Consciousness:
That which avails choices among possibilities within allowable parameters.
Consciousness can be conceptualized as building on different levels. Self awareness, awareness of surroundings, awareness of nutrients or sunlight, subconsciousness, organic stimulus response, determination among potential alternatives or choices, informing of potentialities of Consciousness, maybe even systemic regulation and reconciliation of events within and of parameters.
I do not see how mere substance could cumulate a storage of information (stored consciousness?), absent an expression of consciousness at some level. I do not say substance is consciousness, but I do not see how mere Substance could be expressed in ways that cumulate Information in the complete absence of Consciousness.
Holistic Consciousness: Holistic Consciousness relates the math under which Simple Consciousness, Substance, and Information are activated and coordinated.
Simple Consciousness: Simple Consciousness is a massless and qualitative capacity, from an otherwise dimension-less Point of relational Spin, to receive and transmit Information.
Consciousness of Consciousness: Consciousness of Consciousness is Complex Consciousness that abides with an organized and adopted system of Matter.
Consciousness of Self: Consciousness of Self is Complex Consciousness that appreciates and apprehends that it abides with an organized and adopted system of Matter.
I am conscious. Consciousness exists. A is A.
My native empathy and intuition suggest/evidence that Consciousness exists and is expressed among perspectives apart from the perspective that seems to attach with my body.
As I conceptualize Consciousness, it is not restricted to bodily self awareness. Rather, it relates to the expression of a qualitative capacity to sense, record, or appreciate representations of quantifiable Substance.
Such capacity to sense and record Information seems to be inextricably common throughout the universe. I am unable to imagine in any non-contradictory or unambiguous way how any representation of Substance could collapse to measurable manifestation in the complete absence of any entailment with a measuring Consciousness, at some level or layer of presence or potentiality.
Bodies that harbor Consciousness are composed of Substance, but Substance is not by itself conscious. Rather, Substance offers perspectives with which Consciousness of Information can be experienced and accumulated.
Although Consciousness can be experienced from subjectively different perspectives, bodies, and senses, it always relates to capacity to sense, record, or appreciate representations of quantifiable Substance.
If unfolding events are not entirely objectively pre-determined, then Something or some subjective principle participates in accounting for how they are chosen. I doubt that principle is purely random.
Patterns of order somehow arise out of chaos. To come in after the fact to say such patterns must have been "most fit" is simply to engage not in explanation but in after-the-fact labeling. Why are they most fit? I conceptualize that they were most appreciated by a Reconciling aspect of Consciousness.
I would agree that it is likely impossible for a mortal to prove whether the Reconciling Principler is itself Conscious or merely some kind of meta-algorithm of algorithms. Consciousness, Substance, and Information may abide as fluxing ways that such meta-algorithm finds expression.
Still, I do not think it is possible for either Substance or Information to find expression in the complete absence of Consciousness at some level or layer. I think that condition connects all perspectives. To conceptualize that condition as implicating "God" CAN (not must) help avail the assimilation of "consciously subjective-substantively objective" standards for decent civilization for pursuing moral purposefulness among free-thinking citizens of a representative republic.
MORALITY OF GOD:
As I conceptualize the possibility of an existent God, I do not see how a mortal could define or limit God. So, yes, the idea that such a God would be beyond our proof (outside conceptual intuition and empathy) is contained within the conceptualization.
Perhaps the best I can do is to reason as follows:
I am conscious. Consciousness exists. A is A.
My native empathy and intuition suggest/evidence that Consciousness exists and is expressed among perspectives apart from the perspective that seems to attach with my body.
As I conceptualize Consciousness, it is not restricted to bodily self awareness. Rather, it relates to the expression of a qualitative capacity to sense, record, or appreciate representations of quantifiable Substance.
Such capacity to sense and record Information seems to be inextricably common throughout the universe. I am unable to imagine in any non-contradictory or unambiguous way how any representation of Substance could collapse to measurable manifestation in the complete absence of any entailment with a measuring Consciousness, at some level or layer of presence or potentiality.
Bodies that harbor Consciousness are composed of Substance, but Substance is not by itself conscious. Rather, Substance offers perspectives with which Consciousness of Information can be experienced and accumulated.
Although Consciousness can be experienced from subjectively different perspectives, bodies, and senses, it always relates to capacity to sense, record, or appreciate representations of quantifiable Substance.
If unfolding events are not entirely objectively pre-determined, then Something or some subjective principle participates in accounting for how they are chosen. I doubt that principle is purely random.
Patterns of order somehow arise out of chaos. To come in after the fact to say such patterns must have been "most fit" is simply to engage not in explanation but in after-the-fact labeling. Why are they most fit? I conceptualize that they were most appreciated by a Reconciling aspect of Consciousness.
I would agree that it is likely impossible for a mortal to prove whether the Reconciling Principler is itself Conscious or merely some kind of meta-algorithm of algorithms. Consciousness, Substance, and Information may abide as fluxing ways that such meta-algorithm finds expression.
Still, I do not think it is possible for either Substance or Information to find expression in the complete absence of Consciousness at some level or layer. I think that condition connects all perspectives. To conceptualize that condition as implicating "God" CAN (not must) help avail the assimilation of "consciously subjective-substantively objective" standards for decent civilization for pursuing moral purposefulness among free-thinking citizens of a representative republic.
The alternative seems to be moral babel and sub-humanization. Which is what seems to be unraveling now.
Bottom line: I do not care whether a person wants to call a connecting aspect of Consciousness "God." What I care about is whether a person respects a need to participate in helping to assimilate meaningful standards for civilizing moral purposefulness.
To advocate that standards for morality must be purely subjective is oxymoronic nonsense, because it contradicts the idea of meaningful standards.
Moreover, to advocate that morality can be purely derived via scientific empiricism is the other side of the coin of oxymoronic nonsense. There is no objectively scientific reason why Nature should or must prefer or favor any value, person, culture, nation, or world over any other. If morality has meaning, I think it is in connection with a subjective-objective dance of participatory feedback with the Reconciler Principle.
Substance, as manifested, is objectively measurable. However, each manifestation that happens to unfold is only one from among many possibilities within allowable parameters. So what determines each unfolding choice of manifestation?
So far as we can determine, nothing objectively knowable. Whatever determines the choice, it is not objectively determinable. In that respect, it may be said to be subjective. IOW, manifested Substance is in part objectively measurable, but choice of manifestation is subjective. Appreciating the unfoldment of reality and moral purposefulness is objective to manifestation, but subjective to choice. Judgment about whether a previously sought moral purpose has been achieved is in part objective. Judgment about what to do with it is in part subjective.
Moreover, if God is conscious, and God takes a subjective interest in reconciling the affairs of mortals, then each mortal, in consciously attempting to receive moral guidance from God, is exercising his subjective judgment with regard to whatever may be intuited to be the moral standards of God.
Suppose a person (pagan?) preferred to call Nature an entity that writes moral rules to be interpreted by moral scientists. Even then, such a Nature would in main be indistinguishable from a Deity or God.
Thus, the problem for a representative republic pertains to how to manage this dance for assimilating and interpreting objective-subjective moral purposefulness in a way that will preserve human freedom and dignity. Such management is defeated when moral anarchists and liberty illiterates are imported and when people farming despots are created faster than they can be civilized to the republic.
***********
TREE FALLING ON FOREST:
When a tree falls in a forest, at least billions of sensate perspectives of consciousness are affected. Affected are animals, insects, vegetation, and bacteria that live on or near the tree. All forms of perspectives of Consciousness. The very vibrations of the fall are recorded in the surrounding air and soil, which is teaming with life or potentiality for life. From there, such effects and vibrations are transferred and translated into Information, that is recorded in and made a part of the surrounding field of Substance. That Information is thus preserved and stored. Moreover, some effects of those recordations will remain subject to discovery and interpretation eons later, even if eventually translated into ashes and soil.
Every sensation is an experience for perspective of Consciousness. Every perceivable that has collapsed into measurable manifestation is an expression being stored for the experience of Consciousness.
How prolific and ubiquitous are perspectives of Consciousness? There is no device that measures Consciousness in itself. Instead, we look for the residue and signs of Consciousness. But can we know how many Beings may function in and out of alternating frequencies that are so far beyond our capacity to detect? How long can a civilization that does not acquire such skill reasonably expect to survive?
*************
LIMITS OF OBJECTIVE LOGIC:
Think about whether an idea of a closed system, cut off from exterior influence, can make consistent sense. Define what you mean by God. Define what you mean by morality and decent values. Consider how you derive, assimilate, reconcile, and adjust such morality and decent values, if you claim to do so strictly based on empiricism and science. Explain how science can definitively answer whether any species or world "should" continue to abide, cooperate, form interests and purposes, propagate, decline, or be replaced. Explain why any attempt to derive or propagate a "science of morality" should not be considered a religious or spiritual quest. Explain how a free-thinking society that does not seek or find ways to assimilate shared moral values can reasonably expect to sustain itself.
************
INABILITY TO PROVE GOD:
Whatever God were to do, to signify existence, could and would always be interpreted by disbelievers as signifying interlopers or space aliens. They could and would take the position that, whatever the event, its "cause" consisted in the situational correlate with which it was presented, however far beyond duplication by mortals that it may be. Whatever were measured out could and would be measured and considered by a disbeliever to be the artifact of only whatever the mix of measurables that preceded it. So there is no objective demonstration possible that could or would convince an avowed disbeliever, unless it subjectively touched his mindset. For such an atheist to fault God for not demonstrating Himself is the height of hubris and dumbassery.
Nor proven if there is one. Yet, evidenced, if you consider your perspective of consciousness to be evidence of a complete and reconciling source of consciousness.
************
If you have empirical proof that God does or does not exist, then show it. Submit it for review. If convincing, it may get you a Nobel Prize. Otherwise, go yell at some walls.
*************
REASONING IN CIRCLES:
To assume what you want to prove is not a proof. It is just juvey silliness. Barely worth a response. God is not a subject of empirical proof, but of reasoned empathy. As to God, much depends on your definition. Does Consciousness exist? Consciousness is not reasonably limited to an idea of unicorns. That is just silly. Does Consciousness continue to exist, after the demise of any particular perspective of it? Can you explain how anything that is sensible can exist in any relevant way, in the absence of any form of Consciousness that could sense it? Apart from faith derived through empathy, what is your scientific proof that any consciousness other than your own exists?
*************
The debate is ridiculously posed. Substance and Consciousness are two sides of one coin that vortexes about to unfold presentations of Information in space-time. But for Consciousness being Informed, Substance would not present.
To idealize that either Substance of Consciousness must be the sole author of the other, and not merely the correlate, is on its face absurd.
The idea that Evolution can proceed apart from necessary and dynamic feedback with Consciousness is silly. The idea that Consciousness can likewise unfold without parameters of Substance is likewise silly. To unfold in Informational meaningfulness, both Math and Mathematician need one another, as co-producing correlates. C, S and I are merely differently fluxing presentations of one reconciling thing: Beingness, i.e., the Godhead.
**********
Higher minded: Do you have principles? Moral values that you advocate? On what basis do you advocate them?
If you advocate no basis, then, morally, you are irrelevant. Just noise. In that case, why should I care what you think?
Is being "adaptive" your idea of a moral principle? Why should I care whether you think x is more adaptive than y? In either case, the world will adapt, will it not? So what does your idea of more adaptive add, morally and inspirationally speaking? Answer: Little more than background noise.
Do you suppose it is your higher purpose to relieve believers of their moral metaphors and language for apprehending their beingness and purposefulness? Who elected you for that presumption?
Now, if you have a specific engineering concern for the world, then perhaps that may be analyzed in if-then terms, concerning what approaches may be feasible or effective to reduce x or y problems. But to presume you ought simply to sweep aside everyone else's emotional investments or metaphorical attachments is rather grandiose. That style of thinking has probably led to as much or more destruction, violence, and death as any religious system.
The thing is, no human engineer is going to save the planet from a shit-load of problems. The planet will always have a shit-load of problems. If it's not one shit-load, it's another. The human concern is how to make them endurable, even to appreciate the challenges they pose as fulfilling.
************
QUESTIONS OF TIME, CAUSATION, SEQUENTIALITY, POTENTIALITY, REMEMBRANCE, FORGETFULNESS, EPIPHENOMENA, OBJECTIVELY MEASURABLE MANIFESTATION, SUBJECTIVELY EXPERIENCE-ABLE INTERPRETATION:
Time-in-itself does not exist. The Eternal present exists. However, it is appreciated, via feedback, in infinite varieties of sequences.
