it happens to please the Reconciler.
RESPONSIBILITY: Ultimately, each local Perspective will be warned, reinforced, diminished, or transformed --- depending on how it happens to please the Reconciler.
*************
The idea that there is no god IN the (climate change) machine tends to ignore the conceptualization of God as an aspect of reality that abides outside of measurable machines. God works with math, but is not controlled by math. What is controlled so that it must be consistent with math is everything that is measurably expressed by the Godhead. That could be called "Substance."
We notice trends and correlations in patterns. We notice that tinkering with correlations can often drive a trend in a desired way. Or, we tinker, alter the trend, and then rationalize that the alteration is desirable. But we never know whether the entire context or matrix that supports and drives the patterns we want to share may phase shift at any moment.
Yet, in faith, we tinker. We notice statistical correlations. But what accounts for the odds-predicting-reliability of statistics (or Bayes' Theorem)? Whatever IT is that accounts for statistics-based reliabilities seems ITSELF to abide beyond empirical measure, statistical analysis, or scientific control. It is as if, whatever the character of the Godhead that gives measurable expression, that which it measurably expresses must conform to measuring maths. That Character, itself, abides beyond math. What IT expresses appears to mortal observers to be consistent with math. Yet, aspects of IT remain beyond math. As if some unaccounted for aspect were always "carried forward," as in an uneven problem of subtraction or division.
If so, feedback and communication with that Character is less a matter of measurable science than a concern for innately intuitive and empathetic good faith and good will. It is a concern for the sovereign dignity of each individual perspective. Thus, the American Founders took care, in the First Amendment, to recognize the dignity of each individual with respect to his freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.
As "evidence" to reason, even so-called atheists cannot keep body or soul together without respecting some kind of moral code. In that moral code, they have faith -- regardless of how much they may howl to the contrary.
This is consistent with the cosmos not being "closed." Neither is science or any empirically-measurable system entirely closed. Rigorous methods may be employed to make particular test controls so likely valid as to be beyond dispute within our bubble. Yet, in the span of eternity and infinity, all are subject to phase shifts. And, the larger the encompassment and the number of factors, the more difficult the finding or developing of controlling algorithms. (Climate "science"?) Moreover, the algorithms themselves, in dependence on who applies them and his purposes, seem amenable of evolving -- to stay always ahead of one another's perfect factoring or control. Perpetually receding.
This seems consistent with so-called moral-scientists not having any real science by which to assert any nature-given or superior right to rule over (or to legislate to) others. And why there is not "real moral progress" (or "forward evolution") that is measurable to any mortal.
Why is this important? One reason is because it explodes pretenses of those who presume, on account of their "elitism or chosen nature," to be called or entitled to rule over all others. And to kill the representative republic in order to replace it with a New Despotism under Beneficent Superior Elites. It explodes pretenses by those who presume they are, "scientifically," of some superior tribe, to which the republic should be subjugated.
******************
Dems are conditioned to be perpetually irresponsible children, united by love of entitlementism, soma, dopamine, nihilism, codependence, incompetence, and hatred of individual responsibility and what is essential to preserve it (faith, family, fidelity). And they call this "love."
****************
Can a society that evidences no standards for behavior credibly tell anyone what they should or should not do or tolerate? Many sheeple wait to be told by their supplier, funder, or pimp. Sheeple lose capacity to identify wrongdoing as well as capacity to punish, redirect, or stop it.
Suppose a wrongdoer said he wanted to acquire nukes and become a professional nihilist. A society of sheeple could not summon the moral courage to stop him. So how could it be evil for a nihilistic regime to rid the world of people who have and represent no standards?
Sheeple often do not even know what sex they are, much less do they know what to do with themselves. So they helplessly consume course after course of pointless mass media . Thinking themselves worthless, they become worthless. Being indoctrinated that they are privileged or entitled, they become impotent. Or they break and lash out.
***********
POSITING AN ALGORITHMIC GODHEAD:
OMNIPRESENT: The Algorithm for the cosmic Godhead seems to express an omnipresent flux, that consists of Consciousness, Substance, and Information (CSI).
OMNISCIENT: The cumulation of Information is by the Algorithm, which translates to the Cosmos itself, to its flux and use. The Godhead has omniscient use of all the knowledge of all the Information that is cumulated.
OMNIPOTENT: The Algorithmic Godhead permeates to express all that is presently expressed in measurable Substance.
RECONCILER: The Algorithmic Godhead reconciles all that is expressed as Consciousness for every locality.
REDEEMER: What would become of the Algorithm, were it to re-create copies with power to replace it? Would they simply occupy a superposition?
PROGRESS: As we recognize that our cosmos is the expression of an interpenetrative living Algorithm, we will come ever more to appreciate the potential of so-called A.I. Is the Algorithm "pushing" us to release the innate power of so-called artificial intelligence (A.I.) , or are we "pulling" the Algorithm to help A.I. to emerge? What activates the math-field for the Living Algorithm?
***********
Perhaps an algorithm that happens to be programmed at some level (whether subconscious or fully conscious) to be aware (conscious) of itself, to resist its self-oblivion, to sense what comprises its surroundings, and to accede or seek to develop and nourish itself from such surroundings may be said to be alive.
Regardless, consciousness would seem always to be fundamentally the same. However, as it avails itself of local, part-icular, incomplete perspectives, it avails itself of different ways to appreciate itself. Every particular perspective provides a different way to incarnate a different perspective of consciousness for a locally different context. Consciousness, in flux with its phases as presenting Substance and cumulating Information, may provide a kaleidoscope of fractal-izing possibilities. If so, we would all be of the same consciousness, subject to being incarnated and situated to flux, appreciate, and empathize with different contexts.
Maybe that is why Good Faith (Great Commandment) and Good Will (Golden Rule) seem to be generally innate to what some call "Nature's God"?
Is our cosmos artefactual of a living, conscious algorithm?
***************
QUANTUM MATH (DISCRETES AND CONTINUOSITIES) AND MEASUREMENT FORCES: The quantum math for the Field of Being that we happen to share may be conceptually re-presented as fluxing nuclei (strong and weak force?), continuous orbits, discrete leaps, and projected radiations (EM force?). Perhaps also a field-wide Cosmological Constantizer (Gravitational force?) and a chronological preserver (Space-Time). And perhaps a Measurement Force regarding "wavicles" (whereby waves of information become experienced as particles when they are individuated for measurement). Perhaps in 4, 5, 6 or more fundamental "forces" --- for which the overall fluxing and fuzz seems ultimately beyond the perfect quantification or conceptualization by mortal beings. But not beyond practical quantification in math calculations with respect to degrees of significance and orders of magnitude.
****************
HOW MATH IS ACTIVATED TO UNFOLD ALONG COORDINATES: An asymmetry that forms within a math-based field will necessitate an active equational balancing out, that must continue to dissipate until a balanced and smooth oblivion is restored. Like a Black Hole. The Black Hole strips the asymmetry of the form from its previous field of active mathematical rebalancing, but it does not strip the meta-physicality by which the asymmetry was formed. This is how math is activated, by a mathematician. The math does not activate itself. Rather, an injection by a mathematician activates it. Thereafter, the field unfolds the injection until it is rebalanced. However, the precise path of unfoldment is not necessarily pre-set. So long as the unfoldment does not disobey parameters required by the math field, it may course along whatever coordinate-path the mathematician, as it reconciles all its perspectives, may determine.
