Super-Being, Living Algorithm. and Mathicality

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

Some people need to believe in metaphors as if they were direct presentations of Reality. Ironically, that group would include both religious fundies and atheists that, misguidedly, think they can substitute *"objective moral truths"* for subjectively conscious appreciations of metaphors.

***Under what "objective reasoning" should the pleasure and/or non-suffering of populations of humans be morally favored over transhumans, subhumans, or nonhumans? Absent something like church forums for assimilating values and purposes in good faith and good will, I do not see how any answer (whether or not valid) to such a question can be derived under any principles of "pure reason."

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

If you want to appreciate principals of logic and reason, you might want to delve deeper to appreciate how fields of math may be activated. You might be assuming or interpreting fields of math as if they were illusions of physicality.

Nietzsche: “What therefore is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthropomorphisms: in short a sum of human relations which became poetically and rhetorically intensified, metamorphosed, adorned, and after long usage seem to a notion fixed, canonic, and binding; truths are illusions of which one has forgotten that they are illusions; worn-out metaphors which have become powerless to affect the senses; coins which have their obverse effaced and now are no longer of account as coins but merely as metal.”

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

We do not sense Reality as it presents for itself. We sense relationships and re-presentations of reality, as they are filtered and interpreted through our particular senses. Whatever the substance, body, or brain that relates, receives, senses, or stores such Information, it happens to be formed to have capacity to so sense and store such re-presented Information.

The metaphysical questions implicated are: Who or what produces the forms that have such capacity, and why?

For all we can know, the Producer may be some Being (meta-verse or meta-reconciler?) whose essence is beyond our capacity to control or predict, but not beyond our capacity to intuit and appreciate.

We can manipulate practical and measurable relationships (not physical things in themselves) to astonishing degrees and levels of significance. However, we cannot see, sense, or measure Reality directly. For all we know, all that we sense may be derivative of nothing more than a metaphysical essence as it activates and operates with an algorithmic field of math. As we ever further divide the so-called part-icles with which we relate, we may come to surmise that, ultimately, such particles are "made out of" little more than "activated math." Perhaps math under the influence of an interpenetrating and reconciling Producer that is too far beyond our kin to be able to explain itself in any literal, non-metaphoric terms to our limiting and particular perspectives.

In that case, if a person cannot appreciate metaphors, he is nerd-ily missing what is most significant about his mental life. That is something you may need to work on for yourself.

I do not care whether you prefer to believe in a meta-verse instead of a meta-reconciler. I merely think belief in a meta-reconciler is reasonable, given the alternative, and it has added capacity for helping to inspire and assimilate codes of civilizing mores --- regardless of how such mores may flux over time. I think your idea of objective mores to be derived out of nothing more than pure reason in respect of an assumption of something like a dumb multiverse is hollow, misguided, uninspiring, and historically harmful to humanity. How many millions suffered under godless Communism?

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

Maybe you mean forms of in-form-ational order can tend to arise out of chaos, notwithstanding entropy. While forms of information-poor substance tend to dissipate, forms of information-enriched substance tend to evolve by natural selection? (But what, apart from labels after the fact, favors which information-enriched bodies?)

Of course one can so conceptualize! One can conceptualize many things. To me, the trick is to conceptualize an orientation that is as consistent, coherent, and complete as possible, that does not impede science, does not run counter to intuition, and that helps to inspire decent civilization.

***********

Does the Father not feel the discipline of loneliness and the pain of disrespect?

How much euthanasia would be needed, if pain signals were eliminated? Would we need population control agents? How much technological advancement is dependent on war, as the mother of invention?

We all work under the whip of hunger and necessity. Were it otherwise, how unambitious and disrespectful would we be? Should everyone be made unambitious, so no one would feel the pain of envy?

Try yoga.

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

There are arguments and rationalizations for both orientations (multiverse and meta Reconciler), even though neither orientation seems to affect our practical physical measurements. I don't know how a multiverse could be evidenced in measurable terms. And I don't know how God could prove himself outside the math parameters for our world.