If the future is already determined, then how could time travel be possible, unless the future is multi-funnelled?
What am I / We?
We do not travel in real time, but in different subjective interpretations. Epiphenomena of present math presenting itself in self-sequences.
Objectively, perhaps our consciousness is only epiphenomenal, as opposed to being causal or manifestly preserved measurable.
Subjectively, we may causally participate with respect to our own unfolding interpretations.
Does a Conscious Aspect of the Reconciler learn or forget? Or simply cycle through never-ending sometimes never-repeating math-phase sequences?
*************
I doubt Consciousness of I-ness ends. I suspect it simply phase shifts to find expression with new forms and bodies of Substance. More of the same, but from different perspectives. Not that I find that to be especially attractive. Rather, it simply is what it is.
Meantime, we have human perspectives. Should a human seek to enhance the freedom and dignity of fellow humans? I feel so. I doubt that can be well done under elitist, socialist, communist, or totalitarian rule. Those kinds of rule sub-humanize us, and they destroy representative republics.
An Ideal of spiritual respect for varying perspectives of Consciousness (respect for a Reconciler) may help inspire more care for preserving decent republics that respect human freedom and dignity. Coming together in a church forum to celebrate and inspire that kind of respect can help assimilate decent common purposes, values, and morals. And those can better sustain a republican nation than can utopian belief in the promotion of personal pleasures and the fake promises of self-godded oligarchs over everything else.
Otherwise, absent some ideal of Higher Mindedness, what could possibly help to assimilate us or to preserve our society, other than corrupt desire to use and abuse all others?
**********
It's as if we are all riding along, circling our own drain vortex, while all the drains are likewise circling some vortex --- that ultimately defies our observation. Ghost Riders of the Vortex, and there ain't no easy way out. Enjoy the ride.
Vortextual gravitational sinks obey fundamental algorithmic properties of math, not physical properties of space-in-itself.
The appearance of expanding space is derivative of the math basis for the apparent expansion of out cosmos. Not a derivative of space in itself.
Gravitational sinks are a correlate expression of the system of algorithms that establish our cosmos; they are not in themselves ultimately causal.
The appearance of every vortex is fundamental to the way all appearances seem to be organized.
But vortexes are not physical existents in themselves.
In essence, they are more mathical than physical.
There are no real expansions of space. Rather, there are apparent expansions in space, derivative of mathicality.
***************
QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE OF GODHEAD:
My evidence is Qualitative. By my sense of being, I sense my conscious identity. I sense my identity is dependent on a feedback system. I sense that system consists of an immeasurable quality or aspect of Consciousness, a measurable aspect of Substance (matter and energy), and a cumulation of Information about previous sequences that is stored with presently manifesting Substance.
I am unable to conceptualize how any of the three (Consciousness, Substance, Information) could abide without the other two. If the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) carries any truth value, then the aspects of Substance and Information could conceptually be collapsed into a math-based algorithm. That would still beg the question: Out of all possibilities within algorithmic parameters, how does any one sequence happen to become manifestly vectored? (Some people may pose the question as what collapses the wave function? Or, as Hawking mused, what breathes fire into the laws of Nature?)
So I would conceptualize the Godhead as consisting of three different faces for one reconciling reality: Consciousness/Substance/Information. None of those fluxing aspects or faces can exist by itself.
A mere appeal to chance is not very satisfactory. Nor a notion that all possibilities are made manifest in some algorithmic universe. That does not answer why mere math should ever "math itself." Moreover, it is perhaps even less parsimonious than a notion that Goddidit.
But even if math does somehow on some meta level factor itself (or undergo factoring by a Mathematician), that would seem to be a rather spiritual kind of math. IAE, IT is apparent that the system as a holism is one of dynamically fluxing feedback. IOW, what we think and do is factored by IT.
Of course, this is not a concept that can be empirically tested by going outside the cosmic system. We do not have access or power to conduct a double blind experiment on an alternative cosmos that is in all other respects kept the same. Rather, it is only a concept that seeks to be as consistent, coherent, and complete as reasonably possible. That facilitates ideas of empathetic connection, reconciliation, good faith, good will, and individual responsibility. All needed to facilitate a decent civilization that respects human freedom and dignified purposefulness. In that regard, the Bible is seen as a commonizing source of inspiring metaphors that connect us to sacred stories and ideas unfolding from the past.
*********
So you believe they should not do that? Why? Is this belief of yours a higher belief or just a personal preference?
You're circling, not defining.
You re responding by presuming to know how God should behave.
You want God to regulate every conscious mortal so it believes in, appreciates, and is purposed by the same values? Why? Why should God not want through multivariate perspectives to experience a reconciling panoply of unfolding possibilities? Why suppose we are not part of a dynamic feedback system of reconciliation?
Define bad.
Your silly idea of God is not mine. A mathematician uses math to define things. Math follows rules.
Or finite but unbounded. Finite in restraining us to the parameters of an algorithm, perhaps becaise mortals cannot be otherwise defined. Unbounded in that possibilities availed within parameters are endless.
But agitated nonetheless. Why not just chill?
We are talking about the existence of a reconcilimg consciousness that is qualitative and beyond mortal quantitative measure. At least, those of us that can reason.
Many so called atheists do seem highly agitated and purposed towards disproving any Source of purposefulness. But the irony of their absurdity seems lost on them.
Why do you want to presume a contradiction?
Again, think more and presume less. The signs of my God are the logos (significations) of the cosmos.
So does nature. Which does not prove whether bots are conscious or whether Something effects choices within allowed parameters. Your point is pointless.
Whatever the event, it has to obey the equations and parameters allowed by the algorithm that regulates allowable parameters for the expression of our universe. Try thinking more and popping off less.
Indeed. But entirely beside the point. Can you prove anyone other than yourself is not a bot?
******************
EVIDENCE FOR GOD: There cannot be empirical evidence for God. For two reasons.
First, no matter how miraculous the event, many people would sooner chalk it up to space aliens or to happenstance derivative of an infinity of parallel universes.
Second, whatever God as Mathematician does, it will be consistent with principles of math, which apply everywhere --- hence, not considered miraculous.
The only reasonable evidence for God is qualitative, intuitive, not empirical, quantitative, or statistical.
****************
The topic pertains to God.
God exists as consciousness. Or maybe you think God should be a Golden Calf?
************
I don't get into original creation stuff. I dont think a mortal mind can be suited to comprehend it. New phase transition, new algorithm, ok. Originating original algorithm, not so much. Wherever I see informing, I see something (consciousness) being informed.
I agree consciousness is subjective. But I also believe there abides a connecting commonality to consciousness, even though each mortal experiences different subjective perspectives. A common algorithm both connects us and separates us. That common algorithm drives all of us to sense general purposefulness.
But that algorithm also serves a function of dynamic feedback in the conservation and reconciliation of the system as a holism and as a sum of particulars in transitional flux.
Which begs a question: Is the system of algorithmic math self driving and self factoring, or does a kind of mathematician drive and factor it? Out of all possibilities allowed within a system of parameters, what determines what is actually manifested?
Either way, whether the math is self factoring or whether something factors it, IT seems quite metaphysical and beyond scientific, empirical reduction or explanation. We may qualitatively appreciate and conceptualize IT, but not empirically, quantitatively prove it.
To demand objective, quantative based proof for what is so obviously subjective, qualitative based seems to me to be the height of bullheaded silliness, strutting about pretending to be science minded. Tyson demanding empirical evidence of God is ludicrous. He well knows that whatever the empirical evidence, he would simply chalk it up to space aliens or multiverse happenstance. His anti-religion stance is as boring as it is boorish.
**************
PURPOSE OF NO PURPOSE:
SW obviously feels something has given him some purpose. He cares immensely about "educating" believers to accept his unbelief as truth. But I wonder why he cares so much? What's his point, if there is no point? What's his purpose, if there is no purpose?
****************
FITTED TO CONCEPTUALIZATION:
I don't see a coherent way to conceptualize, evidence, or prove that our measurable universe is entirely derivative of either an entirely unconscious physicality or a metaphysicaliy spiritual consciousness.
I notice that aspects of both measurable matter and immeasurable qualities of consciousness abide. I suspect a conceptual model closest to our capacity to appreciate would infer that neither matter nor consciousness ever existed except together. Math and Mathematician, each needed to define the other. This has to do not with ultimate truth, but with conceptualization to which we are most fitted to relate.
******************
If you keep quoting yourself, you're never gong to make sense. Or did you lift your attempted understanding from somewhere else ("In the absence of a conscious entity, the moon remains a radically ambiguous and ceaselessly flowing quantum soup")?
Btw, do you think matter is not made of quanta? Now that would make a lot of people facepalm.
Tegmark's notion leads to this: If, ultimately, our measurable universe is a product not of physicality but of mathicality, then one of two things comes to mind:
Either that math is metaphysically appearing to self-factor into sequentially functioning algorithms,
Or something metaphysical necessarily abides with it, to factor it. Either way (and even for particle ultimate-ists), to imagine a TOE (even if it must remain beyond mortal completion), is to implicate metaphysics. You're really being rather dull, aren't you?
I glanced at your link long enough to see how obtuse you are being. I would not expect anyone other than a willful stupido to presume to expect empirical proof of metaphysics. Or to fail to notice that I have always maintained that the implication of metaphysics pertains not to anything within the realm of empirical proof, but only within the realm of reasonable conceptualization. Don't bother trying to understand that. It's beyond your capacity.
Btw, regarding the idea of well-beingness: It's Sam Harris who expects (goofily, I think) to establish a "moral science" based on tests for well-beingness. But I can see how such a goofy idea may appeal to people that believe the test of morality for an activity pertains to how immediately gratifying it is.
Keep digging. You're obviously after "the truth." Lol.
**************
If you keep quoting yourself, you're never gong to make sense. Or did you lift your attempted understanding from somewhere else ("In the absence of a conscious entity, the moon remains a radically ambiguous and ceaselessly flowing quantum soup")?
Btw, do you think matter is not made of quanta? Now that would make a lot of people facepalm.
Tegmark's notion leads to this: If, ultimately, our measurable universe is a product not of physicality but of mathicality, then one of two things comes to mind:
Either that math is metaphysically appearing to self-factor into sequentially functioning algorithms,
Or something metaphysical necessarily abides with it, to factor it. Either way (and even for particle ultimate-ists), to imagine a TOE (even if it must remain beyond mortal completion), is to implicate metaphysics. You're really being rather dull, aren't you?
I glanced at your link long enough to see how obtuse you are being. I would not expect anyone other than a willful stupido to presume to expect empirical proof of metaphysics. Or to fail to notice that I have always maintained that the implication of metaphysics pertains not to anything within the realm of empirical proof, but only within the realm of reasonable conceptualization. Don't bother trying to understand that. It's beyond your capacity.
Btw, regarding the idea of well-beingness: It's Sam Harris who expects (goofily, I think) to establish a "moral science" based on tests for well-beingness. But I can see how such a goofy idea may appeal to people that believe the test of morality for an activity pertains to how immediately gratifying it is.
Keep digging. You're obviously after "the truth." Lol.
**************
THE WORLD AS MATH:
I suspect you know about as much about life as you know about science, which is to say, quite little. See The_Universe_Is_Made_Of_Mathematics:
"Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.” In this case, a ‘mathematical structure’ means a set of abstract entities, such as numbers, and the mathematical relations between them. So the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis states that mathematics is not just a useful tool we have invented to describe the universe. Rather, mathematics itself defines and structures the universe. In other words, the physical universe is mathematics."
"Tegmark argues that, “in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically ‘real’ world.” So we shouldn’t be surprised to find that we perceive a physical world, because this perception is the inevitable result of a mathematical universe which is sufficiently complex. Ultimately, then, our perception of a physical world is due to the nature of our consciousness r, and not due to the true nature of the universe itself."
"The physicist Eugene Wigner wrote an essay called ‘The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences’ (Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13, No.1, 1960), asking why nature is so accurately described by mathematics. Tegmark answers that the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing reality implies that mathematics is at the very foundation of reality."
But hey, maybe Tegmark is an idiot. S/
***************
Your "moon argument" is silly. No one is denying the moon ceases to have relevance when no one is looking at it. IAE, what we call the moon is a collection of pulsating packets (quanta) of Information. That Information is pertinent to us and is receivable by every recording device that happens to be attuned to receive what it transmits.
We happen to be part of an algorithmic system (universe) in which we are attuned to receive that Information. The moon is a store of quanta-cized Information, which we are attuned to receive and interpret.