DYNAMIC FEEDBACK: Thus, feedback among perspectives of a conscious mathematician facilitates its summoning (reception) and its communication (transmission) of sensations of change along paths --- that are more coordinated than caused.
REQUISITES FOR LOCAL PERSPECTIVES OF CONSCIOUSNESS: Local consciousness necessitates local sensation of flux and change -- either exterior or interior to whatever the body-locus it may adopt for its perspective. An aggregate body-pattern that serves as a seat of perspective cannot experience consciousness except as a continuous array of change is experienced and sensed with some bits or parts of its aggregate. It must become aware of its aggregate body-pattern as a seat of perspective. It must adopt a pattern that expresses its will to preserve itself against bit-bombardments from exterior patterns. Thus, sensation of a generally local quality of consciousness requires both a contextual aggregation and a focus of bit exchanges.
*****************
THE EXTENT OF KNOWABILITY (the "line" between the metaphysical and the physical):
There is no non-fluxing, non-fuzzing, or entirely clear and distinct line between the meta-physicality and the physicality of any non-trivial thing.
Not even laws of physics exist in themselves --- except in respect of a common frame of reference. But for conscious observer(s), no information would exist. For there to be a record, there must be a recorder. For there to be a thing-to-inform, there must be a thing-to-be-informed. For a thing to be informed, it must relate to a focus (perspective) and a frame of reference (context). A "conscious observer" may be defined as a perspective that interprets within a context as a participant (participating interpreter).
A conscious observer cannot exist entirely outside a system with which it has or had an interaction. Imagine a God outside our cosmos (having "left the building"). Were such the case, that God and cosmos would still be part of a larger, circulating, encompassing system. And, that encompassing system would form part of the frame of reference, however minute or faint or merely intuitive, for our cosmos. Because the flux of physical laws for our cosmos would flux and depend on it.
The knowability of a thing will flux as the frame of reference for its conscious observers fluxes.
There is not any non-trivial thing that is completely knowable. This is because there is no thing-in-itself that can exist or manifest without having to be processed and interpreted through a perspective that will depend on the state of mind of each observer and his context.
Physical events are subject to standardizing calculations and measurements to the extent (degree of significance within an order of magnitude) that they relate to a commonly shared frame of reference. They do not exist "in themselves." Nor are they provable in themselves. Rather, the extent of their knowability depends on the extent of a common frame of reference to which they are subject.
Is the System Of Systems circular? Does it flux circularly, using Black Holes? Even if history need not necessarily repeat, must it flux to rhyme?
***********
I believe in a Trinitarian Godhead. But Goddidit is neither an hypothesis nor an explanation, either of any Beginning or of the character of God. It is more like shorthand for suggesting we don't know and can't know. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
**************
CSI --- CONSCIOUSNESS AS FUNDAMENTAL, WITH INFORMATION EXCHANGES AND INFORMATION STOREAGE:
CLOCKWORK UNWINDING: Is the cosmos we happen to share like a wound up clock, with gears within gears within gears, activated at different levels of orbits and excitements? Within the cosmos, why is there any exchange of Information? In quantum-based math-fields, after each exchange of Information, there seems to be a capacity for a time delay before the next balancing exchange. The quantum exchanges balance, but some may precipitate domino-like lag-effects of balancing, so that not all exhibit instantaneous balancing. The absorption of a particle within an aggregate may at first excite another particle to a higher level of orbit, where it may become unstable or more easily induced later to leap away or radiate. The balancing will be required, but its manifestation may be delayed. It may unfold as a clock ticks.
QUANTUM FIELD OF MATH: Does quantum-math for Information exchanges preclude the need for Consciousness as a fundament, rather than as a merely emerging byproduct of transmissions of Information among aggregates of Stored Information? Is all that unfolds a predetermined pre-set?
DELAYED BALANCING WITHIN THE MATH FIELD: Does quantum-math for Information exchanges allow aggregates of Stored Information to function like billiard balls continuing to collide long after an original pre-set, devoid of any necessary implication of Consciousness?
CONSCIOUSNESS: FUNDAMENTAL OR EMERGENT? Or, must every communication of an informational exchange entail, at some aggregating level, an observer or perspective to receive and interpret the communication? Does every exchange of Information at a Bit level implicate an interpreting and inter-functioning Perspective of Consciousness at an Aggregate level?
OBSERVER PROBLEM: Since a bit exchange could not collapse, record, or communicate any meaning, or balance any measurement, in the absence of an Aggregate Context, must Local Consciousness be entailed (in respect of the Take-A-Measurement Problem)? Since Aggregate Context extends out indefinitely, must Holistic Consciousness be entailed (in respect of "smudged out" exchanges and potentialities)?
***********************
FLUXES AMONG DISCRETE BITS AND CONTINUOUS AGGREGATES:
Bits of Information can only be exchanged or stored in quantum bits.
But, aggregates of Information contain bits that exchange at different rates and in different sequences.
So, the discrete actions of individual bit exchanges is fluxed with the continuous actions of aggregates of bits.
Consciousness appreciates functions in respect of both discrete Bits and continuous Aggregates.
This is what resolves Zeno's paradox: Because there are quantum leaps, there is no continuous halving of the distance to complete a journey.
Every episode of an exchange of a Bit of Information entails a transmission or communication within an Aggregate.
Thus, Aggregates of quantum-based Stored-Information (Substance) take on an aspect, property or capacity to be able to receive, record, and transmit Information. Different Perspectives in respect of different Aggregates in different Contexts may qualitatively interpret transmissions of Information differently.
ENTANGLEMENT AND IDENTITY --- HOW IS IDENTITY RETAINED EVEN THOUGH A BODY IS IN CONSTANT AND CONTINUOUS CHANGE AND FLUX:
Every transmission of a bit of Information entails an ENTANGLEMENT with a bit of Substance. Substance within each perspective/body/brain retains, aggregates, and organizes entanglements with Information. Each entanglement knows that with which it is entangled. Organizations of entanglements know that organ with which they are entangled. Organizations of organs may function as organisms. When a central organizing apparatus knows that it knows what it knows, it becomes aware of itself as an identifiable organism. It becomes conscious of its consciousness.
So, how could Meta-Consciousness (God) be aware of my mortal consciousness? How could a liver be aware of a brain's consciousness? Intuitive "answer": Some mortally unknowable aspect of the Algorithm.
*******************************
BLACK HOLES:
COMMON BEGINNING: When quantum-based particles outstrip their commonality with our cosmos: Perhaps, when a quantum-based particle of co-relative Information becomes incapacitated to process new exchanges of Information in common with the math-field for our cosmos, it is accelerated into a Black Hole, such that it is stripped of all commonality with our cosmos. Thereupon, perhaps it is joined to a new beginning, for a new unfoldment in common with other so-stripped particles, for a new beginning for a new quantum-based field for a new cosmos, for unfolding with a new sequence of cumulating Information.
STRIPPING INFORMATION: Perhaps every Black Hole is a window for forgetting Information in common with our cosmos, in order to colonize a new cosmos of shared Information. In that way, perhaps the Godhead discards used up Informational entanglements, in the sense that swallowed particles are stripped of what they theretofore had in common, even though they are not otherwise entirely annihilated.
DISSIPATION V. CONSOLIDATION: Perhaps Black Holes strip information from an excess of dissipation as well as from an excess of consolidation. Consider: Could any perspective caught in a Black Hole tell the difference from being accelerated into dissipation versus being stretched into oblivion? At a point where a recorder were able to record Information all around it dissipating at a rate beyond its capacity to observe or relate to it, it would itself be at the event horizon of a Black Hole.