Regardless of how improbable our world may be, a metaverse person could always argue that there must be enough worlds to make ours inevitable. But any measurements he took as "evidence" would be measurements in our world. IAE, how could he provably square "natural causation" with quantum indeterminacy?

Otoh, a meta-Reconciler person can always argue that every action taken by God in our world must necessarily comport with the math parameters that limit and define our world.

Do we live in a world of natural determination or a world of reconciliation of conscious choices? I don't think an experiment can rationally tilt the argument either way. That is, if one distinguishes between rationality and rationalization. Or between determining and choosing. Or influencing and reconciling.

Maybe all that is "required" is orientation of consciousness.

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

I think more work is needed on your ideas. Your assumption that a good life is possible without suffering seems to me to be too immature to merit a response. As to making the world objectively or secularly better or less suffering, I think that tends to self-contradiction. Suffering is inherently personal and subjective. If you imagine there is some objective standard for morality, such as "the reasonable sufferer," I think that is a nonsense path to madness or indecent respect for the free-thinking sensibilities of others.

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

Indeed. Were our language and metaphors freed of connotative relationship with our past, I think we would tend to lose wisdom that comes with historical perspective. To make oneself ignorant of one's history and development of language and metaphors would be to lose much of one's connection with one's past.

Of course, as people-farmers come to prefer to educate and indoctrinate us to become sheeple, they will prefer that all ideas that might shape or spur individual thinking be flushed down the memory hole.

Instead of banning or "hating on" the Bible, I would prefer that people put it in historical perspective. I do not mind if a person finds some ideas in the Bible to express wisdom and other ideas to express folly. I do mind that anyone would claim moral authority to ban the Bible as "hate speech."

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

I think literal truths tend to be tautological or trivial. I think the most important communications tend to be metaphorical. I think our math-based scientific models, although often practical to astonishing orders of significance, will always and necessarily be incomplete.

I agree that the idea of a meta Reconciling Consciousness is a conceptual metaphor. I do not purport to know the substance of what may be behind it, if anything. But I believe that Consciousness is part of a fluxing, Trinitarian fundament for the unfolding expression of our universe, along with measurable Substance and cumulating Information.

I think respect for an idea of a Reconciling Consciousness (God) can (not must) help inspire societies to build decent civilizations. I do not think mere empiricism can fulfill that role.


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

That's why I referred to fittest for replication.

Even so, fyi, the fact remains that such an explanation is more a label for a result than an explanation. It merely says that which is favorably replicated was most fit to be replicated. It does not answer why the niche/guide found such replication to be most fit.

When a garden flourishes with fruit, it tends to have a care-taking, weed-picking gardener. When one weed drives out all other weeds, is that mere happenstance of soil/water/weather/season/varmints, or is it something more?

Is "happenstance" an "explanation"?

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

I agree that "scientific system of mores" is like an oxymoron. I would disagree that mores can be objectively proven. I would agree that objective testing can help us find practical ways to effect desired results.

I disagree that objective testing can answer larger and more important questions, such as: To what larger purposes should I devote my work? To what kind of civilization should a decent society aspire? How much autonomy can reasonably or safely be allowed to each citizen? Can suffering, sacrifice, or discipline be put to good use?

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

You are saying things fall because that is how the math parameters for our system are set up. You are not explaining how those parameters came to be set up, nor to what extent they may come to flux.

Math models help us take measurements. Such models can never completely account for the effect of who or what is taking the measurement. To say events cannot find expression outside math-based parameters (such as those under the heading of gravity) is not to explain why such parameters exist, nor is it to explain why events at a particular level were determined.

Nor is there any math-based model that can be used to control or predict all events. We can use math of probabilities to try to predict or control gross events in respect of orders of significance, often to astonishing levels of accuracy. However, even with regard to gross events, we seem unable completely to solve the butterfly effect.