Which begs a question: What is the ultimate nature or essential character of that which continues to activate the Algorithm with which that Information is made receivable? Science does not, and cannot, answer that question.
Perhaps you imagine the moon must be observable or in some way pertinent to anyone that may be part of a system of algorithms (universe) apart from our own? If so, that would be silly. Even irrational.
I am curious: Are you seeking to enlighten us with any philosophy or moral code? Perhaps your special purpose in life is to denigrate everything that does not contribute to your immediate gratification? Or maybe just to howl at the moon. Aroooo!
*************
Nope. Atheists imagine that math must by itself give rise to all possibilities in some universe in some part of a multiverse. That's pretty weirdly metaphysical, right there.
For mortals, the proof of existence is in direct experience. Can you measure your conscious identity? The evidence that Something activates math to express systems of algorithms is also pretty clear. Do you imagine mere math in itself is somehow alive?
What is less clear, both to nerd scientisimists and to overly imaginative spiritualists pertains to the quality of purpose or character of that Something. However, what is clear is that everyone who lives any kind of coherent life finds or creates a sense of values and purpose for himself. Everyone constructs a kind of moral code to guide choices, whether he admits it or is so foolish as to deny it.
Maybe when you were young some religionist was too harsh in criticizing some personal preference you have?
Perhaps not quite as idiotic as your implication that empirical, quantitative proof of God, as opposed to qualitative inference, is possible. Do you imagine you or any scientist could/should have access to what facilitated any beginning for any world-defining algorithm? Do you imagine you can empirically prove the foundational assumptions and axioms of atheists? Talk about idiocy! Good grief. Scientisimists can most definitely be looney.
I agree that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.
Too many people define a word, like omniscient, and then assume it must apply to God. IOW, they try to prove an assumption by assuming it. "Proofs by definition" tend to be circular in that way. But what if, instead of knowing all that will be or can be, the Godhead "only" knows all that is? What if, instead of being able to perform impossibilities, the Godhead is "only" able to do all that is possible?
What if God inhabits math to pull zeros apart to put equations on each side, to facilitate and inhabit algorithms that define and limit our universe and the cosmos of possibilities? What if a Godhead of Mathematician and Math avails the system wherewith all our experiences as human consciousness, measurable substance, and accumulating information are facilitated?
Given such a *system of algorithmic feedback, why suppose any conscious aspect of the Godhead could not be surprised on account of feedback within the system?
When matter and antimatter are put together, should anyone suppose there abides anything more than the possibilities of math, as it is actively sequenced with a mathematician? Among all possible algorithmic expressions, why, but for interest in feedback, would ours be selected?
Atheists imagine they have an answer: That all possibilities must be expressed somewhere sometime in some universe. But they still have no answer to this: Why should mere math be or become activated to express transposing sequences of algorithms? Why should fire be breathed into mere math, to inhabit it?
*******************
*The range of algorithmic systems may be open, but the parameters availed within a particular algorithm may impose finitude within such system. This would impose conservational discipline, i.e, equations that have to balance, i.e., laws of nature. Still, whatever could possibly unfold within such parameters would be allowed, if by some means selected. So what is IT that selects each actual manifestation from within an entire array of possibilities? By my conceptualization, IT is a meta-mathematician operating in appreciation of feedback with a selected algorithmic system. But I do not imagine that must be anything more than a conceptualization.
***************
Only if you artificially restrict your idea of God. If all Information is available to the Godhead, then whether Information can be lost, transposed, or not, would certainly be pertinent.
I suspect God would be pretty bored if He were the lonely end all be all, with no capacity to entertain or appreciate perspectives apart from Himself. Sin seems an overly laden term for being interesting to God.
Can Information be lost, or only transposed?
If it is supposed that God already knows what God will do, and cannot deviate from it, then not even God could be rationally said any longer to have free will.
Otoh, if God is supposed to have capacity to be entertained with infinite possibilities of math and algorithms, then an idea that God can be surprised and make adjustments based on feedback from participatory perspectives of Himself, then the ideas of Free Will and responsible Participatory Will may make more sense.
Perhaps not quite as idiotic as your implication that empirical, quantitative proof of God, as opposed to qualitative inference, is possible. Do you imagine you or any scientist could/should have access to what facilitated any beginning for any world-defining algorithm? Do you imagine you can empirically prove the foundational asusmptions and axioms of atheists? Talk about idiocy! Good grief. Scientisimists can most definitely be looney.
*************
GOD'S WILL: If it is supposed that God already knows what God will do, and cannot deviate from it, then not even God could be rationally said any longer to have free will.
Otoh, if God is supposed to have capacity to be entertained with infinite possibilities of math and algorithms, then an idea that God can be surprised and make adjustments based on feedback from participatory perspectives of Himself, then the ideas of Free Will and responsible Participatory Will may make more sense.
Can Information be lost, or only transposed?
*****************
WHAT IS SPACE-TIME-MATTER-ENERGY ULTIMATELY MADE OF:
Does it not seem error to think God must not be a mathematician? Consider the Apparent Reality of measurable something coming from nothing (that we can get a grip on): Ultimately, is the idea of that "nothing" a derivative of objectivity or of subjectivity? Or of a co-dependence of both?
Consider a reconciling Consciousness (Mind of God) that can subjectively imagine an algorithmic system or universe of vectored equations sequentially (actively) passing through various phase transitions towards eventual re-conservation to zero, therewith to inhabit them, therewith to imagine or apprehend space and time to avail such transitions, therewith to imagine perspectives of forms of matter and anti-matter that potentially and conservationally balance in total to zero: Does it not seem error to think God must not be a mathematician?
The idea of measurable matter balancing against anti-matter entails conservation around zero, so both sides of every equat-ion must balance. That balancing may entail variously sequencing phase translations, and that chronological sequencing could be subsumed in respect of an encompassing conservational balance in interpretations or re-presentations of space-time. But all such translations must eventually phase towards zero.
So what is space-time-matter-energy really, ultimately, made of? Ultimately (as far back as we can reasonably imagine), nothing more than the subjective capacity of the Godhead to use Math to image-ine.
Ultimately, when we split atoms, we are part of an agency for splitting zero. Because every appearance of an atom is part of a sequence of imag-ination that is derived in respect of equations that eventually must add to zero. Objectively, we cannot formu-lize that, because mortal math cannot objectively divide by or with zero. But as perspectives of a reconciling Consciousness, we subjectively participate in the doing of that all the while.
Q: Can a dialectic or analytic philosopher consistently conceptualize that the substrate of existentiality is based on math that is itself based on balancing to nothing, but still reasonably claim to be a materialist instead of an idealist?
In imagining various systems and subsystems of algorithms and equations, the Imagining Consciousness in effect inhabits them. The more abstract and complexly layered a sub-system or body of equations, the more layered the opportunity for such Consciousness to express itself as a local or sub-perspective of itself. In effect, to layer expressions and experiences of consciousness of consciousness of consciousness, "all the way down." All of which local perspectives can only abide so long as their sponsoring system of equations is necessarily reconciled and renormalized to be consistent with them. Such as the way in which space-time is curved to fit with the experience of every perspective, regardless of its relative locus or vector within the system of equations that define its existentiality.
Bottom Line: The existentiality of Consciousness (God) is bound up with its qualitatively subjective capacity to envisage objective relationships among math-based equations, formulas, and sequential Algorithms. And vice versa. Our various perspectives and ways for recording and storing Information are all derivative of that. We are all limited perspectives of the same Consciousness, both connected by and separated by, subsets and sequences of math. Without math that avails to be imagined by Consciousness, Consciousness would have no meaning. Without Consciousness availed to imagine math, math would have no meaning.
Consciousness is the capacity to appreciate, both qualitatively and quantitatively, algorithmically sequential relationships (exchanges of Information) among potential sets and subsets of vectored equations in math that, absent focused guidance, would tend to phase directly towards zero.
***************
TO EXIST: To exist is for sequentiality to be injected via unfolding transitions among math-based formulas and algorithms. To exist is for such math-based sequential translations to be translated into local perspectives of interpretations. To exist is to be in a state of continuous change in respect of apparent or interpret-able loci among particulars and fluxing relationships.
I suspect you know about as much about life as you know about science, which is to say, quite little. See The_Universe_Is_Made_Of_Mathematics:
"Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.” In this case, a ‘mathematical structure’ means a set of abstract entities, such as numbers, and the mathematical relations between them. So the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis states that mathematics is not just a useful tool we have invented to describe the universe. Rather, mathematics itself defines and structures the universe. In other words, the physical universe is mathematics."
"Tegmark argues that, “in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically ‘real’ world.” So we shouldn’t be surprised to find that we perceive a physical world, because this perception is the inevitable result of a mathematical universe which is sufficiently complex. Ultimately, then, our perception of a physical world is due to the nature of our consciousness r, and not due to the true nature of the universe itself."
"The physicist Eugene Wigner wrote an essay called ‘The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences’ (Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13, No.1, 1960), asking why nature is so accurately described by mathematics. Tegmark answers that the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing reality implies that mathematics is at the very foundation of reality."
But hey, maybe Tegmark is an idiot. S/
***************
Your "moon argument" is silly. No one is denying the moon ceases to have relevance when no one is looking at it. IAE, what we call the moon is a collection of pulsating packets (quanta) of Information. That Information is pertinent to us and is receivable by every recording device that happens to be attuned to receive what it transmits.
We happen to be part of an algorithmic system (universe) in which we are attuned to receive that Information. The moon is a store of quanta-cized Information, which we are attuned to receive and interpret.
Which begs a question: What is the ultimate nature or essential character of that which continues to activate the Algorithm with which that Information is made receivable? Science does not, and cannot, answer that question.
Perhaps you imagine the moon must be observable or in some way pertinent to anyone that may be part of a system of algorithms (universe) apart from our own? If so, that would be silly. Even irrational.
I am curious: Are you seeking to enlighten us with any philosophy or moral code? Perhaps your special purpose in life is to denigrate everything that does not contribute to your immediate gratification? Or maybe just to howl at the moon. Aroooo!
*************
Nope. Atheists imagine that math must by itself give rise to all possibilities in some universe in some part of a multiverse. That's pretty weirdly metaphysical, right there.
For mortals, the proof of existence is in direct experience. Can you measure your conscious identity? The evidence that Something activates math to express systems of algorithms is also pretty clear. Do you imagine mere math in itself is somehow alive?
What is less clear, both to nerd scientisimists and to overly imaginative spiritualists pertains to the quality of purpose or character of that Something. However, what is clear is that everyone who lives any kind of coherent life finds or creates a sense of values and purpose for himself. Everyone constructs a kind of moral code to guide choices, whether he admits it or is so foolish as to deny it.
Maybe when you were young some religionist was too harsh in criticizing some personal preference you have?
Perhaps not quite as idiotic as your implication that empirical, quantitative proof of God, as opposed to qualitative inference, is possible. Do you imagine you or any scientist could/should have access to what facilitated any beginning for any world-defining algorithm? Do you imagine you can empirically prove the foundational assumptions and axioms of atheists? Talk about idiocy! Good grief. Scientisimists can most definitely be looney.
I agree that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.
Too many people define a word, like omniscient, and then assume it must apply to God. IOW, they try to prove an assumption by assuming it. "Proofs by definition" tend to be circular in that way. But what if, instead of knowing all that will be or can be, the Godhead "only" knows all that is? What if, instead of being able to perform impossibilities, the Godhead is "only" able to do all that is possible?
What if God inhabits math to pull zeros apart to put equations on each side, to facilitate and inhabit algorithms that define and limit our universe and the cosmos of possibilities? What if a Godhead of Mathematician and Math avails the system wherewith all our experiences as human consciousness, measurable substance, and accumulating information are facilitated?
Given such a *system of algorithmic feedback, why suppose any conscious aspect of the Godhead could not be surprised on account of feedback within the system?
When matter and antimatter are put together, should anyone suppose there abides anything more than the possibilities of math, as it is actively sequenced with a mathematician? Among all possible algorithmic expressions, why, but for interest in feedback, would ours be selected?
Atheists imagine they have an answer: That all possibilities must be expressed somewhere sometime in some universe. But they still have no answer to this: Why should mere math be or become activated to express transposing sequences of algorithms? Why should fire be breathed into mere math, to inhabit it?
*******************
*The range of algorithmic systems may be open, but the parameters availed within a particular algorithm may impose finitude within such system. This would impose conservational discipline, i.e, equations that have to balance, i.e., laws of nature. Still, whatever could possibly unfold within such parameters would be allowed, if by some means selected. So what is IT that selects each actual manifestation from within an entire array of possibilities? By my conceptualization, IT is a meta-mathematician operating in appreciation of feedback with a selected algorithmic system. But I do not imagine that must be anything more than a conceptualization.