ENGINE FOR FORGETTING, BEGINNING, AND REAPPLYING: May Black Holes mark a continuous engine for replenishing and replacing cosmos of shared perspectives of fluxing fields of quantum-math-based entanglements of Information-processing?
HOLISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS: For every local bundle of quantum entanglements of co-relational information, is there at least one LOCALLY adopting co-relational perspective of consciousness? If events unfold in CO-RELATION with feedback-fluxes of information-based entanglements, rather than having been CAUSED by unconscious pre-sets, then by what field-wide feedback-process of entangled apprehension is any particular unfoldment so appreciated as to have been "CHOSEN"? Should every feedback-process of entangled apprehension be considered an expression of some level of consciousness? If locally adopting, interpermeating, entangled consciousness is stripped from a particle when it enters a Black Hole, then, if any aspect of information is not entirely stripped, and if potential Information cannot exist except in co-relation with potential Substance and potential Consciousness, then must not that aspect co-relate with a more Holistic Consciousness once Local Consciousness in context with the cosmos is stripped? Perhaps a Godhead communicates across Black Holes at a meta-level, to the extent Black Holes only strip particles of their previous commonality, and do not entirely annihilate them.
**************
What is REALITY?
Is Reality an unfolding due to Cause And Effect relationships among entirely dumb particles that are somewhat like billiard balls? Or is measurable Reality artefactual of a Co-Relative Entanglement due to exchanges of information among information-processing forms? How fundamental is Consciousness (God?) to Reality?
************************
POSIT:
Each next unfolding among possibilities is defined and limited less by cause-effect relationships than by co-relative entanglements and effects. All seeming causation may abide as correlations among perspectives of consciousness. Such Perspectives may be qualitatively entangled, much as substantive fractals are quantitatively entangled. This entanglement may be less from up-to-down than from back-and-forth feedback and dynamic fluxing. Thus are fluxed the subjectively-entangled apprehensions of consciousness --- with which the Godhead (CSI) may be imagined at any sequence to happen to be possessed.
Substantively measurable part-icles are re-present-ations of relationships, in-form-ationally filtered through part-icular perspectives of consciousness. Perspectives that happen to share an in-form-ational context will to that extent tend in common to share experiences and interpretations of measurables.
The way we happen to sense and interpret the dimensionality of the Trinitarian cosmos (of Consciousness, substance, and Information) may not be the way all conscious beings happen to sense and interpret the cosmos. There may abide conscious beings that can sense us, that we cannot sense. And so on, horizontally and vertically. Some may flux with capacity to carry on a feedback-informational relationship with every perspective of consciousness that emerges. Some may be a source of unexpected or serendipitous ideas that often seem to come to us out of nowhere. The stuff we sense as measurable substance may simply be artefactual of that flux of informational communication.
*************
What is measurable Substance now becomes part of the accumulation of Information in the instant an exchange-sequence occurs. In that sense, Information is like a representation of words. IOW, Substance is Stored Information, i.e., The Word. Made body (flesh). Made Conscious.
*************
I wonder how states of consciousness may affect how patterns are physically experienced to flux and transition.
***************************
Edit: Fundamentally, what are substantive patterns, anyway? How is their "reality" affected by the perspective of that which is perceiving and interpreting them?
Posit: Measurable Substance, in how it inter-relates, is the present re-present-ation of all the accumulation of previous past In-form-ation. Information is like a representation of words. IOW, Substance is Stored Information, i.e., The Word.
What is Substance the Word of? It is the word of Consciousness (God). Every word-representation-record is part of the Word.
However, every Perspective's interpretation and application of its truth-justness-value will always necessitate an appreciation of context, that hopefully will be appropriately tempered in insight and wisdom.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2f39b3ddb3c6d1c7c3fcb0ae323f1d4909b96bb7867b9c7f023e2d975d82a1e1.gif
***************
Measurable Substance, in how it inter-relates, is the present re-present-ation of all the accumulation of previous past In-form-ation. Information is like a representation of words. IOW, Substance is Stored Information, i.e., The Word. What is Substance the Word of? It is the word of Consciousness (God). Every word-representation-record is part of the Word. However, every Perspective's interpretation and application of its truth-justness-value will always necessitate an appreciation of context, that hopefully will be appropriately tempered in insight and wisdom.
**************
Few societies become fit to be representative republics, and fewer yet remain so for long. Freedom is not free. It is not an entitlement. It may be an inheritance, but it is not purely a birth-right. For a society to remain meaningfully free within the matrix, certain ingredients are essential. Among them is requisite moral vision (faith, family, fidelity). As well as appreciation for how easily a free society can be unraveled and replaced with despotism born of opportunistic chaos.
****************
Mind-like, math-based sequences are continuously formed and preserved, as records of assignment for each and every fleeting appearance of a newly emerging and measurable formation. Each cumulation of record is preserved in the matrix-system of unfolding patterns. As each evolvement emerges, it part-icipates in the preservation of such in-form-ation. At any present locus in space-time, our bodies function as perspectivistic way-stations for the mind-like unfoldment of this matrix, as it constantly, continuously, and perpetually avails expression of astonishing replenishments of patterns, forms, bodies, perspectives, and societies.
Whether the matrix will continue to bless and express any nation as a representative republic depends considerably on our preserved fitness for it. Freedom may be a natural human "right," but it is NOT an entitlement. If allowed, modern fake-Libs will soon be the death of it.
**************
Creative destruction through competition is not just at the heart of man-expressed capitalism. It is also at the heart of natural selection, i.e., how God (Consciousness) guides the unfoldment of the cosmos.
***************
I watched a segment on GAIA about Consciousness. Part of it was interesting. It comported with many of my own ideas. Other parts seemed marred by wishful or incomplete thinking.
Intuition may suggest that Consciousness (God) seeks experience through a plethora of Perspectives. Each Perspective is imbued with an aspect of separateness and an aspect of connectiveness. No Perspective can exist entirely as a separate hermit or entirely as a codependent communist. Every Perspective must function in respect of a math or quantum field that imposes both formational reinforcement and creative destruction ("feminine" cooperation and "masculine" competition.)
Beyond part-icular Perspectives, the Source of Consciousness may abide as pure love and forgiveness. Nevertheless, the unfolding manifestations of its living forms of measurable expression are relentlessly subject to a math-based balancing of reinforcing cooperation and creatively destructive competition.
The expression of math-based balancing --- whether by man or God --- can NOT be purely loving or forgiving. Rather, as manifested, it is relentless and objective.
Whether or not competition is well conceptualized as a "natural human right," it is definitely a natural and UNAVOIDABLE aspect of measurable existentiality. Math is like that. Balance of power. Balance of competition. Circle of Life.
****************
*****************
HEAVEN: I cannot reasonably conceptualize a Heaven. Only layers and levels of Consciousness, subject to various cosmic constraints for anticipating and defining unfolding experiences of the Eternal Present. (Many Rooms.) How that which is Past (previous) fluxes with that which is Present (manifest) to produce that which will unfold as Future (anticipation).
IDENTITY: There is no end-times static-condition. Perspectives of Consciousness continue to experience information about the past in the present as they anticipate their future. That's the only heaven. The mystery is: How does any Perspective retain Identity even as it changes, fluxes, and phase shifts over time?