I understand that mutations occur. I understand that some may be selectively advantaged. What I take issue with is why some are selectively advantaged and others are not. If you are a breed designer, you can, to some extent, guide and control for what you want to selectively advantage. Example: Dog breeds. If you are a gene designer, you may do likewise for any species. In that case, the evolution you produced would be guided evolution (subject to a "law of unintended consequences").

The meta question begged, which cannot be "answered" except upon resort to meta concepts is: What is doing the guiding? To say the guide is nothing more than random feedback based on what is most advantageous to a particular niche is an after-the-fact "explanation." It is to take what occurs and say it must have been "most fit."

IAE, such a notion cannot explain or answer the moral question: What should we value or seek to make most advantageous?

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

Well, is a meta multiverse required to "explain" how a particular historical set of events were determined/allowed/caused/chosen out of all events that were possible within the parameters of whatever the algorithm that avails our physical and mental expression? If you prefer to believe in such a meta multiverse wherewith all possibilities find expression, then perhaps you might feel less need to believe/intuit a meta consciousness?

Even so, such belief in a meta multiverse is more a label for expressing preference not to believe in a meta consciousness than it is an empirically testable "explanation." (You cannot escape that whatever the test results you measure subject to our universe, such results would be within our universe.)

The underlying question is not whether events, things, and beings change and evolve. The question is whether that change and evolution is guided/appreciated/reconciled. To say things change because of evolution seems a bit like saying things fall because of gravity. In that sense, the words evolution and gravity are labels, not explanations. To say that which is most fit to its niche is what tends to survive and replicate is like saying those things that happen to survive and replicate are what were most fit. That is a label for a result, not an explanation. It does not answer whether what happens to survive and replicate is what was guided, reconciled, or mere happenstance or order arising out of chaos. It does not answer whether conscious appreciation is a fundament of the cosmos.

Because Jesus was smart enough to speak in parables, figures of speech, metaphors. If He thought the Old Testament was a complete and literal explanation, why would He have considered words for a New Testament to be needed? Why do you try to head butt metaphors into literalisms? How do you expect to build on good faith and good will if you always want to cut off and discard the sacred metaphors of the past? Do you think you have a provably better system of metaphors for inspiring people to come together in good faith and good will to try to assimilate and express common values and purposes? Do you have some scientific system of mores that you expect to inspire everyone to adopt?

From mortal perspective, we cannot say whether, or understand how, the cosmos or its vacuum of infinite potentiality could have had a beginning. Since we reason in terms of equations that balance (action/reaction, cause/effect, matter/antimatter, plus/minus/zero), it seems to comport better with our mode of reasoning to take the cosmic potentiality as always having been, being, and will be.

That said, the specific laws of nature that define the fluxing and unfolding parameters for our present experience of universe do seem to have had a common origin (beginning/creation).

In respect of the above, to quibble with the important lessons of Jesus (Great Commandment/good faith and Golden Rule/good will) because one quibbles with His figures of speech seems silly/juvey. To try to reason with someone who wants to confine the cosmos to some exact, literal, non-metaphoric explanation is the road to head-banging madness.

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

The unfolding manifestations of Substances that cumulate Information that are measurable to Consciousness, which itself defies complete measurement ad infinitum, is a kind of self-evidence of a connecting, empathetic, Godhead.

Because IT is mathematically infinite in potential representation in geometry and chronology, IT cannot be completely confined or controlled for any perfectly calibrated explication to any mortal.

The only evidence consists with self evidence, intuition, and innate empathy. To assume the Godhead should be provable in terms of scientific evidence is to assume the Godhead away. It is to stupidly lose the debate by unwittingly adopting the opponent's assumption that there cannot abide anything that is beyond the methods of science of science of science ....

It seems easier to believe in miracles generally than in any particular miracle. Maybe because particular miracles tend to have our hands all over them.