***************
Only if you artificially restrict your idea of God. If all Information is available to the Godhead, then whether Information can be lost, transposed, or not, would certainly be pertinent.
I suspect God would be pretty bored if He were the lonely end all be all, with no capacity to entertain or appreciate perspectives apart from Himself. Sin seems an overly laden term for being interesting to God.
Can Information be lost, or only transposed?
If it is supposed that God already knows what God will do, and cannot deviate from it, then not even God could be rationally said any longer to have free will.
Otoh, if God is supposed to have capacity to be entertained with infinite possibilities of math and algorithms, then an idea that God can be surprised and make adjustments based on feedback from participatory perspectives of Himself, then the ideas of Free Will and responsible Participatory Will may make more sense.
Perhaps not quite as idiotic as your implication that empirical, quantitative proof of God, as opposed to qualitative inference, is possible. Do you imagine you or any scientist could/should have access to what facilitated any beginning for any world-defining algorithm? Do you imagine you can empirically prove the foundational asusmptions and axioms of atheists? Talk about idiocy! Good grief. Scientisimists can most definitely be looney.
*************
GOD'S WILL: If it is supposed that God already knows what God will do, and cannot deviate from it, then not even God could be rationally said any longer to have free will.
Otoh, if God is supposed to have capacity to be entertained with infinite possibilities of math and algorithms, then an idea that God can be surprised and make adjustments based on feedback from participatory perspectives of Himself, then the ideas of Free Will and responsible Participatory Will may make more sense.
Can Information be lost, or only transposed?
*****************
WHAT IS SPACE-TIME-MATTER-ENERGY ULTIMATELY MADE OF:
Does it not seem error to think God must not be a mathematician? Consider the Apparent Reality of measurable something coming from nothing (that we can get a grip on): Ultimately, is the idea of that "nothing" a derivative of objectivity or of subjectivity? Or of a co-dependence of both?
Consider a reconciling Consciousness (Mind of God) that can subjectively imagine an algorithmic system or universe of vectored equations sequentially (actively) passing through various phase transitions towards eventual re-conservation to zero, therewith to inhabit them, therewith to imagine or apprehend space and time to avail such transitions, therewith to imagine perspectives of forms of matter and anti-matter that potentially and conservationally balance in total to zero: Does it not seem error to think God must not be a mathematician?
The idea of measurable matter balancing against anti-matter entails conservation around zero, so both sides of every equat-ion must balance. That balancing may entail variously sequencing phase translations, and that chronological sequencing could be subsumed in respect of an encompassing conservational balance in interpretations or re-presentations of space-time. But all such translations must eventually phase towards zero.
So what is space-time-matter-energy really, ultimately, made of? Ultimately (as far back as we can reasonably imagine), nothing more than the subjective capacity of the Godhead to use Math to image-ine.
Ultimately, when we split atoms, we are part of an agency for splitting zero. Because every appearance of an atom is part of a sequence of imag-ination that is derived in respect of equations that eventually must add to zero. Objectively, we cannot formu-lize that, because mortal math cannot objectively divide by or with zero. But as perspectives of a reconciling Consciousness, we subjectively participate in the doing of that all the while.
Q: Can a dialectic or analytic philosopher consistently conceptualize that the substrate of existentiality is based on math that is itself based on balancing to nothing, but still reasonably claim to be a materialist instead of an idealist?
In imagining various systems and subsystems of algorithms and equations, the Imagining Consciousness in effect inhabits them. The more abstract and complexly layered a sub-system or body of equations, the more layered the opportunity for such Consciousness to express itself as a local or sub-perspective of itself. In effect, to layer expressions and experiences of consciousness of consciousness of consciousness, "all the way down." All of which local perspectives can only abide so long as their sponsoring system of equations is necessarily reconciled and renormalized to be consistent with them. Such as the way in which space-time is curved to fit with the experience of every perspective, regardless of its relative locus or vector within the system of equations that define its existentiality.
Bottom Line: The existentiality of Consciousness (God) is bound up with its qualitatively subjective capacity to envisage objective relationships among math-based equations, formulas, and sequential Algorithms. And vice versa. Our various perspectives and ways for recording and storing Information are all derivative of that. We are all limited perspectives of the same Consciousness, both connected by and separated by, subsets and sequences of math. Without math that avails to be imagined by Consciousness, Consciousness would have no meaning. Without Consciousness availed to imagine math, math would have no meaning.
Consciousness is the capacity to appreciate, both qualitatively and quantitatively, algorithmically sequential relationships (exchanges of Information) among potential sets and subsets of vectored equations in math that, absent focused guidance, would tend to phase directly towards zero.
***************
TO EXIST: To exist is for sequentiality to be injected via unfolding transitions among math-based formulas and algorithms. To exist is for such math-based sequential translations to be translated into local perspectives of interpretations. To exist is to be in a state of continuous change in respect of apparent or interpret-able loci among particulars and fluxing relationships.
Except in some subjective concepts, there is nothing objectively measurable that is relevant to us that is entirely without change with regard to its relationships. Every measurable is a changing existent that can receive, transmit, accumulate, alter, and/or lose Information. Except with regard to being part.of the record for the unfoldment of our universe, there is no measurable thing that does not eventually phase to an end. This may or may not apply to various subjectively or qualitatively experience-able aspects of beingness.
If there abides a Holistic Reconciler, it would seem to exist as a changeless-changer. Similarly, a field of math seems to abide, both as infinite potentiality, and as reconciler of presently and continuously changing unfoldments of qualitative experiences and quantitative manifestations.
************
The Dude Abides: The Gospel According to the Coen Brothers Paperback – September 21, 2009
************
CENTERING:
Center of mass changes with vector of momentum or lean. (Ask any motorcyclist.)
Were there no way to idealize, imagine, or project an appearance or experience of a CENTER, how could any PHYSICALITY be consistently and coherently idealized to be real-in-itself? If any particle of Substance is real-in-itself, then why cannot any piece, collection, or entire holism of Substance, as we imagine it, have any true center?
But for idealizing a reconciling and fluxing Consciousness, I seem unable to imagine how there could abide an objective center for any abiding physicality, or even a subjective center for any perspective of packages of information.
*****************
ALGORITHMIC PROJECTION: Perhaps we could program a computer to project a changing 4-D spherical model of the galaxies that are visible from Earth, putting the Milky Way at the center. Such a projection-model could scale the relative and expanding distances in space between the galaxies. (For the furtherest galaxies, it would not have information to extend the sphere beyond them.)
Such a computer could be programmed, on request, to project the virtual spheroid, taking any galaxy at random to be at the center. With enough power, it may even somewhat simultaneously project a separate spheroid representation for every galaxy as if it were at the center. Such could be done with a program or algorithm. But the program could not discern which projection with which galaxy was at the "true center."
The projection would be limited to the extent of the visible universe. It would not be able to represent beyond the galaxies furtherest from Earth. Nor, for those galaxies, would it be able to represent them as being at the center of the projection. The best that could be done would be to represent an imagined image of what might appear to an observer located within such furtherest galaxies. Such could be done with a a math based program or algorithm.
Consider: If no particular particle, planet, or galaxy is really centered in any physical thing, then does it seem more likely that such a thing is not really physical, but rather a math-based algorithmic projection, that depends for its expression on choice or happenstance of perspective or observer?
To try to resolve some features concerning electromagnetic radiation, such as light, it may be said that space-time is curved. Ask: Does curved space-time exist as a noun, as a thing, like a feature of a scale-able universe? Or does curving space-time exist as a verb, as an active function, that depends in each presentation on each observer's perspective (that is, the observer's relative center of mass, frame of reference, speed, acceleration, vector)?
Could such a buzz of subjectively varying math-based renormalizations of curvature for every observer be resolved to any one physical map, even by a super-observer operating from outside our space-time? Or would such a buzz be ultimately re-presentable only via an algorithm? Are we composed of physical particles, or of cumulating math-bits and packets of Information?
PROGRAMMER: Could such packets of Information program themselves to cumulate, with there being involved no Programmer and no reconciling or Conscious Being to Inform?
*****************
CURVATURE:
Our universe cannot be modeled or mapped as being objectively curved. Rather, its "curvature" is subjectively and differently experienced and renormalized by each different perspective/observer, depending on his relative center of mass-gravity, frame of reference, vector, relative speed, and relative acceleration. Could such a buzz of subjectively varying math-based renormalizations of curvature be resolved to any one map, even by a super-observer operating from outside our space-time?
*******************
WHAT IF: What if I suggested to you that every measurable part of Substance that you think you see and experience in flux and transit with and about your brain and body, that seems to consist of particles and waves of matter or energy obeying laws of physics, is in reality derivative of nothing more than an interpretation in conjunction with your perspective of Consciousness of a MATH-BASED record of stored and cumulating Information? IOW, that Substance (S), Information (I), and Consciousness (C) are necessarily entangled as co-fundaments for your experience of apparent reality? That conceptualizations based entirely on dialectics of either objective Materialism or subjective Idealism are both inferior to a conceptualization based on entanglement of CSI.
QUESTIONS:
(1) Why do I conceptualize that particles of Substance do not really exist in themselves, except as interpretations that flow from entanglements of a Reconciling Consciousness with a conservational system of mathematical functions (The Meta-Algorithm)?
(2) Why do I think measurable Substance is ultimately only a derivative of functions of Math being fluxed, interpreted, conserved, and reconciled with whatever IT is that encompasses and abides in common with every perspective of Consciousness?
(3) Whatever IT may be, how can IT, merely by apprehending math, avail the unfoldment of conscious experiences of substantive masses and impacts?
INCOMPLETE RESPONSES:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---
Op---
MATHICALITY --- OF SPATIAL RELATIONS:
Consider the variously scale-ular models and ways of thinking that people attach to their ideas about our shared experience of Universe. Ask: Can any such model be consistently and coherently scaled, to help conceptualize our universe? I can appreciate how math formula-zations can describe ways for measuring and relating to such models. However, can any Mind actually imagine any scaled model for encompassing or scaling our universe?
Do reasonable people really believe our universe of space-time-matter-energy could be in the shape of the inside of an explosively expanding balloon or BUBBLE? Or that the apparent expansion of space is in the shape of the expanding surface of a balloon or bubble? It may be that the galaxies and stars can be mapped for a perspective, as if they occupy various positions WITHIN the space enclosed by an expanding balloon. But the space between such galaxies and stars would not map in that way. That expanding space would be mapped as if occurring ON the expanding membrane of balloon. So, are we located WITHIN any such a balloon or bubble, or ON its expanding surface? Who can say?
Can every perspective of Consciousness, regardless of where situated in our Universe, just as reasonably conceptualize its relative position as if at the CENTER? Its point of view would be as if at the center of its frame of reference. Does the cumulative density of matter and energy that can be measured in any direction out, from any one perspective, seem to be generally uniform ("flat"?) with that of any other perspective?
It does not seem that any physical model can be constructed or set to scale for any such an interpretation. We cannot make a spherical model of Universe, position models of the galaxies and stars within in, attach an air hose to keep blowing it up, and then say such a model accurately and presently represents the Universe.
For one thing, the assignment of any galaxy or star to the center of any such a model would be arbitrary and not representative of reality. For another thing, the outer membrane for such a model would not be representative of anything we can actually see or record concerning our universe.
No one could take such a model and say, This is an accurately scaled representation for the present condition and flux of our universe. However, the idea, that every perspective from any locus in the universe could equally justifiably assume itself to be at the center, could be represented --- not in a scaled model, but in projections based in Math.
This leads me to suspect that our universe, as a holism, is not something that can be physically scaled or modeled. Rather, it is something that can only be modeled, ultimately, in math. IOW, we do not ultimately appear to "inhabit" or center in a physicality, but a mathicality.
Problem: To what extent is the material appearance of our World an illusion that is secondary to a math-based Algorithm that, per Godel, must forever remain beyond our complete or unifying explication?
MATHICALITY --- OF TIME RELATIONS:
NOWNESS: There abide various overlapping and fluxing frames of common-izing 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.
From our perspective on Earth, we may calculate the age of our universe as being some 13 billion years. Based on various constants among relationships that seem to apply everywhere in our universe, can we reasonably be assured that all other sapient perspectives from all other loci must experience and calculate the age of our universe as a holism in a way that would normalize or sync with ours? Can we reasonably expect to become able to normalize or physically model any scaled measurements and experiences of time throughout the entirety of our universe?