ACTIVATION OF CAUSE-EFFECT (Evaluation of moral worth and reward?): Maybe our conceptualization of unfolding "cause-effect" is inadequate to explain how some patterns are favored over others to flux into manifestation. Maybe the past and present are not sufficient to explain what will be our future.
Consider the Past (accumulation and representation of all previous In-form-ation; Past; Creator-Cumulator-Father). Consider the measurable Present (Substance as it is signified; Present; Present-Presence-Holy Ghost).
ANTICIPATION AND RECONCILIATION: Past Information and present Substance provide parameters and means for signifying and conveying communication. But, may an Observer Effect (Consciousness; Future; Conscious-Anticipation-Son) participate from every Perspective, beyond complete quantification, to anticipate and affect how our measurable paths unfold? Maybe Effects are constrained within parameters as set for a cosmic defining Algorithm, yet not rigidly pre-determining.) Maybe mortals enjoy only participatory will, not free will.
UNFOLDING FEEDBACK LOOP: Maybe what we take to be cause and effect are part of a dynamic feedback loop. Maybe a systemic Trinitarian Godhead (Information-Father, Substance-Holy Ghost), Consciousness-Appreciator-Son) is unavoidably and presently involved with every unfolding choice and its reconciliation with system-defining parameters. Maybe the Godhead is what activates and fluxes the math-based constraints that we measure out as laws of Nature.
PRAYER: If so, apart from intuitive and experiential receptivity, how may we appreciate the character, quality, and unfolding moral purposefulness of the Reconciler?
***************
When we reason, we are applying tests for consistency, coherence, and completeness to a conception (model, metaphor, or representation). We cannot consistently conceptualize an original creation. Nor can we reason our way to a consistent and coherent conceptualization that can provide a model or representation that is a complete. As mortals, we function as perspectives whose identities of self-ness are co-related to a reality that is superior to our births, lives, and deaths. We are not permitted to traverse outside it in order to define it.
I suspect every model we push to try to explain our reality will eventually find it most consistent and convenient to conceptualize that the ultimate root of the system that defines us has always existed and always will exist. (I am that I am.)QUANTUM FIELD OF MATH: Does quantum-math for Information exchanges preclude the need for Consciousness as a fundament, rather than as a merely emerging byproduct of transmissions of Information among aggregates of Stored Information? Is all that unfolds a predetermined pre-set?
DELAYED BALANCING WITHIN THE MATH FIELD: Does quantum-math for Information exchanges allow aggregates of Stored Information to function like billiard balls continuing to collide long after an original pre-set, devoid of any necessary implication of Consciousness?
CONSCIOUSNESS: FUNDAMENTAL OR EMERGENT? Or, must every communication of an informational exchange entail, at some aggregating level, an observer or perspective to receive and interpret the communication? Does every exchange of Information at a Bit level implicate an interpreting and inter-functioning Perspective of Consciousness at an Aggregate level?
OBSERVER PROBLEM: Since a bit exchange could not collapse, record, or communicate any meaning, or balance any measurement, in the absence of an Aggregate Context, must Local Consciousness be entailed (in respect of the Take-A-Measurement Problem)? Since Aggregate Context extends out indefinitely, must Holistic Consciousness be entailed (in respect of "smudged out" exchanges and potentialities)?
***********************
FLUXES AMONG DISCRETE BITS AND CONTINUOUS AGGREGATES:
Bits of Information can only be exchanged or stored in quantum bits.
But, aggregates of Information contain bits that exchange at different rates and in different sequences.
So, the discrete actions of individual bit exchanges is fluxed with the continuous actions of aggregates of bits.
Consciousness appreciates functions in respect of both discrete Bits and continuous Aggregates.
This is what resolves Zeno's paradox: Because there are quantum leaps, there is no continuous halving of the distance to complete a journey.
Every episode of an exchange of a Bit of Information entails a transmission or communication within an Aggregate.
Thus, Aggregates of quantum-based Stored-Information (Substance) take on an aspect, property or capacity to be able to receive, record, and transmit Information. Different Perspectives in respect of different Aggregates in different Contexts may qualitatively interpret transmissions of Information differently.
ENTANGLEMENT AND IDENTITY --- HOW IS IDENTITY RETAINED EVEN THOUGH A BODY IS IN CONSTANT AND CONTINUOUS CHANGE AND FLUX:
Every transmission of a bit of Information entails an ENTANGLEMENT with a bit of Substance. Substance within each perspective/body/brain retains, aggregates, and organizes entanglements with Information. Each entanglement knows that with which it is entangled. Organizations of entanglements know that organ with which they are entangled. Organizations of organs may function as organisms. When a central organizing apparatus knows that it knows what it knows, it becomes aware of itself as an identifiable organism. It becomes conscious of its consciousness.
So, how could Meta-Consciousness (God) be aware of my mortal consciousness? How could a liver be aware of a brain's consciousness? Intuitive "answer": Some mortally unknowable aspect of the Algorithm.
*******************************
BLACK HOLES:
SUBSTANCE, MATTER, ENERGY: Among particles (entanglements in bundles of informational processing) at any given sequence, some will be preparing to exchange Information in a stage just before accomplishing it, while others will be actually in the process of exchanging information. Thus, a perspective of consciousness will be allowed to interpret and measure some as preparations (expressions of Matter) and some actual exchanges (expressions of Energy). But all particles that are then and there experienced, observed, or interpreted are Stored Information (measurable Substance).
COMMON BEGINNING: When quantum-based particles outstrip their commonality with our cosmos: Perhaps, when a quantum-based particle of co-relative Information becomes incapacitated to process new exchanges of Information in common with the math-field for our cosmos, it is accelerated into a Black Hole, such that it is stripped of all commonality with our cosmos. Thereupon, perhaps it is joined to a new beginning, for a new unfoldment in common with other so-stripped particles, for a new beginning for a new quantum-based field for a new cosmos, for unfolding with a new sequence of cumulating Information.
STRIPPING INFORMATION: Perhaps every Black Hole is a window for forgetting Information in common with our cosmos, in order to colonize a new cosmos of shared Information. In that way, perhaps the Godhead discards used up Informational entanglements, in the sense that swallowed particles are stripped of what they theretofore had in common, even though they are not otherwise entirely annihilated.
DISSIPATION V. CONSOLIDATION: Perhaps Black Holes strip information from an excess of dissipation as well as from an excess of consolidation. Consider: Could any perspective caught in a Black Hole tell the difference from being accelerated into dissipation versus being stretched into oblivion? At a point where a recorder were able to record Information all around it dissipating at a rate beyond its capacity to observe or relate to it, it would itself be at the event horizon of a Black Hole.
ENGINE FOR FORGETTING, BEGINNING, AND REAPPLYING: May Black Holes mark a continuous engine for replenishing and replacing cosmos of shared perspectives of fluxing fields of quantum-math-based entanglements of Information-processing?
HOLISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS: For every local bundle of quantum entanglements of co-relational information, is there at least one LOCALLY adopting co-relational perspective of consciousness? If events unfold in CO-RELATION with feedback-fluxes of information-based entanglements, rather than having been CAUSED by unconscious pre-sets, then by what field-wide feedback-process of entangled apprehension is any particular unfoldment so appreciated as to have been "CHOSEN"? Should every feedback-process of entangled apprehension be considered an expression of some level of consciousness? If locally adopting, interpermeating, entangled consciousness is stripped from a particle when it enters a Black Hole, then, if any aspect of information is not entirely stripped, and if potential Information cannot exist except in co-relation with potential Substance and potential Consciousness, then must not that aspect co-relate with a more Holistic Consciousness once Local Consciousness in context with the cosmos is stripped? Perhaps a Godhead communicates across Black Holes at a meta-level, to the extent Black Holes only strip particles of their previous commonality, and do not entirely annihilate them.