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

I do not think that everything that can be measured is conscious. I do think that everything that can be measured is an expression that is derivative with consciousness at some level. Sometimes closely associated with an organism, sometimes remotely associated.

As consciousness abides, receives, and relates to surrounding substance and information, it may be driven by needs, stimuli, instinct, hunger, capacity to receive or represent or abstract or identify with or appreciate information. All may be considered as varieties or forms of purposefulness. I did not suggest that purposefulness must be pre-planned, precisely vectored, or single minded. Why would you intimate such a thing?

Can a particular expression of consciousness know and have complete power over what it wants to do? I doubt it.

I don't get your notion about a non-sequitur. I did not say that consciousness itself is directly, completely, objectively measurable in respect of conservation. I indicated that the measurable forms that are substantively expressed with consciousness are subject to conservation. Otherwise, they would not be measurable. How we relate to them is how we communicate. Measurable substance is what avails the logos with which we communicate. The physical universe is a conservational sea of measurables by which communication is availed. Do you imagine you could convey ideas while outside physics?

Whatever Consciousness is, it is not a thing in itself. It cannot be expressed except in flux with Substance and Information. I am not trying to make a distinction between consciousness and awareness that would make any difference to my conceptualization.

If one prefers not to conceptualize a metaphysical multiverse, by what name does one refer to that which determines which among myriad of potential possibilities actually come into measurable manifestation? I refer to that determiner as Consciousness, which abides with perhaps innumerable local fields of perspective. I do not pretend to be able to subjugate it to any meta-meta determiner-determiner, nor to any TOE. Perhaps you are anxious because you want to measure, close, or confine that which is beyond measurement, closure, or confinement? To me, that would be a fool's errand --- especially were it to be undertaken by anyone who seeks to give or receive guidance about moral purposefulness.

No local perspective of consciousness has power to control, determine, or reconcile how the universe as a whole unfolds. But each can part-iciate. Perhaps in physically measurable terms, that participation may entail feedback between the sum of the parts and the conservation of the holism. Reconciliation. We do not have free will to overrule the parameters that define and avail us. We do avail expression of participatory will.


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

To be conscious is to be driven by purposefulness. I think consciousness is a fundament, as much as substance and information.

I think substance is measurable only in respect of equational balancing, I.e., conservation.

I think communication among perspectives of consciousness would not avail but for the law of conservation.

I think forms and patterns of all kinds can tend to spread, replicate, and perpetuate as they find a niche that supports them, and vice versa.

I think events tend to be contemporaneously determined, not pre-caused. I think events unfold as permissible correlates. They are not pre-determined except as to parameters, but they are conserved and reconciled.

I think participation in determining events is fundamental to communication.

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

There are many ideas about God, though I am not sure it makes sense to call them definitions.

To me, a Godhead that contemporaneously reconciles to determine among all possible manifestations, in order to avoid the metaphysics of a multiverse, has all the power there is. That is what I mean by omnipotence.

I am concerned with appreciating the procession of the "eternal present" and what may be our empathetic connection with that. I am not concerned with vain questions like, could an all powerful God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it, etc. It seems madness for a mortal to try to pass on issues of original creation, etc. When I think of what is possible for the Godhead, I do not concern myself with whether the Godhead can possibly do the impossible. I see that as good sense, not as giving the Godhead "A PASS."

IOW, I do not presume impossibilities in order to try to resolve impossibilities. Rather, I try to appreciate what seems obvious: We must eat to live; we are nurtured by a system of conservation so that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction; and, as consciously aware beings, we are innately endowed with capacities for empathy.

I think consciousness is a fundament of the universe. I think consciousness from every perspective carries this common characteristic: That we differ in our perspectives only because of temporary differences in genes, forms, and situations. The more the genes, forms, and situations come to be similar, the more similarity we experience among our perspectives, and the more we tend to discover that we are of one and the same consciousness. I think this is what makes empathy innate. Even though, to ward off loneliness, consciousness formulates various perspectives. And that entails competition within a system of conservation. IOW, we have to eat to survive, but we don't have to be brutes about it.