ETERNAL PRESENT: We don't have a complete math-based explanation of the cosmic system. We have no reason to believe the past (previous) continues to exist other than as a cumulation of stored Information. When we look at what is re-presented by light from a distant star, we are not looking at the past per se, but at an informational record of the past. I doubt any person continues to re-live the past over and over in any qualitative sense. If the past does not continue to exist in that sense, then an idea of travel or transition to the past (or travel to a time to prevent your parents from meeting) is vain.
What is presented seems to abide as an ETERNAL PRESENT, wherewith unstable equations of math-based sequences, dependent on perspective, are continuously fluxed and re-balanced.
If our universe is more math-based than physical-based, then our EXPERIENCE OF TIME is more like an experience of a preservation and protection of math-based sequences than of time as an independent reality. Perhaps our interpretation of time is an artifact of math-based chronology protection. Perhaps space-time would better be thought of as a sequence-recordation-renormalization web.
MATH VECTORS: Allowable appearances of sequences have a forward vector, regardless of the part of the universe in which they occur. Think of a Swiss clock with many varieties and sizes of spinning gears. The smaller gears may spin, revolve, erode, and age at speeds different from the larger gears. But all the gears will appear to spin in respect of a common forward vector of "chronology (sequence) protection."
MODELS AND METAPHORS: Can any model for objective science function other than as a metaphor, to really explicate a precise correlation for all purposes with so-called Reality? Science often uses a model or metaphor of a Big Bang, entailing a somewhat spheroidal explosion outward from a point. Like an air balloon expanding outward as a hose pumps air 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 would invite us 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.
IS APPARENT PHYSICALITY JUST MATH: All this begs a question: Can any one material-based model consistently and coherently 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?
MATHICALITY: Our Universe is not really a bubble. Not really a balloon. Not really flat. Does not really have a spatial center. Nor an edge. Electromagnetic Radiation is not really just a wave. Nor a set of particles. There is no ultimate particle-in-itself. If there did exist an ultimate particle that did not for its definition and function require a relationship with other particles, then it would in that capacity be beyond our use or experience. The ideas/models/metaphors that we find useful for taking measurements or making calculations often turn out to be extremely practical. But can they really put us closer to understanding infinity or eternity?
If our measurable universe is ultimately more math-like than physical-like, does that math "math itself", or does it seem to implicate a Mathematician (Architect)?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ARCH FORMS: The shape / frame of reference that our Universe presents to appear to any particular Perspective depends on locally experienced gravitational curvature, proximity of the Perspective, and its speed. There is NO SHAPE FOR ANY PHYSICAL UNIVERSE-IN-ITSELF THAT CAN BE OBJECTIVELY DRAWN. Rather, it can only be expressed in locally appreciated mathicality.
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CSI: Substance (S) is that which stores Information (I). I is that which cumulates into Substance. Consciousness (C) is that which experiences what it is like for I to be accumulated into S and for determinations of manifestations of cumulations of I to unfold.
CUMULATION OF INFORMATION: So, is what we interpret as space-expansion a necessary artifact of a forward cumulation of information concerning previous records of motion and change? Would an experience of space-contraction necessitate a loss of informational records and memory?
ENTANGLEMENT OF PHYSICS AND METAPHYSICS: If an immeasurable quality of Consciousness is entangled with the determination and expression of every measurable bit of Substance and Information, and if all that is immeasurable is deemed to be of the realm of metaphysics or epiphenomena, then it is not availed to us to banish metaphysics from the qualitative appreciation of anything that is measurable in science. Rather, an appreciation for metaphysics haunts every scientific approach. Alternatively put (and per Godel), no objectivist can completely control or account for the physics of our universe --- either in how our universe may have originated or in how it must continue to unfold. Rather, to imagine that morality can or should be scientifically and completely divorced from metaphysics is simply foolish.
DIALECTICS:
OF DIALECTICS (binomial digital 1's and 0's / yin and yang / symmetry breaking):
1) UNITY AND CONFLICT -- The law of the unity and conflict (and fluxing *interpenetration?) of opposites:
Hegel --- It is in this dialectic as it is here understood, that is, in the grasping of oppositions in their unity, or of the positive in the negative, that speculative thought consists. It is the most important aspect of dialectic.
Lenin --- The splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts is the essence (one of the "essentials", one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristics or features) of dialectics.
2) QUANTITATIVE TO QUALITATIVE AND VICE VERSA -- The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes
Ex: Qualitative phase transition from water to ice.
Flux of CSI; measurable to immeasurable.
3) BEING BEGETS NOT BEING -- The law of the negation of the negation
Qualitative transition of Information versus loss of Information.
Marx --- The expropriators [capitalists] are expropriated. The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation [antithesis] of individual private property. [The "first negation", or antithesis, negates the thesis, which in this instance is feudalism, the economic system that preceded capitalism.] ... But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It [final communism, the synthesis] is the negation of [the] negation."
Lukács --- Premise of Dialectical Materialism: 'It is not men's consciousness that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness'.
MY COMMENT: That Premise of Dialectical Materialism and Dialectical Idealism both seem False. A better conceptualization: Trinitarian CSI (consciousness, substance, information) fluxes, intertwines, interpenetrates, and ENTANGLES. Mortals appreciate a continuous massaging and manipulation of correlates, not ultimate causes. Whatever the event that next unfolds to the SUBJECTIVE APPRECIATION of any mortal, its actual determination will be with an array of contributing correlates and a consequence of RECONCILIATION between such correlates and their encompassing and CONSERVATIONAL holism.
(*INTERPENETRATION: Niebuhr --- "Politics will, to the end of history, be an area where conscience and power meet, where the ethical and the coercive factors of human life will interpenetrate and work out their tentative and uneasy compromises.")
DO ALGORITHMS EVOLVE OUT OF UNORGANIZED MATH: Do you think our universe of ordered natural relationships was bound to appear out of pure nothingness of unorganized math and infinity? If math were all there is, what could unbalance zero to set math to sequencing, i.e., to put fire in the math? Do you think something or some process, other than pure math, was necessary to put fire into the math, to organize it to express the algorithms that constitute the natural laws that govern our evolving unfoldment?
EX NIHILO: Or do you think we and the natural laws that govern us were bound to bubble up and evolve out of pure nothingness, ex nihilo? Do you think unorganized infinity is bubbling with life and purpose, that makes the appearances of various universes and algorithms inevitable?
METAPHYSICS: Apart from metaphysics, can you explain how infinity could be factored to produce the algorithm that governs our universe? Whatever the ultimate process with which our universe is produced and unfolded, do you imagine that calling it "nothing" is any more an explanation than calling it metaphysical?
DOES THE ALGORITHM THAT OUR UNFOLDMENT OBEYS ITSELF EVOLVE (by chance or by choice?):
Is the Algorithm a metaphysically self-factoring infinity?
Or is it qualitatively apart from a designing Mathematician/architect?
SELF-FACTORING INFINITY: Even if the primary from which all is derived abides as a self-factoring infinity of math-based chaos that expresses variously multiversed systems of algorithms, such a self-factoring, self-actuating infinity is not nothing. Rather, it abides as an existential somethingness. To the extent IT may employ systems of equation-based algorithms, that function as fluxing systems subject to internal feedback and processing of Information, who are we to think it must be dumb or entirely unconscious or devoid of organizational appreciation?
***************
***************
OF DIALECTICS (binomial digital 1's and 0's / yin and yang / symmetry breaking):
DOES THE ALGORITHM THAT OUR UNFOLDMENT OBEYS ITSELF EVOLVE (by chance or by choice?):
Is the Algorithm a metaphysically self-factoring infinity?
Or is it qualitatively apart from a designing Mathematician/architect?
1) UNITY AND CONFLICT -- The law of the unity and conflict (and fluxing *interpenetration?) of opposites:
Hegel --- It is in this dialectic as it is here understood, that is, in the grasping of oppositions in their unity, or of the positive in the negative, that speculative thought consists. It is the most important aspect of dialectic.
Lenin --- The splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts is the essence (one of the "essentials", one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristics or features) of dialectics.
2) QUANTITATIVE TO QUALITATIVE AND VICE VERSA -- The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes
Ex: Qualitative phase transition from water to ice.
Flux of CSI; measurable to immeasurable.
3) BEING BEGETS NOT BEING -- The law of the negation of the negation
Qualitative transition of Information versus loss of Information.
Marx --- The expropriators [capitalists] are expropriated. The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation [antithesis] of individual private property. [The "first negation", or antithesis, negates the thesis, which in this instance is feudalism, the economic system that preceded capitalism.] ... But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It [final communism, the synthesis] is the negation of [the] negation."
Lukács --- Premise of Dialectical Materialism: 'It is not men's consciousness that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness'.
MY COMMENT: That Premise of Dialectical Materialism and Dialectical Idealism both seem False. A better conceptualization: Trinitarian CSI (consciousness, substance, information) fluxes, intertwines, interpenetrates, and ENTANGLES. Mortals appreciate a continuous massaging and manipulation of correlates, not ultimate causes. Whatever the event that next unfolds to the SUBJECTIVE APPRECIATION of any mortal, its actual determination will be with an array of contributing correlates and a consequence of RECONCILIATION between such correlates and their encompassing and CONSERVATIONAL holism.
*INTERPENETRATION: Niebuhr --- "Politics will, to the end of history, be an area where conscience and power meet, where the ethical and the coercive factors of human life will interpenetrate and work out their tentative and uneasy compromises."
***************
Progressives and Leftists often seem proud of how "tolerant" they pretend to be. There does not seem to be any kind of abnormal perversion or deviance that they are not wild about tolerating, approving, and in effect promoting (and often forcing). In other words, they are intolerant of intolerance of perversion.
In mad thrall of diversity and multiculturalism, they are incapable of bringing themselves to oppose the importation of any kind of culture that practices any kind of perversion. Yet, they want to say they are "as moral as" anyone else.
Progressives and Leftists often seem to be intolerant of a nation that wants to defend its borders against infiltration by people and cultures that tend not to share or assimilate its values, but instead want to divide or overthrow such values. In other words, they seem to be intolerant of any attempt to assimilate or defend any values or standards, other than the anarchistic value of defending all divisions of values and standards. This is why I often suggest that Progressives and Leftists are moral phonies. They tend to be morally hollow and without capacity to draw any lines in defense of any values.
Soros was an avid student of Karl Popper and the idea of an open society. But Soros evidently missed or re-interpreted for his own devious purposes, Popper's teaching concerning the paradox of tolerance. (See The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 [in note 4 to Chapter 7].)
The paradox: When a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant will come to be be destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
Actually, I do not think that makes sense. So how should the paradox be resolved? Are there some things a decent person should tolerate, and some that he should not tolerate? How should he decide? Should he be his own God; should he look to expert mouthpieces for God; or should he meditate in respect of his own imperfect agency of God (or "natural higher mindedness") to seek his own interpretation of, and guidance from, God? ("I am just an egg.")
Should he expect to find objective or scientific proof for his interpretation, or should he simply take subjective responsibility for his interpretation and let follow whomsoever may?
Question: How should one decide when or how to be intolerant of intolerance?
(This may blend into some issues about what I might term "subjective mathicality" or subjective experience of universe --- but save that for another day.)
************
ENTANGLEMENT OF PHYSICS AND METAPHYSICS: If an immeasurable quality of Consciousness is entangled with the determination and expression of every measurable bit of Substance and Information, and if all that is immeasurable is deemed to be of the realm of metaphysics or epiphenomena, then it is not availed to us to banish metaphysics from the qualitative appreciation of anything that is measurable in science. Rather, an appreciation for metaphysics haunts every scientific approach. Alternatively put (and per Godel), no objectivist can completely control or account for the physics of our universe --- either in how our universe may have originated or in how it must continue to unfold. Rather, to imagine that morality can be scientifically and completely divorced from metaphysics is foolish.
***********
No. To say that the moral metaphysics of many other systems of metaphoric belief happen to be somewhat consistent with Christian metaphysics is not to disprove the application of Christian metaphysics. Rather, it tends to show a more universal application for such moral metaphysics.
I agree that neither the Church nor the Bible are the Source of ethics or morality. Rather, they tend somewhat to be a reflection or interpretation of the Source of ethics or morality. They avail a language and forum for people to come together in good faith and good will to reflect on moral values and purposes. Sometimes, under poor leadership, that may instigate undesirable results. But in many cases, it will instigate desirable results. Such as feelings of individual responsibility and charity. But for such forums, I doubt civilization would have advanced out of the stage of the masses being ruled by sociopathic people farmers. Unfortunately, too many people today seem to want to return to those glory days.