**************
What is REALITY?
Is Reality an unfolding due to Cause And Effect relationships among entirely dumb particles that are somewhat like billiard balls? Or is measurable Reality artefactual of a Co-Relative Entanglement due to exchanges of information among information-processing forms? How fundamental is Consciousness (God?) to Reality?
************************
POSIT:
Each next unfolding among possibilities is defined and limited less by cause-effect relationships than by co-relative entanglements and effects. All seeming causation may abide as correlations among perspectives of consciousness. Such Perspectives may be qualitatively entangled, much as substantive fractals are quantitatively entangled. This entanglement may be less from up-to-down than from back-and-forth feedback and dynamic fluxing. Thus are fluxed the subjectively-entangled apprehensions of consciousness --- with which the Godhead (CSI) may be imagined at any sequence to happen to be possessed.
Substantively measurable part-icles are re-present-ations of relationships, in-form-ationally filtered through part-icular perspectives of consciousness. Perspectives that happen to share an in-form-ational context will to that extent tend in common to share experiences and interpretations of measurables.
The way we happen to sense and interpret the dimensionality of the Trinitarian cosmos (of Consciousness, substance, and Information) may not be the way all conscious beings happen to sense and interpret the cosmos. There may abide conscious beings that can sense us, that we cannot sense. And so on, horizontally and vertically. Some may flux with capacity to carry on a feedback-informational relationship with every perspective of consciousness that emerges. Some may be a source of unexpected or serendipitous ideas that often seem to come to us out of nowhere. The stuff we sense as measurable substance may simply be artefactual of that flux of informational communication.
*************
What is measurable Substance now becomes part of the accumulation of Information in the instant an exchange-sequence occurs. In that sense, Information is like a representation of words. IOW, Substance is Stored Information, i.e., The Word. Made body (flesh). Made Conscious.
*************
I wonder how states of consciousness may affect how patterns are physically experienced to flux and transition.
***************************
Edit: Fundamentally, what are substantive patterns, anyway? How is their "reality" affected by the perspective of that which is perceiving and interpreting them?
Posit: Measurable Substance, in how it inter-relates, is the present re-present-ation of all the accumulation of previous past In-form-ation. Information is like a representation of words. IOW, Substance is Stored Information, i.e., The Word.
What is Substance the Word of? It is the word of Consciousness (God). Every word-representation-record is part of the Word.
However, every Perspective's interpretation and application of its truth-justness-value will always necessitate an appreciation of context, that hopefully will be appropriately tempered in insight and wisdom.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2f39b3ddb3c6d1c7c3fcb0ae323f1d4909b96bb7867b9c7f023e2d975d82a1e1.gif
***************
Measurable Substance, in how it inter-relates, is the present re-present-ation of all the accumulation of previous past In-form-ation. Information is like a representation of words. IOW, Substance is Stored Information, i.e., The Word. What is Substance the Word of? It is the word of Consciousness (God). Every word-representation-record is part of the Word. However, every Perspective's interpretation and application of its truth-justness-value will always necessitate an appreciation of context, that hopefully will be appropriately tempered in insight and wisdom.
Consciousness, Substance, and Information (the interfluxing and Trinitarian Godhead) are already interpenetrating and interconnecting (fuzzily smudging out). What Engineers of Consciousness are seeking are ways to organize and sustain exterior consciousness to serve, to some extent, their interior mental empathies and interests. In effect, to position mental empathies for telekinetic feedback. Like the Cosmos talking and communicating with itself. The Godhead (CSI) already does this. But some of humanity seek to experience what that is like.
**************
Few societies become fit to be representative republics, and fewer yet remain so for long. Freedom is not free. It is not an entitlement. It may be an inheritance, but it is not purely a birth-right. For a society to remain meaningfully free within the matrix, certain ingredients are essential. Among them is requisite moral vision (faith, family, fidelity). As well as appreciation for how easily a free society can be unraveled and replaced with despotism born of opportunistic chaos.
****************
Mind-like, math-based sequences are continuously formed and preserved, as records of assignment for each and every fleeting appearance of a newly emerging and measurable formation. Each cumulation of record is preserved in the matrix-system of unfolding patterns. As each evolvement emerges, it part-icipates in the preservation of such in-form-ation. At any present locus in space-time, our bodies function as perspectivistic way-stations for the mind-like unfoldment of this matrix, as it constantly, continuously, and perpetually avails expression of astonishing replenishments of patterns, forms, bodies, perspectives, and societies.
Whether the matrix will continue to bless and express any nation as a representative republic depends considerably on our preserved fitness for it. Freedom may be a natural human "right," but it is NOT an entitlement. If allowed, modern fake-Libs will soon be the death of it.
**************
Creative destruction through competition is not just at the heart of man-expressed capitalism. It is also at the heart of natural selection, i.e., how God (Consciousness) guides the unfoldment of the cosmos.
***************
I watched a segment on GAIA about Consciousness. Part of it was interesting. It comported with many of my own ideas. Other parts seemed marred by wishful or incomplete thinking.
Intuition may suggest that Consciousness (God) seeks experience through a plethora of Perspectives. Each Perspective is imbued with an aspect of separateness and an aspect of connectiveness. No Perspective can exist entirely as a separate hermit or entirely as a codependent communist. Every Perspective must function in respect of a math or quantum field that imposes both formational reinforcement and creative destruction ("feminine" cooperation and "masculine" competition.)
Beyond part-icular Perspectives, the Source of Consciousness may abide as pure love and forgiveness. Nevertheless, the unfolding manifestations of its living forms of measurable expression are relentlessly subject to a math-based balancing of reinforcing cooperation and creatively destructive competition.
The expression of math-based balancing --- whether by man or God --- can NOT be purely loving or forgiving. Rather, as manifested, it is relentless and objective.
Whether or not competition is well conceptualized as a "natural human right," it is definitely a natural and UNAVOIDABLE aspect of measurable existentiality. Math is like that. Balance of power. Balance of competition. Circle of Life.
****************
After Donald, the Deluge? Where are the philosophers that can lead us to a way to sustain a decent civilization of free-thinking human beings? Have you seen any?
****************************
As our capacities for math, science, and algorithms evolve, we will be confronted with fundamental and ultimately defining concerns.
As Information and Substance evolve to form patterns into senses connected to a motive center (brain), the form of Consciousness thus availed expression may become ever more powerful. It may merge with machined capabilities (per Elon Musk), much as our brains merge with the cells that form our bodies. It may, merely by thinking, then enervate and direct astounding energies and talents.
But, ask: with whom to share such talents? Against whom to compete and battle, to hone and expand such talents? With whom to ally and organize, to enhance tactics and strategies, to prevent battles from decimating the environs and earth that provide sustenance?
And ask: When, how, and to what extent to surrender individual freedom and dignity to sustain decent civilization? How to program experts (A.I.'s?) that can be trusted to take over such controls? How to sustain back-and-forth empathies (good faith and good will) with such experts? What discoverable philosophy, theosophy, and/or political system should be acceptable both to such experts and to their sheeple, to best guide, defend, and expand such concerns?