To me, the Godhead is expressed among three fluxing fundaments: Subjective Consciousness, Objectively measurable Substance, and cumulating Information. The flux obeys a conserving algorithm. I do not concern myself with whether the Godhead wrote that algorithm as an original creation. I am simply satisfied that it abides.

I see sacred stories more as commonly appreciated metaphors and music for inspiring people to come together in empathetic appreciation, to assimilate and share unfolding values, purposes, and sciences. I do not see them as literal truths for eternally binding existentiality. For that matter, neither do I see scientific models as literal truths in themselves. Rather, they also are models of reality, not reality itself. As such, they can never make a completely true exposition of "reality." To me, to think otherwise is to reason in circles. And I try to avoid that game.

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

I don't disagree that we don't know. There are conundrums with knowing much that is not trivial. For all we know, we are living in some math-based simulation. But how we act is often based on which way we incline.

My concern is: What is needed to incline a citizenry to establish and sustain a decent society for free-thinking responsible minded adults? Other people may prefer a citizenry of sheep or mind slaves that can be pulled around by corrupt elites that believe almost solely in their power and pleasure.

From what I gather from History, Christian inclinations have tended towards the first, while Islamic inclinations have tended towards the latter. Half the population is below average intelligence or competence, and perhaps they especially need group assurances to inspire and assimilate them. Other people may more likely sense the changing metaphoric values of sacred stories and tradition. To try to do away with such stories wholesale tends, I think, to loose counterproductive anarchy and mayhem upon the land.

Some people of good faith and good will believe dumb nature can provide inspiration enough. Presumably, many of them believe in some basis for moral empathies that is higher than happenstance. Their actions suggest faith in a source of higher mindedness, even if in their words they disclaim any idea of god. To me, however, God and a source of higher mindedness are one and the same.

Other people have been so turned off by religion or so filled with their own self esteem that they feel entitled to deploy every pretense and every outrage to take pleasure in acquiring and abusing power over others. Cannily, they often claim to be some kind of oracles of truth, here to save the multitudes from deception. Some become so zealous they deceive themselves to believe they are the one shining virtue.

You suggest a stance of not-knowing. I don't disagree. To believe is not to know. Neither is to doubt. What I care about is a stance of acting. How we behave. And I believe how we behave and what we believe and how we tip tends to be indicative of whether we prefer the first (representative republicanism) over the latter (mind enslavement).

You seem to have faith that we someday may actually know whether there abides a multiverse. Of course, we can play tricks with definitions and, whatever we find, declare it to be a multiverse or evidence of it. Problem is, to open a gateway, wormhole, or even insight into the workings of a multiverse tends, I think, necessarily to make it part of our system. Part of our universe. Which puts us back to square one.

I am not a fan of Pascal's Wager. Fruits of possible Heaven do not factor much into my belief system. I am far more concerned with fruits of possible decent civilization.

You seem to believe the masses would be better served by leading, cajoling, or perhaps even forcing them to give up their sacred metaphors. Perhaps because you believe you could fill that void with a better appreciation of "the truth" about moral empathies and purposes. As if to give up poetry, art, and literature in favor of spinning ever more fanciful math-based theories about a "dumb" nature. But I think that is the road to Hollow Men.

I don't follow your notion that Occam's Razor is better served by an idea of a multiverse than by an idea of a meta-Reconciler. IAE, I believe both notions will perpetually proceed with their own conundrums.

I end with this: I suspect much of what we become, both in moral character and in scientific prowess, has a self-fulfilling aspect. What we become tends to follow what we consume --- physically and mentally. I suspect we may someday acquire capacity to develop and/or preside over our own math-based simulations. But I doubt we will ever have an entirely consistent, coherent, and complete explanation for our position inside of beingness.


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

A human being expresses consciousness.