I don't think much is accomplished by denigrating Peterson's ideas about consciousness. He is a very smart man who has dedicated years to studying psychology and thinking about the fundamental nature of consciousness. But your quickness to disdain his ideas suggests that little may be accomplished by discussing such a topic with you.
***********************
MUSING ABOUT ENTANGLEMENT OF CSI: As a mental experiment, suppose Consciousness-Substance-Information are entangled as different aspects of one metaphysical thing. Then, what could be expected as bits of such entanglements are brought into different combinations of aggregation: Would various combinations begin to harmonize, as if on the same page of music? May Consciousness begin thus to express itself harmonically, throughout the aggregated and entangled pattern?
Over time, may clumps of such aggregates become organized, eventually to appear 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, might this not describe a process wherewith consciousness of consciousness emerges, i.e., sapient 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?
GUIDANCE FROM WITHIN: 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?
Our brains are not, in themselves, conscious. Rather, they are math circuits with which Consciousness avails expression for various of its perspectives. At higher levels, such perspectives participate in appreciating how the expression of universe is reconciled to unfold.
If expressions of measurable Substance and cumulating Information necessarily entail entanglements with Consciousness, then it would be false to say you do not need a viewer for the universe to exist.
Some people believe, as I do, that the apparent physicality-in-itself of measurable Substance-in -itself is an illusion. A trick of algorithmic math among perspectives of a Mathematician that happen to be adapted to a shared Algorithm.
Even if The Primary, from which all is derived and unfolds, abides as a self-factoring infinity of math-based chaos that expresses variously multiversed systems of algorithms, such a self-factoring, self-actuating infinity is not nothing. Rather, it abides as an existential somethingness.
To the extent IT may employ systems of equation-based and vectored-algorithms, that function as fluxing systems subject to internal feedback and processing of Information, who are we to think it must be dumb or entirely unconscious or devoid of organizational appreciation?
*******************
INDIRECT RE-PRESENTATIONS OF APPARENT REALITY:
METAPHORS: Some people seem to need to believe in metaphors as if they were direct presentations of Reality. Ironically, that group would include both religious fundies and scientific atheists that, misguidedly, think they can substitute *"objective moral truths" for subjectively conscious appreciations of metaphors.
MORAL SCIENCE: 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."
What is presented to each of our perspectives seems to exist as an ETERNAL PRESENT, wherewith unstable equations of math-based sequences are continuously re-balanced. If our universe is more math-based than physical-based, then our EXPERIENCE OF TIME is more like an experience of a preservation and protection of math-based sequences than of time as an independent reality. Our interpretation of time is an artifact of math-based chronology protection. Perhaps space-time would better be thought of as a sequence-recordation-renormalization web.
MATH VECTORS: Allowable appearances of sequences have a forward vector, regardless of the part of the universe in which they occur. Think of a Swiss clock with many varieties and sizes of spinning gears. The smaller gears may spin, revolve, erode, and age faster than the larger gears. But all the gears will appear to spin in respect of a common forward vector of "chronology (sequence) protection."
CUMULATION OF INFORMATION: So, is what we interpret as space-expansion a necessary artifact of a forward cumulation of information concerning previous records of motion and change? Would an experience of space-contraction necessitate a loss of informational records and memory?
********************
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CSI: Substance (S) is that which stores Information (I). I is that which cumulates into Substance. Consciousness (C) is that which experiences what it is like for I to be accumulated into S and for determinations of manifestations of cumulations of I to unfold.
CONSCIOUSNESS AND BRAINS: Our brains are not, in themselves, conscious. Rather, they are math circuits with which Consciousness avails expression for various of its perspectives. At higher levels, such perspectives participate in appreciating how the expression of universe is reconciled to unfold.
ENTROPIC DISSIPATION INTO DISORDERLINESS AND HEAT LOSS V. EVOLUTION OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS OUT OF CHAOS: What seems to be expanding is the space between galaxies, not galaxies themselves. IAE, it does not appear that Information is lost. Rather, local systems with reliable and regular heat sources (suns) seem to avail complex systems to evolve, to favor those most suited to survive and replicate.
SELF-FACTORING INFINITY: Even if the primary from which all is derived abides as a self-factoring infinity of math-based chaos that expresses variously multiversed systems of algorithms, such a self-factoring, self-actuating infinity is not nothing. Rather, it abides as an existential somethingness. To the extent IT may employ systems of equation-based algorithms, that function as fluxing systems subject to internal feedback and processing of Information, who are we to think it must be dumb or entirely unconscious or devoid of organizational appreciation?
*************
ORDER OUT OF CHAOS: Patterns evolve out of chaos, depending on their capacity to survive and reproduce. Do you think of patterns as not beginning to evolve until after the first single celled biological organisms appeared? Do you think they appeared by magic? Did the process of evolution evolve?
CIVILIZING VALUES: Do civilized and organized societies have advantages in developing expertise by dividing tasks and taking territories over from less organized people? To bind a group or people together, does it help for them to assimilate and express shared important values and purposes?
IDEALIZING LEADERS: Do chimps choose the strongest and most brutish for their leaders, or do they choose as their leaders the ones with capacity to make and lead competent friends?
Do chimps have capacity to idealize the qualities they want in a leader they are willing to accept? How do such capacities to idealize what one desires and values evolve? Must not that capacity be something that is selected for by evolution? How is it that our universe is able to select for that capacity?
PREDICTING AND CONTROLLING EVOLUTION AND SCIENCE: Are you able to quantify and evaluate all the factors that go into the mix of evolution, to be able to predict what will unfold in every case?
DO ALGORITHMS EVOLVE OUT OF UNORGANIZED MATH: Do you think our universe of ordered natural relationships was bound to appear out of pure nothingness of unorganized math and infinity? Do you think something or some process, other than pure math, was necessary to put fire into the math, to organize it to express the algorithms that constitute the natural laws that govern our evolving unfoldment?
EX NIHILO: Or do you think we and the natural laws that govern us were bound to bubble up and evolve out of pure nothingness, ex nihilo? Do you think unorganized infinity is bubbling with life and purpose, that makes the appearances of various universes and algorithms inevitable?
METAPHYSICS: Apart from metaphysics, can you explain how infinity could be factored to produce the algorithm that governs our universe? Whatever the ultimate process with which our universe is produced and unfolded, do you imagine that calling it "nothing" is any more an explanation than calling it metaphysical?
SELF-FACTORING INFINITY: Even if the primary from which all is derived abides as a self-factoring infinity of math-based chaos that expresses variously multiversed systems of algorithms, such a self-factoring, self-actuating infinity is not nothing. Rather, it abides as an existential somethingness. To the extent IT may employ systems of equation-based algorithms, that function as fluxing systems subject to internal feedback and processing of Information, who are we to think it must be dumb or entirely unconscious or devoid of organizational appreciation?
ENTANGLEMENT OF PHYSICS AND METAPHYSICS: If an immeasurable quality of Consciousness is entangled with the determination and expression of every measurable bit of Substance and Information, and if all that is immeasurable is deemed to be of the realm of metaphysics or epiphenomena, then it is not availed to us to banish metaphysics from the qualitative appreciation of anything that is measurable in science. Rather, an appreciation for metaphysics haunts every scientific approach. Alternatively put (and per Godel), no objectivist can completely control or account for the physics of our universe --- either in how our universe may have originated or in how it must continue to unfold. Rather, to imagine that morality can be scientifically and completely divorced from metaphysics is foolish.
************************
Did not Pascal's Wager pertain to trading earthly rectitude for possible eternal heavenly salvation, no matter how improbable? However, the Op does not pertain to heavenly salvation, but to how we go about trying to get the most out of everyday life.
************
The Dude Abides: The Gospel According to the Coen Brothers Paperback – September 21, 2009
************
CENTERING:
Center of mass changes with vector of momentum or lean. (Ask any motorcyclist.)
Were there no way to idealize, imagine, or project an appearance or experience of a CENTER, how could any PHYSICALITY be consistently and coherently idealized to be real-in-itself? If any particle of Substance is real-in-itself, then why cannot any piece, collection, or entire holism of Substance, as we imagine it, have any true center?
But for idealizing a reconciling and fluxing Consciousness, I seem unable to imagine how there could abide an objective center for any abiding physicality, or even a subjective center for any perspective of packages of information.
*****************
ALGORITHMIC PROJECTION: Perhaps we could program a computer to project a changing 4-D spherical model of the galaxies that are visible from Earth, putting the Milky Way at the center. Such a projection-model could scale the relative and expanding distances in space between the galaxies. (For the furtherest galaxies, it would not have information to extend the sphere beyond them.)
Such a computer could be programmed, on request, to project the virtual spheroid, taking any galaxy at random to be at the center. With enough power, it may even somewhat simultaneously project a separate spheroid representation for every galaxy as if it were at the center. Such could be done with a program or algorithm. But the program could not discern which projection with which galaxy was at the "true center."
The projection would be limited to the extent of the visible universe. It would not be able to represent beyond the galaxies furtherest from Earth. Nor, for those galaxies, would it be able to represent them as being at the center of the projection. The best that could be done would be to represent an imagined image of what might appear to an observer located within such furtherest galaxies. Such could be done with a a math based program or algorithm.
Consider: If no particular particle, planet, or galaxy is really centered in any physical thing, then does it seem more likely that such a thing is not really physical, but rather a math-based algorithmic projection, that depends for its expression on choice or happenstance of perspective or observer?
To try to resolve some features concerning electromagnetic radiation, such as light, it may be said that space-time is curved. Ask: Does curved space-time exist as a noun, as a thing, like a feature of a scale-able universe? Or does curving space-time exist as a verb, as an active function, that depends in each presentation on each observer's perspective (that is, the observer's relative center of mass, frame of reference, speed, acceleration, vector)?
Could such a buzz of subjectively varying math-based renormalizations of curvature for every observer be resolved to any one physical map, even by a super-observer operating from outside our space-time? Or would such a buzz be ultimately re-presentable only via an algorithm? Are we composed of physical particles, or of cumulating math-bits and packets of Information?
PROGRAMMER: Could such packets of Information program themselves to cumulate, with there being involved no Programmer and no reconciling or Conscious Being to Inform?
*****************
CURVATURE:
Our universe cannot be modeled or mapped as being objectively curved. Rather, its "curvature" is subjectively and differently experienced and renormalized by each different perspective/observer, depending on his relative center of mass-gravity, frame of reference, vector, relative speed, and relative acceleration. Could such a buzz of subjectively varying math-based renormalizations of curvature be resolved to any one map, even by a super-observer operating from outside our space-time?
*******************
WHAT IF: What if I suggested to you that every measurable part of Substance that you think you see and experience in flux and transit with and about your brain and body, that seems to consist of particles and waves of matter or energy obeying laws of physics, is in reality derivative of nothing more than an interpretation in conjunction with your perspective of Consciousness of a MATH-BASED record of stored and cumulating Information? IOW, that Substance (S), Information (I), and Consciousness (C) are necessarily entangled as co-fundaments for your experience of apparent reality? That conceptualizations based entirely on dialectics of either objective Materialism or subjective Idealism are both inferior to a conceptualization based on entanglement of CSI.
QUESTIONS:
(1) Why do I conceptualize that particles of Substance do not really exist in themselves, except as interpretations that flow from entanglements of a Reconciling Consciousness with a conservational system of mathematical functions (The Meta-Algorithm)?
(2) Why do I think measurable Substance is ultimately only a derivative of functions of Math being fluxed, interpreted, conserved, and reconciled with whatever IT is that encompasses and abides in common with every perspective of Consciousness?
(3) Whatever IT may be, how can IT, merely by apprehending math, avail the unfoldment of conscious experiences of substantive masses and impacts?
INCOMPLETE RESPONSES:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---
Op---
MATHICALITY --- OF SPATIAL RELATIONS:
Consider the variously scale-ular models and ways of thinking that people attach to their ideas about our shared experience of Universe. Ask: Can any such model be consistently and coherently scaled, to help conceptualize our universe? I can appreciate how math formula-zations can describe ways for measuring and relating to such models. However, can any Mind actually imagine any scaled model for encompassing or scaling our universe?