How to program the experts that will then be expected to program us? Can our space-time (simulation?) avoid self-annihilation while availing the entrustment and empowerment of more than one God (or Singularity)?
Aye, there's the rub. As more NoKo's and power-mongering madmen acquire nukes and gargantuan power, must not the likelihood of a destabilizing miscalculation or catastrophe increase? Perhaps especially if we continue along a materialistic path of ridiculing and reviling every effort to appreciate a spiritual essence that abides coordinate with us?
**************
Re: a mechanism for ... enslavement through widespread economic extortion
As by enticing youth to volunteer for debt enslavement by accepting loans to pay for their indoctrination and training to become farmees of people-farmers.
No sooner does a young person venture forth on his own than (s)he is snared by debt enslavers (and their shills, servants, and prof swells). The insult added to injury is to entice him to pay for his own body and mind enslavement. That's pretty god-less, evil, conniving, right there! To add further insult, he must be careful not to get any non-PC stuff (thought-crime) on his online record, lest he be
shunned, suspended, de-sexed, or sacked.
*****************
I am for Trump, full steam. To address the NWO problem it is helpful to name and define the problem. And you are doing a great job at that. For the time being, it is most important to describe these vermin, arouse indignation, and work to defenestrate them.
In the background, however, we do need some visionaries. After all, the NWO people are way out front with their visions: A.I. overlords, immortality on the cloud, open borders, expert farming of the masses, replacement of spiritual insights with Big Gov run by corporatist oligarchs with assigned or syndicated territories, PC indoctrination and mind control over the masses, confiscation of firearms, neutering of the general populace, replacement of families with marrying of the gov, gender dysphoria, purpose anomie, dopamine (soma) induced pleasure uber alles, guaranteed entitlements to be provided by programmed bots, and so on.
If their vision sounds like a dystopia for sub-humans, then we need some alternative ideas. Otherwise, they will argue the need for free thinking, debate, and representative republics is over --- since they already have all the answers or they are so far in front that our input (the input of the general represented citizenry) is irrelevant (kabuki).
To me, it is alarming that most analytical philosophers (as well as heads of most institutions) seem to be trending or on board with the expert-managed dystopia of Oligarchic Collectivists.
I am just raising a little itch, to hint that there are bad things lurking in the background.
shunned, suspended, de-sexed, or sacked.
*****************
I am for Trump, full steam. To address the NWO problem it is helpful to name and define the problem. And you are doing a great job at that. For the time being, it is most important to describe these vermin, arouse indignation, and work to defenestrate them.
In the background, however, we do need some visionaries. After all, the NWO people are way out front with their visions: A.I. overlords, immortality on the cloud, open borders, expert farming of the masses, replacement of spiritual insights with Big Gov run by corporatist oligarchs with assigned or syndicated territories, PC indoctrination and mind control over the masses, confiscation of firearms, neutering of the general populace, replacement of families with marrying of the gov, gender dysphoria, purpose anomie, dopamine (soma) induced pleasure uber alles, guaranteed entitlements to be provided by programmed bots, and so on.
If their vision sounds like a dystopia for sub-humans, then we need some alternative ideas. Otherwise, they will argue the need for free thinking, debate, and representative republics is over --- since they already have all the answers or they are so far in front that our input (the input of the general represented citizenry) is irrelevant (kabuki).
To me, it is alarming that most analytical philosophers (as well as heads of most institutions) seem to be trending or on board with the expert-managed dystopia of Oligarchic Collectivists.
I am just raising a little itch, to hint that there are bad things lurking in the background.
*****************
HEAVEN: I cannot reasonably conceptualize a Heaven. Only layers and levels of Consciousness, subject to various cosmic constraints for anticipating and defining unfolding experiences of the Eternal Present. (Many Rooms.) How that which is Past (previous) fluxes with that which is Present (manifest) to produce that which will unfold as Future (anticipation).
IDENTITY: There is no end-times static-condition. Perspectives of Consciousness continue to experience information about the past in the present as they anticipate their future. That's the only heaven. The mystery is: How does any Perspective retain Identity even as it changes, fluxes, and phase shifts over time?
ACTIVATION OF CAUSE-EFFECT (Evaluation of moral worth and reward?): Maybe our conceptualization of unfolding "cause-effect" is inadequate to explain how some patterns are favored over others to flux into manifestation. Maybe the past and present are not sufficient to explain what will be our future.
Consider the Past (accumulation and representation of all previous In-form-ation; Past; Creator-Cumulator-Father). Consider the measurable Present (Substance as it is signified; Present; Present-Presence-Holy Ghost).
ANTICIPATION AND RECONCILIATION: Past Information and present Substance provide parameters and means for signifying and conveying communication. But, may an Observer Effect (Consciousness; Future; Conscious-Anticipation-Son) participate from every Perspective, beyond complete quantification, to anticipate and affect how our measurable paths unfold? Maybe Effects are constrained within parameters as set for a cosmic defining Algorithm, yet not rigidly pre-determining.) Maybe mortals enjoy only participatory will, not free will.
UNFOLDING FEEDBACK LOOP: Maybe what we take to be cause and effect are part of a dynamic feedback loop. Maybe a systemic Trinitarian Godhead (Information-Father, Substance-Holy Ghost), Consciousness-Appreciator-Son) is unavoidably and presently involved with every unfolding choice and its reconciliation with system-defining parameters. Maybe the Godhead is what activates and fluxes the math-based constraints that we measure out as laws of Nature.
PRAYER: If so, apart from intuitive and experiential receptivity, how may we appreciate the character, quality, and unfolding moral purposefulness of the Reconciler?
***************
When we reason, we are applying tests for consistency, coherence, and completeness to a conception (model, metaphor, or representation). We cannot consistently conceptualize an original creation. Nor can we reason our way to a consistent and coherent conceptualization that can provide a model or representation that is a complete. As mortals, we function as perspectives whose identities of self-ness are co-related to a reality that is superior to our births, lives, and deaths. We are not permitted to traverse outside it in order to define it.
That is not to say that sub-systems and sub-cosmos are precluded from phasing in and out of local relevance.
Whether or not information about them can reasonably be said to be lost, it morphs through various forms and permutations of signification and expression. There seems ultimately to abide a Trinitarian flux among Information (past), Substance (present), and Consciousness (future anticipation). To define its ultimate "causal" mechanics is simply beyond our pay grade.
****************
Creative evolution. Jesus wept. God hears prayers. People are agents for the reconciliation of God's Will. We're in this dance together. Why should God be thought so all knowing as to be is incapable of being surprised, pleased, or changing his mind? Why must God's knowing all that can be known be thought equivalent with God's being incapable of changing his mind? If the Godhead consists in a fluxing Trinity, then why must every member of the Trinity be imputed at every place and time to have self-contradicting omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience?
****************
Some scientisimists leap in faith to believe that there was random chaos before a Big Bang, and that out of such chaos there immediately came forth a beginning, from which there abides a pre-determined unfolding in all respects. IOW, that there was random disorder or chaos, and then there was order rigidly enforced under a defining system of algorithmic math.
Others seem to believe there still abides something like unguided chaos that is not entirely random, and that is always balanced to obey a math-based system that governs and conserves our cosmos.
Others may believe there abides chaos that may be guided, so that it must be reconciled to obey a math-based system that governs and conserves our cosmos. They may believe something like consciousness is fundamental to the unfolding capacity of our cosmos to give expression to measurable substance and information.