I think humanity would benefit by thinking deeper about the nature of conscious awareness and various limiting perspectives of it. That entails a process of feedback and meditation. I think consciousness is consciousness, and it is connecting --- even though it may bond to limiting perspectives such that it is only dimly aware of it. What is identity? If "you" had your genes and memories switched out with mine, would you no longer be you? Under our genes and memories, I suspect we are all of the same fundament. (There but for fortune go I.)

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

A trip you may prefer not to take:

The other day I was thinking about the nature of reality. That is, whether it is "really" more math-like than physical-like. I do not think any physical model can really scale our universe in any 3-D or 4-D model. I do think slices of it can be represented, as by arbitrarily selecting some particular planet or galaxy as being a center. In that way, visible conical slices of our visible universe may be re-presentable in a 4-D virtual presentation projected by a computer.

Some people think of our world or universe as being much like a computer. That got me thinking about the possible limits of computer aided projectionism. Which seems to relate to what some people are thinking about a matrix or simulation or a Type 3 or Type 4 "alien" being.

A possible Type 4 Godhead:

Imagine a super-being with computer-enhanced senses, memory, and projective iterative capacity. What I would call a kind of Living Algorithm.

No mortal can construct a physical model that would demonstrate in real 4-D that our space-time (sequence-recordation-renormalizing web) seems to express: A universe in which most galaxies appear to be near equidistant in all vector directions from each next galaxy, and so on. IOW, a universe in which space appears to be stretching more or less uniformly between galaxies, so that each galaxy, from its perspective, appears to be in a center of the visible universe, with no galaxy approaching much more so-called empty space than any other. IOW, with space expanding between galaxies, but otherwise having no discernible boundary or edge. Such a situation of stretchable space can be physically analogized, but not physically demonstrated in its entirety at any one time in any scaled 3-D model. At least, not to any mortal incapable of occupying multiple perspectives at the same time across multiple frames of reference.

HOWEVER, a computer fed with enough data could project a conical slice of the visible universe from the perspective of an Earthling. Such slice could be projected on a flat screen, a curved balloon surface, or in a 3 or 4 D virtual reality projection.

And it could project such a slice from any possible star perspective along any possible cone. It could project each such slice with clocks renormalized for comparison purposes to any local perspective(s).

Now, imagine a super-being with computer enhanced senses to allow it to imagine and/or project such information. With capacity to zoom in to take a special interest in any local situation. Perhaps even with iterative capacity, to experience multiple or innumerable perspectives all at once, renormalized with its super-perspective of time (reconciliation of chronology-protection for all loci). IOW, with capacity to experience and feel the unfolding quality of every local perspective of consciousness and every local recordation of information.

Such a super-being would be like a Living Algorithm. With capacity to connect, experience, and reconcile every perspective.

Q: Would each of its iterative expressions be like a separate god, or would all connect, entangle, superimpose, coordinate, and reconcile as one Godhead?

Insofar as our experience of beingness seems to entail three fundaments (being consciousness and measurable substance and cumulating information), could such a Godhead account for the unfolding flux, expression, and reconciliation of all manifestations of such fundaments? Could this constitute a Type 4 intelligence, to be considered alongside Michiko Kaku's types (0,1,2 and 3)?

From our mortal perspectives, how could we imagine the "physical components" of any such a computation-aided super-being? I doubt we can. The "stuff" that may comprise it and/or its field of algorithmic math would seem to remain metaphysical to us --- at least so long as our perspectives remain tied to mortality.

In a way, as we mediate, may we be feeding back to IT?

If so, what may be IT's algorithmic response, as what we call our universe dissipates towards ever more entropic disorganization of Substance, even as it cumulates ever more recordation and organization of Information?

I am just an egg. :)

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

So you are quite sure of yourself as an oracle of truth, to save the multitudes from deception, metaphors, and poetry? Cool. S/

Feelings and appearances are not real? What about relationships? Or theories of physics that are incomplete?