Do reasonable people really believe our universe of space-time-matter-energy could be in the shape of the inside of an explosively expanding balloon or BUBBLE? Or that the apparent expansion of space is in the shape of the expanding surface of a balloon or bubble? It may be that the galaxies and stars can be mapped for a perspective, as if they occupy various positions WITHIN the space enclosed by an expanding balloon. But the space between such galaxies and stars would not map in that way. That expanding space would be mapped as if occurring ON the expanding membrane of balloon. So, are we located WITHIN any such a balloon or bubble, or ON its expanding surface? Who can say?
Can every perspective of Consciousness, regardless of where situated in our Universe, just as reasonably conceptualize its relative position as if at the CENTER? Its point of view would be as if at the center of its frame of reference. Does the cumulative density of matter and energy that can be measured in any direction out, from any one perspective, seem to be generally uniform ("flat"?) with that of any other perspective?
It does not seem that any physical model can be constructed or set to scale for any such an interpretation. We cannot make a spherical model of Universe, position models of the galaxies and stars within in, attach an air hose to keep blowing it up, and then say such a model accurately and presently represents the Universe.
For one thing, the assignment of any galaxy or star to the center of any such a model would be arbitrary and not representative of reality. For another thing, the outer membrane for such a model would not be representative of anything we can actually see or record concerning our universe.
No one could take such a model and say, This is an accurately scaled representation for the present condition and flux of our universe. However, the idea, that every perspective from any locus in the universe could equally justifiably assume itself to be at the center, could be represented --- not in a scaled model, but in projections based in Math.
This leads me to suspect that our universe, as a holism, is not something that can be physically scaled or modeled. Rather, it is something that can only be modeled, ultimately, in math. IOW, we do not ultimately appear to "inhabit" or center in a physicality, but a mathicality.
Problem: To what extent is the material appearance of our World an illusion that is secondary to a math-based Algorithm that, per Godel, must forever remain beyond our complete or unifying explication?
MATHICALITY --- OF TIME RELATIONS:
NOWNESS: There abide various overlapping and fluxing frames of common-izing 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.
From our perspective on Earth, we may calculate the age of our universe as being some 13 billion years. Based on various constants among relationships that seem to apply everywhere in our universe, can we reasonably be assured that all other sapient perspectives from all other loci must experience and calculate the age of our universe as a holism in a way that would normalize or sync with ours? Can we reasonably expect to become able to normalize or physically model any scaled measurements and experiences of time throughout the entirety of our universe?
ETERNAL PRESENT: We don't have a complete math-based explanation of the cosmic system. We have no reason to believe the past (previous) continues to exist other than as a cumulation of stored Information. When we look at what is re-presented by light from a distant star, we are not looking at the past per se, but at an informational record of the past. I doubt any person continues to re-live the past over and over in any qualitative sense. If the past does not continue to exist in that sense, then an idea of travel or transition to the past (or travel to a time to prevent your parents from meeting) is vain.
What is presented seems to abide as an ETERNAL PRESENT, wherewith unstable equations of math-based sequences, dependent on perspective, are continuously fluxed and re-balanced.
If our universe is more math-based than physical-based, then our EXPERIENCE OF TIME is more like an experience of a preservation and protection of math-based sequences than of time as an independent reality. Perhaps our interpretation of time is an artifact of math-based chronology protection. Perhaps space-time would better be thought of as a sequence-recordation-renormalization web.
MATH VECTORS: Allowable appearances of sequences have a forward vector, regardless of the part of the universe in which they occur. Think of a Swiss clock with many varieties and sizes of spinning gears. The smaller gears may spin, revolve, erode, and age at speeds different from the larger gears. But all the gears will appear to spin in respect of a common forward vector of "chronology (sequence) protection."
MODELS AND METAPHORS: Can any model for objective science function other than as a metaphor, to really explicate a precise correlation for all purposes with so-called Reality? Science often uses a model or metaphor of a Big Bang, entailing a somewhat spheroidal explosion outward from a point. Like an air balloon expanding outward as a hose pumps air 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 would invite us 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.
IS APPARENT PHYSICALITY JUST MATH: All this begs a question: Can any one material-based model consistently and coherently 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?
MATHICALITY: Our Universe is not really a bubble. Not really a balloon. Not really flat. Does not really have a spatial center. Nor an edge. Electromagnetic Radiation is not really just a wave. Nor a set of particles. There is no ultimate particle-in-itself. If there did exist an ultimate particle that did not for its definition and function require a relationship with other particles, then it would in that capacity be beyond our use or experience. The ideas/models/metaphors that we find useful for taking measurements or making calculations often turn out to be extremely practical. But can they really put us closer to understanding infinity or eternity?
If our measurable universe is ultimately more math-like than physical-like, does that math "math itself", or does it seem to implicate a Mathematician (Architect)?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ARCH FORMS: The shape / frame of reference that our Universe presents to appear to any particular Perspective depends on locally experienced gravitational curvature, proximity of the Perspective, and its speed. There is NO SHAPE FOR ANY PHYSICAL UNIVERSE-IN-ITSELF THAT CAN BE OBJECTIVELY DRAWN. Rather, it can only be expressed in locally appreciated mathicality.
CUMULATION OF INFORMATION: So, is what we interpret as space-expansion a necessary artifact of a forward cumulation of information concerning previous records of motion and change? Would an experience of space-contraction necessitate a loss of informational records and memory?
DIALECTICS:
OF DIALECTICS (binomial digital 1's and 0's / yin and yang / symmetry breaking):
1) UNITY AND CONFLICT -- The law of the unity and conflict (and fluxing *interpenetration?) of opposites:
Hegel --- It is in this dialectic as it is here understood, that is, in the grasping of oppositions in their unity, or of the positive in the negative, that speculative thought consists. It is the most important aspect of dialectic.
Lenin --- The splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts is the essence (one of the "essentials", one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristics or features) of dialectics.
2) QUANTITATIVE TO QUALITATIVE AND VICE VERSA -- The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes
Ex: Qualitative phase transition from water to ice.
Flux of CSI; measurable to immeasurable.
3) BEING BEGETS NOT BEING -- The law of the negation of the negation
Qualitative transition of Information versus loss of Information.
Marx --- The expropriators [capitalists] are expropriated. The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation [antithesis] of individual private property. [The "first negation", or antithesis, negates the thesis, which in this instance is feudalism, the economic system that preceded capitalism.] ... But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It [final communism, the synthesis] is the negation of [the] negation."
Lukács --- Premise of Dialectical Materialism: 'It is not men's consciousness that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness'.
MY COMMENT: That Premise of Dialectical Materialism and Dialectical Idealism both seem False. A better conceptualization: Trinitarian CSI (consciousness, substance, information) fluxes, intertwines, interpenetrates, and ENTANGLES. Mortals appreciate a continuous massaging and manipulation of correlates, not ultimate causes. Whatever the event that next unfolds to the SUBJECTIVE APPRECIATION of any mortal, its actual determination will be with an array of contributing correlates and a consequence of RECONCILIATION between such correlates and their encompassing and CONSERVATIONAL holism.
(*INTERPENETRATION: Niebuhr --- "Politics will, to the end of history, be an area where conscience and power meet, where the ethical and the coercive factors of human life will interpenetrate and work out their tentative and uneasy compromises.")
EX NIHILO: Or do you think we and the natural laws that govern us were bound to bubble up and evolve out of pure nothingness, ex nihilo? Do you think unorganized infinity is bubbling with life and purpose, that makes the appearances of various universes and algorithms inevitable?
METAPHYSICS: Apart from metaphysics, can you explain how infinity could be factored to produce the algorithm that governs our universe? Whatever the ultimate process with which our universe is produced and unfolded, do you imagine that calling it "nothing" is any more an explanation than calling it metaphysical?
DOES THE ALGORITHM THAT OUR UNFOLDMENT OBEYS ITSELF EVOLVE (by chance or by choice?):
Is the Algorithm a metaphysically self-factoring infinity?
Or is it qualitatively apart from a designing Mathematician/architect?
***************
***************
OF DIALECTICS (binomial digital 1's and 0's / yin and yang / symmetry breaking):
DOES THE ALGORITHM THAT OUR UNFOLDMENT OBEYS ITSELF EVOLVE (by chance or by choice?):
Is the Algorithm a metaphysically self-factoring infinity?
Or is it qualitatively apart from a designing Mathematician/architect?
1) UNITY AND CONFLICT -- The law of the unity and conflict (and fluxing *interpenetration?) of opposites:
Hegel --- It is in this dialectic as it is here understood, that is, in the grasping of oppositions in their unity, or of the positive in the negative, that speculative thought consists. It is the most important aspect of dialectic.
Lenin --- The splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts is the essence (one of the "essentials", one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristics or features) of dialectics.
2) QUANTITATIVE TO QUALITATIVE AND VICE VERSA -- The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes
Ex: Qualitative phase transition from water to ice.
Flux of CSI; measurable to immeasurable.
3) BEING BEGETS NOT BEING -- The law of the negation of the negation
Qualitative transition of Information versus loss of Information.
Marx --- The expropriators [capitalists] are expropriated. The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation [antithesis] of individual private property. [The "first negation", or antithesis, negates the thesis, which in this instance is feudalism, the economic system that preceded capitalism.] ... But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It [final communism, the synthesis] is the negation of [the] negation."
Lukács --- Premise of Dialectical Materialism: 'It is not men's consciousness that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness'.
MY COMMENT: That Premise of Dialectical Materialism and Dialectical Idealism both seem False. A better conceptualization: Trinitarian CSI (consciousness, substance, information) fluxes, intertwines, interpenetrates, and ENTANGLES. Mortals appreciate a continuous massaging and manipulation of correlates, not ultimate causes. Whatever the event that next unfolds to the SUBJECTIVE APPRECIATION of any mortal, its actual determination will be with an array of contributing correlates and a consequence of RECONCILIATION between such correlates and their encompassing and CONSERVATIONAL holism.
*INTERPENETRATION: Niebuhr --- "Politics will, to the end of history, be an area where conscience and power meet, where the ethical and the coercive factors of human life will interpenetrate and work out their tentative and uneasy compromises."
***************
Progressives and Leftists often seem proud of how "tolerant" they pretend to be. There does not seem to be any kind of abnormal perversion or deviance that they are not wild about tolerating, approving, and in effect promoting (and often forcing). In other words, they are intolerant of intolerance of perversion.
In mad thrall of diversity and multiculturalism, they are incapable of bringing themselves to oppose the importation of any kind of culture that practices any kind of perversion. Yet, they want to say they are "as moral as" anyone else.
Progressives and Leftists often seem to be intolerant of a nation that wants to defend its borders against infiltration by people and cultures that tend not to share or assimilate its values, but instead want to divide or overthrow such values. In other words, they seem to be intolerant of any attempt to assimilate or defend any values or standards, other than the anarchistic value of defending all divisions of values and standards. This is why I often suggest that Progressives and Leftists are moral phonies. They tend to be morally hollow and without capacity to draw any lines in defense of any values.
Soros was an avid student of Karl Popper and the idea of an open society. But Soros evidently missed or re-interpreted for his own devious purposes, Popper's teaching concerning the paradox of tolerance. (See The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 [in note 4 to Chapter 7].)
The paradox: When a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant will come to be be destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
Actually, I do not think that makes sense. So how should the paradox be resolved? Are there some things a decent person should tolerate, and some that he should not tolerate? How should he decide? Should he be his own God; should he look to expert mouthpieces for God; or should he meditate in respect of his own imperfect agency of God (or "natural higher mindedness") to seek his own interpretation of, and guidance from, God? ("I am just an egg.")
Should he expect to find objective or scientific proof for his interpretation, or should he simply take subjective responsibility for his interpretation and let follow whomsoever may?
Question: How should one decide when or how to be intolerant of intolerance?
(This may blend into some issues about what I might term "subjective mathicality" or subjective experience of universe --- but save that for another day.)
************
ENTANGLEMENT OF PHYSICS AND METAPHYSICS: If an immeasurable quality of Consciousness is entangled with the determination and expression of every measurable bit of Substance and Information, and if all that is immeasurable is deemed to be of the realm of metaphysics or epiphenomena, then it is not availed to us to banish metaphysics from the qualitative appreciation of anything that is measurable in science. Rather, an appreciation for metaphysics haunts every scientific approach. Alternatively put (and per Godel), no objectivist can completely control or account for the physics of our universe --- either in how our universe may have originated or in how it must continue to unfold. Rather, to imagine that morality can be scientifically and completely divorced from metaphysics is foolish.
***********
No. To say that the moral metaphysics of many other systems of metaphoric belief happen to be somewhat consistent with Christian metaphysics is not to disprove the application of Christian metaphysics. Rather, it tends to show a more universal application for such moral metaphysics.