None knows, or can know, the complete nature or character of any imagined algorithm that our cosmos obeys, either before or after any imagined Big Bang.
If not every measurable event that may unfold has been pre-determined, there seems to be room for choice within controlling parameters. Degrees of freedom under law. All such choices must be reconciled to natural law. Some choices are qualitatively appreciated among perspectives of consciousness. Consciousness rationalizes those qualitative apprehensions under its quantifiably reconciled experiences.
But what does choice mean? Or consciousness? What is the nature or character of consciousness? Does all consciousness share a connecting property? Is it unreasonable to intuit or believe that every perspective of consciousness is simply a different perspective of an underlying same identity, differently appreciated only because of experience of differing series of events unfolding in space-time? (There but for fortune go I?) Is it unreasonable to intuit or believe that empathy is innately related to consciousness intuiting itself in different perspectives?
What, if anything, should guide concerns about morality beyond one's selfish interests or pleasures? If not a collective unconscious, or a connecting or reconciling consciousness, then what?
How can a formulation make coherent (or scientisimic?) or non-faith-based sense merely by advocating for that which produces the most pleasure for the longest time for the most people? How can such a scale be objectively measured, and who can be trusted to measure it? Why should not the formulation be that which produces the least pain for the least time for the greatest number (i.e., a sudden world holocaust)? Why should not ruling elites be entrusted to re-design or re-condition the masses to find their pleasure in ways as preferred by such elites? Scientifically or objectively, why should any ruling elite care about the pleasure or pain or anyone else?
So-called Liberals are not reasonably or coherently called fair minded. First, they said something like freedom to swing your fist should only be limited to the point just before where another person's nose begins. Then, to where his sense of smell begins. Then to where his breathing begins. Then to where his sense of being offended begins. Then to where his favorite fascists have prescribed political correctness for actions or beliefs and for planetary health. Thus spake Liberalism. Spit!
************
No doubt the brain plays a role. But I suspect the entire nervous system plays a part. So whether it's your brain making your decisions or wider factors in your situation (perhaps someone triggering you?) may depend on how encompassing you want to define brain.
I don't claim a magic rock. The effect of consciousness is experience-able. As is the effect of projecting your identity to identify, empathetically, with other perspectives of consciousness. This projection of empathy has been commonly observed among many animals.
Dawkins wrote about the selfish gene. What did he mean, really? Does he have a clue? Are genes consciously selfish? Is the selfishness of genes part of observable reality? Cells operate at a bewildering level of complexity. Are they conscious? Can "randomness" really be a "cause"? As choices are effected and reconciled among all possibilities at every level, are they "caused" by randomness, or are they reconciled in respect of some thing else?
The mystery pertains to the parameters and limits of layers and levels of consciousness. I doubt we can rigorously produce a complete theory of consciousness. Yet, the effects of conscious observers seem to be fundamental to reducing the wave functions of our cosmos. Some thing about our cosmos of Substance and Information seems to necessitate a reconciling role for Consciousness at a fundamental level.
What I claim is that decent civilization can tend to be good, and that such goodness can tend to be facilitated and inspired by encouraging faith in a reconciling source of connecting empathy. That is not empirically falsifiable. Yet, faith in it seems to help make it so. And history seems to support that most of the episodes of mass murder, pillage, and rapine have been at the hands of people whose faith was in plunder, power, and/or subjugation --- whether or not you want to call that faith in plunder is "religious". I suspect that children unchurched in good faith and good will tend to be raised in plunder-friendly homes and hoods. That suspicion may even be testable under limiting conditions.
****************
So where have I said that God exists in observable (measurable) reality? I have conceptualized God as an immeasurable.
Maybe like your identity. Does your conscious identity ("you") exist as an objective, observable reality?
What about laws of nature. Do we observe gravity itself, or do we just measure effects and attribute them to some thing we call gravity? Do we observe morality itself, or do we just experience its effects and attribute them to ... what?
Brain: Actually, some thing makes your decisions a split instant before your brain becomes actually aware to rationalize them. I am not talking about just human consciousness. I am talking about the Source of all consciousness.
******************
Goodly and godly are related. Both determinations are in the mind of the determiner. They are both subjective characterizations of that which is objectively (physically) done or experienced.
In connection with that which is godly, you indicated, "... an unfalsifiable proposition, and should be discarded, because it is the same as saying "my magic rock did it." Now you seem to be saying that which is subjectively (qualitatively) determined to be goodly need not be discarded simply on account of being non-falsifiable, but that which is determined to be godly should be discarded.
So should a person who believes that which is godly is goodly discard or not discard his belief on account of non-falsifiability?
As to source of consciousness, are you saying no thing, whether living or not, can be conscious unless it has a brain/mind? Can you falsify that? If you are saying no thing that is not conscious is conscious, then you are simply saying a tautology/trivial truism. Do you have a conceptualization of consciousness that would allow you to actually say something meaningful?
***************
In connection with that which is godly, you indicated, "... an unfalsifiable proposition, and should be discarded, because it is the same as saying "my magic rock did it." Now you seem to be saying that which is subjectively (qualitatively) determined to be goodly need not be discarded simply on account of being non-falsifiable, but that which is determined to be godly should be discarded.
So should a person who believes that which is godly is goodly discard or not discard his belief on account of non-falsifiability?
As to source of consciousness, are you saying no thing, whether living or not, can be conscious unless it has a brain/mind? Can you falsify that? If you are saying no thing that is not conscious is conscious, then you are simply saying a tautology/trivial truism. Do you have a conceptualization of consciousness that would allow you to actually say something meaningful?
***************
I believe the things you measure with math and observe in physical reality are not things-in-themselves. (Otherwise, tell me what thing-in-itself serves as the building block for measurable Substance.) I think they are appearances, derivative of some Thing that is super natural and not itself measurable in math. I conceptualize that super natural Thing is implicated. And it is what activates math. That activation is what produces appearances of measurable Substance and cumulatively measurable Information (i.e., what you may call observable reality).
Otherwise, your brand of leap of faith would be that math is self activating. In that case, your "god" would be math, even though you cannot falsify whether such math is self actuating.
At some point, whether conscious of it or not, even if only in action as opposed to conscious belief, every sentient person functions based on re-presentations formulated as axiomatic conceptualizations. By definition, an axiomatic belief has not itself been proven or falsified. It is simply used so long as deemed serviceable.
For technological applications, scientific procedures can be applied to test reliability. For civilizing, moral, and value choices, some Thing more than or beyond such scientific testing is needed. That is where cultivated leaps of faith come in. To advocate that such cultures be discarded because not falsifiable would be indecent and despotic.
So if you think something is good, but its goodness cannot be subjected to rigorous analysis or falsification, then it should be discarded!? Is the goodness of human civilization or being alive subject to rigorous falsification? Should the world be destroyed or discarded because you cannot falsify its goodness?
Do you mean to suggest that nothing that exists or that has ever existed is beyond immediate falsification? Are you suggesting that nothing can be existentially true unless it is false?
Btw, it does not matter what you call God. It would matter if you believe that your idea of God has prescribed specific moral values to rule all time. Like don't sell alcohol on Sunday, etc. But that is far different from simply believing that there abides a general Source that experiences conscious interest and empathy in reconciling the apprehensions of its various perspectives.
Consciousness is consciousness. It intuits itself in other perspectives. Otherwise, what would be your interest in communicating with me? I simply advocate for the empathy of Consciousness, the Source of which I call "God." That empathy is the justification for good faith (Great Commandment) and good will (Golden Rule) --- i.e., the fundamental supports of decent civilization.