Apart from trivialities and tautologies, I'm not confident there is much objective truth that is not tinged with subjectivity. I think consciousness is a fundament with the flux, much as measurable substance and cumulating information. A practical key seems to be in how what we take as "truth" is useful to our purposes. And our purposes tend to be subjective.

Now I think you are cheating, by diverting and limiting to fundamentalist creationists. Or maybe Giant Flying Spaghetti Monsters? Or maybe Pastafarians?

I do not concern myself with them. Or with an original creation or creator. I am concerned with a meta-Reconciler. Which I think is reasonable to refer to as God.

If you did not mean by your argumentation to denigrate belief in a general idea of a meta-Reconciler, I think it was incumbent on you to say so.

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

Whatever the Reconciler does will accord with math parameters. So math cannot be used to prove any special god intervention. The miracle is the universe itself, and our availment to participate in how it unfolds. It may be that the Reconciler has different levels and qualities of special interest, but I do not see any way to prove that, apart from feelings and intuitions innate to each individual.

Some make an anthropic argument that the fine tuning for our universe entails a miraculous involvement. Others "explain" the fine tuning by imagining there must be a perhaps infinite number of parallel universes, and ours just happens to be one that allows life to unfold.

There are reasons to believe or not believe. But I do not think upon miracles as constituting proof either way. Even when something seemingly inexplicable occurs, can you know whether it occurred by chance, by science of alien intervention, or by God? By what miracle does there seem to abide any uncaused agent of causation? Are events caused by an entirely dumb nature, or are they contemporaneously determined with reconciliations of conscious involvement? Are we all connected in consciousness?

Still, when you consider the various human expressions of seemingly godlike talents --- in music, art, math, and science --- one may get an eerie sense of something faint but insistent that guides us. Have you ever worked on a difficult problem that seemed insolvable, then awakened with the solution in your brain, almost as if put there by a higher power?

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

Now I think you are cheating, by diverting and limiting to fundamentalist creationists. Or maybe Giant Flying Spaghetti Monsters? Or maybe Pastafarians?

I do not concern myself with them. Or with an original creation or creator. I am concerned with a meta-Reconciler. Which I think is reasonable to refer to as God.

If you did not mean by your argumentation to denigrate belief in a general idea of a meta-Reconciler, I think it was incumbent on you to say so.


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

It was explained. Simply and clearly. But you cannot understand. I wonder what that means?

I'll try again:

- Science works with hypotheticals that are selected and meant to be testable with data that is MEASURABLE.
- Everything that is manifested to physical measurability necessarily conforms with limits allowed under laws of physics.
- Whatever may become measurably manifest within the rules of physics cannot be measured to be outside the rules of physics.
- So long as an event conforms to math-based rules of physics (or statistics), it cannot be evidenced to have been decided or CAUSED outside of physics.

- However, quantum mechanics does not specify every precise unfoldment within any system of math-based laws.
- This is why many physicists resort to an idea of a multiverse. In that way, they try to preserve their idea that every event that occurs is entirely consistent with natural (non-god reconciled) "causation."
- Under their causation-faith, a metaphysical idea of a multiverse somehow saves their idea that every event in our universe is entirely ruled (pre-determined?) by natural "causation." IOW, by imagining a metaphysical multiverse, some shout as a kind of fundie dogmatic belief that they have disproven or dis-evidenced any idea of a causal role for a metaphysical Reconciler.

- However, a god-believer can just as validly say that his belief in a metaphysical Reconciler is no more metaphysically unreasonable than a belief in a metaphysical multiverse "where every event that is possible is made to occur in some universe."
- In both cases, the meta-god believer and the meta-multiverse believer will observe the same QM evidence, but will INTERPRET THE EVIDENCE as supporting his faith as being the more reasonable (and parsimonious) "explanation of how causation is reconciled."
- In neither case could such evidence falsify the main assumption (untestable postulation), because both are based on assumptions that are beyond physics, i.e., metaphysical.

- At that point, what "should" (in any principled sense of science and/or morality) tip the belief scale?
Whatever it is, I would call it intuition, introspection. Maybe even good faith empathy, conscious self-evidence, or common sense. If both belief systems are equally non-hindering to science, but one better avails a more consistent, coherent, and complete assimilation of civilizing mores, then which belief system would make the most common sense?

Bottom line: It is stupid to complain that a system of physics based on measurables cannot be dis-evidenced based on evidence that is measurable. Rather, the only "evidence" consists in evidence and experience that no math-based system explains all of causation in our universe.

You are committing the fallacy of mis-interpreting the role of evidence, to complain as if there were no evidence. But there is evidence that the "explanation" of that which is naturally non-predictable but multi-possible is beyond physics, that is, metaphysical.

So what you seem really to be complaining about is that such evidence cannot sustain proof or falsifiability concerning the character of that metaphysics. IOW, you are simply complaining that your unprovable postulation of a meta-multiverse is somehow (unprovably) "more evidenced" than the postulation of a believer in a meta-Reconciler. IOW, you are merely complaining about the interpretation of the EVIDENCE, which is equally available to both meta-assumptions. To argue as if faith in a meta-Reconciler is less evidenced than faith in a rationalization of a meta-multiverse is simply silly.

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

THE GODHEAD:

Might syncretism, as it becomes computer aided, lead to common or renormalizing synthesis?

THE GODHEAD:

Imagine a super-being with computer-enhanced senses, memory, and projective iterative capacity. What I call a Living Algorithm.

No mortal can construct a physical model that would demonstrate in real 4-D that our space-time (sequence-recordation-renormalizing web) seems to express: A universe in which most galaxies appear to be near equidistant in all vector directions from each next galaxy, and so on. IOW, a universe in which space appears to be stretching more or less uniformly between galaxies, so that each galaxy, from its perspective, appears to be in a center of the visible universe, with no galaxy approaching much more so-called empty space than any other. IOW, with space expanding between galaxies, but otherwise having no discernible boundary or edge. Such a situation of stretchable space can be physically analogized, but not demonstrated in any 3-D or 4-D model.

HOWEVER, a computer fed with enough data could project a conical slice of the visible universe from the perspective of an Earthling. Such slice could be projected on a flat screen or in a 3 or 4 D virtual reality projection. And it could project such a slice from any possible star perspective along any possible cone. And it could project each such slice with clocks renormalized for comparison purposes to any local perspectives. Now, imagine a super-being with computer enhanced senses to allow it to imagine and/or project such information. With capacity to zoom in to take a special interest in any local situation. Perhaps even with iterative capacity, to experience multiple or innumerable perspectives all at once, renormalized with its super-perspective of time (reconciliation of chronology-protection for all loci). IOW, with capacity to experience and feel the unfolding quality of every local perspective of consciousness and every local recordation of information.

Such a super-being would be like a Living Algorithm. With capacity to experience and reconcile every perspective.

Q: Would each of its iterative expressions be like a separate god, or would all connect, entangle, superimpose, coordinate, and reconcile as one Godhead? Insofar as our experience of beingness seems to entail three fundaments (being consciousness and measurable substance and cumulating information), could such a Godhead account for the unfolding flux, expression, and reconciliation of all manifestations of such fundaments? Could this constitute a Type 4 intelligence, to be considered alongside Michiko Kaku's types (0,1,2 and 3)?

From our mortal perspectives, how could we imagine the "physical components" of any such a computation-aided super-being? I doubt we can. The "stuff" that comprises it and its field of algorithmic math, would seem to remain metaphysical to us, at least while we are mortal. In a way, as we mediate, are we feeding back to IT? And what may be IT's algorithmic response as what we call our universe dissipates towards ever more entropic disorganization of Substance even as it cumulates ever more organization of Information?

I am just an egg. :)