I agree that neither the Church nor the Bible are the Source of ethics or morality. Rather, they tend somewhat to be a reflection or interpretation of the Source of ethics or morality. They avail a language and forum for people to come together in good faith and good will to reflect on moral values and purposes. Sometimes, under poor leadership, that may instigate undesirable results. But in many cases, it will instigate desirable results. Such as feelings of individual responsibility and charity. But for such forums, I doubt civilization would have advanced out of the stage of the masses being ruled by sociopathic people farmers. Unfortunately, too many people today seem to want to return to those glory days.
I don't think much is accomplished by denigrating Peterson's ideas about consciousness. He is a very smart man who has dedicated years to studying psychology and thinking about the fundamental nature of consciousness. But your quickness to disdain his ideas suggests that little may be accomplished by discussing such a topic with you.
***********************
MUSING ABOUT ENTANGLEMENT OF CSI: As a mental experiment, suppose Consciousness-Substance-Information are entangled as different aspects of one metaphysical thing. Then, what could be expected as bits of such entanglements are brought into different combinations of aggregation: Would various combinations begin to harmonize, as if on the same page of music? May Consciousness begin thus to express itself harmonically, throughout the aggregated and entangled pattern?
Over time, may clumps of such aggregates become organized, eventually to appear 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, might this not describe a process wherewith consciousness of consciousness emerges, i.e., sapient 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?
GUIDANCE FROM WITHIN: 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?
Our brains are not, in themselves, conscious. Rather, they are math circuits with which Consciousness avails expression for various of its perspectives. At higher levels, such perspectives participate in appreciating how the expression of universe is reconciled to unfold.
If expressions of measurable Substance and cumulating Information necessarily entail entanglements with Consciousness, then it would be false to say you do not need a viewer for the universe to exist.
Some people believe, as I do, that the apparent physicality-in-itself of measurable Substance-in -itself is an illusion. A trick of algorithmic math among perspectives of a Mathematician that happen to be adapted to a shared Algorithm.
Even if The Primary, from which all is derived and unfolds, abides as a self-factoring infinity of math-based chaos that expresses variously multiversed systems of algorithms, such a self-factoring, self-actuating infinity is not nothing. Rather, it abides as an existential somethingness.
To the extent IT may employ systems of equation-based and vectored-algorithms, that function as fluxing systems subject to internal feedback and processing of Information, who are we to think it must be dumb or entirely unconscious or devoid of organizational appreciation?
*******************
INDIRECT RE-PRESENTATIONS OF APPARENT REALITY:
METAPHORS: Some people seem to need to believe in metaphors as if they were direct presentations of Reality. Ironically, that group would include both religious fundies and scientific atheists that, misguidedly, think they can substitute *"objective moral truths" for subjectively conscious appreciations of metaphors.
MORAL SCIENCE: 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."
MATHICALITY: Our Universe is not really a bubble. Not really a balloon. Not really flat. Does not really have a spatial center. Nor an edge. EMR is not really just a wave. Nor a set of particles. There is no ultimate particle-in-itself. Those ideas/models/metaphors serve calculations for 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.
ARCH FORMS: The shape / frame of reference that our Universe presents to appear to any particular Perspective depends on locally experienced gravitational curvature, proximity of the Perspective, and its speed. There is NO SHAPE FOR ANY PHYSICAL UNIVERSE-IN-ITSELF THAT CAN BE OBJECTIVELY DRAWN. Rather, it can only be expressed in locally appreciated mathicality.
NOWNESS: There abide various overlapping and fluxing frames of common-izing 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 objective 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.
IS APPARENT PHYSICALITY JUST MATH: Which begs a question: Can any one material-based model consistently and coherently 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?
ENTANGLEMENT OF CSI: As a mental experiment, suppose Consciousness-Substance-Information are entangled as different aspects of one metaphysical thing. 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 to appear 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., sapient 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?
GUIDANCE FROM WITHIN: 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"?
ARCH FORMS: The shape / frame of reference that our Universe presents to appear to any particular Perspective depends on locally experienced gravitational curvature, proximity of the Perspective, and its speed. There is NO SHAPE FOR ANY PHYSICAL UNIVERSE-IN-ITSELF THAT CAN BE OBJECTIVELY DRAWN. Rather, it can only be expressed in locally appreciated mathicality.
METAPHORS: Can any model for objective 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.
IS APPARENT PHYSICALITY JUST MATH: Which begs a question: Can any one material-based model consistently and coherently 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?
ENTANGLEMENT OF CSI: As a mental experiment, suppose Consciousness-Substance-Information are entangled as different aspects of one metaphysical thing. 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 to appear 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., sapient 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?
GUIDANCE FROM WITHIN: 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"?
ETERNAL PRESENT: We don't have a complete math-based explanation of the cosmic system. We have no reason to believe the past (previous) continues to exist in any qualitatively experience-able way. When we look at what is re-presented by light from a distant star, we are not looking at the past per se, but at a record of the past. I doubt any person continues to re-live the past over and over in any qualitative sense. If the past does not continue to exist in that sense, then an idea of travel to it (or travel to a time to prevent your parents from meeting) is vain.
What is presented to each of our perspectives seems to exist as an ETERNAL PRESENT, wherewith unstable equations of math-based sequences are continuously re-balanced. If our universe is more math-based than physical-based, then our EXPERIENCE OF TIME is more like an experience of a preservation and protection of math-based sequences than of time as an independent reality. Our interpretation of time is an artifact of math-based chronology protection. Perhaps space-time would better be thought of as a sequence-recordation-renormalization web.
MATH VECTORS: Allowable appearances of sequences have a forward vector, regardless of the part of the universe in which they occur. Think of a Swiss clock with many varieties and sizes of spinning gears. The smaller gears may spin, revolve, erode, and age faster than the larger gears. But all the gears will appear to spin in respect of a common forward vector of "chronology (sequence) protection."
CUMULATION OF INFORMATION: So, is what we interpret as space-expansion a necessary artifact of a forward cumulation of information concerning previous records of motion and change? Would an experience of space-contraction necessitate a loss of informational records and memory?
********************
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CSI: Substance (S) is that which stores Information (I). I is that which cumulates into Substance. Consciousness (C) is that which experiences what it is like for I to be accumulated into S and for determinations of manifestations of cumulations of I to unfold.
ENTROPIC DISSIPATION INTO DISORDERLINESS AND HEAT LOSS V. EVOLUTION OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS OUT OF CHAOS: What seems to be expanding is the space between galaxies, not galaxies themselves. IAE, it does not appear that Information is lost. Rather, local systems with reliable and regular heat sources (suns) seem to avail complex systems to evolve, to favor those most suited to survive and replicate.
SELF-FACTORING INFINITY: Even if the primary from which all is derived abides as a self-factoring infinity of math-based chaos that expresses variously multiversed systems of algorithms, such a self-factoring, self-actuating infinity is not nothing. Rather, it abides as an existential somethingness. To the extent IT may employ systems of equation-based algorithms, that function as fluxing systems subject to internal feedback and processing of Information, who are we to think it must be dumb or entirely unconscious or devoid of organizational appreciation?
*************
ORDER OUT OF CHAOS: Patterns evolve out of chaos, depending on their capacity to survive and reproduce. Do you think of patterns as not beginning to evolve until after the first single celled biological organisms appeared? Do you think they appeared by magic? Did the process of evolution evolve?
CIVILIZING VALUES: Do civilized and organized societies have advantages in developing expertise by dividing tasks and taking territories over from less organized people? To bind a group or people together, does it help for them to assimilate and express shared important values and purposes?
IDEALIZING LEADERS: Do chimps choose the strongest and most brutish for their leaders, or do they choose as their leaders the ones with capacity to make and lead competent friends?
Do chimps have capacity to idealize the qualities they want in a leader they are willing to accept? How do such capacities to idealize what one desires and values evolve? Must not that capacity be something that is selected for by evolution? How is it that our universe is able to select for that capacity?
PREDICTING AND CONTROLLING EVOLUTION AND SCIENCE: Are you able to quantify and evaluate all the factors that go into the mix of evolution, to be able to predict what will unfold in every case?
DO ALGORITHMS EVOLVE OUT OF UNORGANIZED MATH: Do you think our universe of ordered natural relationships was bound to appear out of pure nothingness of unorganized math and infinity? Do you think something or some process, other than pure math, was necessary to put fire into the math, to organize it to express the algorithms that constitute the natural laws that govern our evolving unfoldment?
EX NIHILO: Or do you think we and the natural laws that govern us were bound to bubble up and evolve out of pure nothingness, ex nihilo? Do you think unorganized infinity is bubbling with life and purpose, that makes the appearances of various universes and algorithms inevitable?
METAPHYSICS: Apart from metaphysics, can you explain how infinity could be factored to produce the algorithm that governs our universe? Whatever the ultimate process with which our universe is produced and unfolded, do you imagine that calling it "nothing" is any more an explanation than calling it metaphysical?
SELF-FACTORING INFINITY: Even if the primary from which all is derived abides as a self-factoring infinity of math-based chaos that expresses variously multiversed systems of algorithms, such a self-factoring, self-actuating infinity is not nothing. Rather, it abides as an existential somethingness. To the extent IT may employ systems of equation-based algorithms, that function as fluxing systems subject to internal feedback and processing of Information, who are we to think it must be dumb or entirely unconscious or devoid of organizational appreciation?
ENTANGLEMENT OF PHYSICS AND METAPHYSICS: If an immeasurable quality of Consciousness is entangled with the determination and expression of every measurable bit of Substance and Information, and if all that is immeasurable is deemed to be of the realm of metaphysics or epiphenomena, then it is not availed to us to banish metaphysics from the qualitative appreciation of anything that is measurable in science. Rather, an appreciation for metaphysics haunts every scientific approach. Alternatively put (and per Godel), no objectivist can completely control or account for the physics of our universe --- either in how our universe may have originated or in how it must continue to unfold. Rather, to imagine that morality can be scientifically and completely divorced from metaphysics is foolish.
************************
Did not Pascal's Wager pertain to trading earthly rectitude for possible eternal heavenly salvation, no matter how improbable? However, the Op does not pertain to heavenly salvation, but to how we go about trying to get the most out of everyday life.
For that, I don't think you are avoiding the Wager. In the example given, you seem to be making your own wager: That the potential fun of not cowering at home would be worth the risk of uncertain dangers. I also do that, often, when I ride my motorcycle at night. My calculation is, I did not do that when I was responsible for two young daughters. But now that I am retired and my wife has a pension, the fun I get from riding seems worth it. But that is not a calculation I make by trying to put math values on facts or pluses and minuses.
Bottom line: We have no choice but to make choices, and the most important or enjoyable choices seem often to have to do with much more than calculable facts or truths. Concerning such everyday choices. invoking or denigrating Pascal's Wager seems generally pointless.
****************
If all we sought were facts, we would be little more than data crunching machines. Or memory recycling machines, watching the same movie over and over. We seek to appreciate life. To enjoy music, art, literature, experience, travel, friends, adventure, stimulation. What we appreciate changes when the old and familiar grows stale. When new experiences beckon us to even newer adventures.
That seems to be inherent with an feedback system that is finite but unbounded. Is it true that even God can be surprised? We can't know, but the truth is I hope so. Otherwise, what a pointless, boring chap.
The truth seems to be that we are bound to a system where antimatter matches matter and sums to zero, it it were all brought together and summed. Yet, math, in itself, would seem a lifeless thing. Something seems to break it into variously experience-able sequences of transitioning equations and algorithms, perhaps of infinite potentiality. It is for our conscious imaginations to revel in experiencing and appreciating those. Beyond the mere fact that they ultimately, by themselves, would sum to zero.
********************
****************
If all we sought were facts, we would be little more than data crunching machines. Or memory recycling machines, watching the same movie over and over. We seek to appreciate life. To enjoy music, art, literature, experience, travel, friends, adventure, stimulation. What we appreciate changes when the old and familiar grows stale. When new experiences beckon us to even newer adventures.
That seems to be inherent with an feedback system that is finite but unbounded. Is it true that even God can be surprised? We can't know, but the truth is I hope so. Otherwise, what a pointless, boring chap.
The truth seems to be that we are bound to a system where antimatter matches matter and sums to zero, it it were all brought together and summed. Yet, math, in itself, would seem a lifeless thing. Something seems to break it into variously experience-able sequences of transitioning equations and algorithms, perhaps of infinite potentiality. It is for our conscious imaginations to revel in experiencing and appreciating those. Beyond the mere fact that they ultimately, by themselves, would sum to zero.
********************