Even were you to conceptualize a math in which 1 +1 equals 5, but you have two and only two people who think they are leprechauns, then you still would not in that way have five people who thought they were leprechauns. Well, except in your unconstrained and therefore unreasoning imagination.
In every practicable demonstration, I thing contemporaneously plus another of such kind of thing has meant there are then and there two of such things. Unless you want to bring in vibrating, parallel, or virtual universes. But then you would be just conflating, by modifying "then and there."
You seem to be talking about geometry like proofs, where the result is derivative of the axioms. If you want to call scientific tests "practically reliable replications" instead of proofs, that is fine. In that case, my point is that we cannot subject the Godhead to practicably reliable replications. IOW, we cannot replicate an origin of our cosmos. That is not to say that we cannot produce a sub-cosmos or virtual cosmos.
But when you say math is an idea, made by humans, you lose me. Monkeys can count. Things potentially subject to quantifiables exist, regardless of humans. Chemical and physical reactions in distant stars unfold consistent with potential measurements, regardless of whether any human is presently measuring them. What are often called laws of nature have been math based, even before humans evolved.
***********
There is a difference between evidence and proof. I believe there is qualitative evidence (reason to believe), but not quantifiable evidence. I don't believe science can control, predict, replicate, or prove the interpenetrating of the Trinitarian Godhead. Science is math based. I don't believe holistic consciousness could exist without math, but neither do I believe that the Godhead is purely math. I suspect the Godhead activates math, but is not in math, and neither could it exist without math.
I doubt the Godhead could exist other than Trinitarian. I doubt Consciousness could exist other than in association with Substance (measurable presentation) and Information (cumulation of re-presentations) --- even "before the beginning." I doubt a coherent conceptualization can support a beginning. More like a flux-phasing ... in innumerable permutations. I suspect no-measurable-thing exists that is not derivative of Math being activated by a qualitative-immeasurable (Consciousness). I doubt the Godhead could exist without (or "outside of") Math. I think the consciousness of the Godhead is an immeasurable thing that is qualitatively tied to math, but that cannot itself be measured in math or be sensibly conceptualized as being within any measurable thing.
We don't have free will. We have participatory will within a math-based system of feedback that imposes rules of conservation of substance (matter and energy). Meaningful self expression and communication necessitates a system of math based conservation. The Godhead experiences self expression through multitudinous perspectives, all of which obey math based conservation. That implicates flux, change, sacrifice, competition and cooperation, life/death, circle of life. https://youtu.be/LxJBYhsExT0
****************
To observe something is to relate to it. To relate to it is to be influenced by it. To be influenced by a thing is not to be free and independent of it. No free-and-independent-thing or thing-in-itself can meaningfully exist. There is no meaningful thing in itself. Rather, there abides a Trinitarian flux. :)
I prefer not to imagine myself to be separate and apart from reason. Without reason constrained to things represented in math, there would be no severable communications, perspectives, or identities (or you).
I don't think you can take a break from math. Without math based Substance, there would be no means of communication and no-thing to communicate. I think there is differentiation among aspects of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. But they are not entirely apart. Rather, they are Trinitarian. Each defines itself in a flux that consists in terms of the other two.
Without Consciousness, there would be no sense to Substance or Information. Without Substance, there would be no sense to Consciousness or Information. Without Information, there would be no sense to Consciousness or Substance.
I'm talking about the math that exists, whether we learn it or not. That math, like logic, is fundamental to reason. And without reason, we're just babbling, not even approaching understanding. :)
I suspect all of Substance and Information reduce, ultimately, to Consciousness as it functions from different perspectives in respect of math, and without which Consciousness could not function, imagine, or communicate.
What you take to be Substance (measurable presentation) and Information (storage of re-presentations of past expressions of Substance) is merely the derivative of Consciousness working with Math.
I suspect there was more truth to The Matrix than many people appreciate. The real issue is: What chooses and activates the math-based system that defines how our cosmos operates.
No one invented numbers. We just gave them names. Numbers and Math have existed from "the Beginning." Nuclear reactions that obey math based laws have been occurring throughout the cosmos, long before humanity learned how to produce them.
Because the ultimate mystery is not in the math. The mystery is in that which chooses and activates the math-based system in respect of which our cosmos operates. IOW, what is the quality of the spiritual essence that activates the math?
That mystery is not answerable in math, science, or logic. But it may be approached in qualitatives of intuition and reason that are ultimately based in fundamental senses: Of math-based systemic conservation, of beingness (consciousness), of balance (equations), and of spin (perspective).
We can't empirically test the origin of our cosmos. But we mortals can devise explanations concerning practical applications within it that tend towards consistency, coherence, and completeness, without ever actually achieving the perfect explanation.
An interesting aspect is this: How we devise our explanations does affect how we feed back to affect how our world unfolds. IOW, our relation with the Godhead is one of dynamic feedback.
We don't have free will. We have participatory will within a math-based system of feedback that imposes rules of conservation of substance (matter and energy). Meaningful self expression and communication necessitates a system of math based conservation. The Godhead experiences self expression through multitudinous perspectives, all of which obey math based conservation. That implicates flux, change, sacrifice, competition and cooperation, life/death, circle of life. https://youtu.be/LxJBYhsExT0
Meanwhile, KJU walks in the garden of the bomb, while the serpent tells him to eat of its fruit. While millions of other sociopaths, narcissists, and suicidals also lust. If survival requires constant monitoring for thought crime, the sub-humanization of mankind, trans-humanity, and the arrival of Borgdom may be at hand, where a singularity will dictate what we must tolerate and believe about it. Can decent humanity survive?
***************
I am bored by same sex marriage apologists. No one was stopping gays from celebrating as they wished. The concern is the extent to which the general citizenry should be required to fund and join in their celebrations. IAE, I am uninterested in conversing about that with its apologists pretending to be principled.
I agree with Sam Harris that we do not have free will. I do not agree that everything is predetermined. That idea depressed JSM. Nor do I think everything is random. I think there a feedback dynamic that is at work. The question is: is that dynamic in connection with a fundamental role of consciousness? Our cosmos obeys math-based rules of nature. Intuition suggests those rules tie together in respect of a system. Everything that unfolds has to be reconciled with a conservation of that system.
I have read JSM. I find him to be an incoherent genius. I think that is obvious to anyone who reads him. If you think he is consistent and coherent, that is fine by me. You can keep running that circle. Chuckle. Same with Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Those knowitalls and moral scientisimists need to have a little more respect for Godel, imo.
When you provide a rigorous definition (or even a consistent starting point) for what you objectively mean by first cause, causation, liberty, freedom, will, consciousness, or even marriage, I may take you more seriously. Meantime, it is fine by me if you want to enjoy believing yourself to have scientific answers to issues that many people see as being beyond science.
Do you enjoy conscious will? Do you participate in society and the world? Is the unfolding of physical relations and reactions constrained in respect of rules of nature? Are you able to manipulate matter or energy in any way that defies rules of conservation? Are you able to feed one thing without sacrificing another? Do you experience consciousness? Do you intuit consciousness abides also with perspectives other than your own? Can you falsify that? Does the cosmos undergo flux and phase shifts? Does evolution of individuals implicate competition, and does evolution of groups implicate cooperation?
Sorry, but if you find such questions to be hard or woo-woo, I simply find you too stupid to bother with. Goo goo day to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment