TIME:
SEE: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0119.pdf
“We review the idea, due to Einstein, Eddington, Hoyle and Ballard, that time is a subjective label, whose primary purpose is to order events, perhaps in a higherdimensional universe. In this approach, all moments in time exist simultaneously, but they are ordered to create the illusion of an unfolding experience by some physical mechanism. This, in the language of relativity, may be connected to a hypersurface in a world that extends beyond spacetime. Death in such a scenario may be merely a phase change.”
….
“An ongoing debate, in both philosophy and physics, has to do with the nature of time in its various applications. Especially: are the various usages of time in physics and everyday life consistent with a unique definition for it? Alternatively: while time occurs in many guises, what is the most useful way to view it at a conceptual level?”
….
“Eddington, the noted contemporary of Einstein, also appreciated the subjective nature of the situation just described, and went on to argue that much of what is called objective in physics is in fact subjective or invented.”
….
“From the Eddington viewpoint, one can argue that the decomposition of 4D Minkowski pacetime into separate 3D and 1D parts is a subjective act, so that in effect the photon has been invented as a consequence of separating space and time.”
….
“We will in this section examine briefly the three ways in which the direction of time’s ‘arrow’ is commonly connected with physical processes, and argue that they are all deficient.”
….
“Einstein (as reported by Hoffman): “For us believing physicists the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, even if a STUBBORN ONE.” ”
….
“In the foregoing, we saw that several deep thinkers have arrived independently at a somewhat intriguing view of time. To paraphrase them: time is a stubborn illusion (Einstein), connected with human sensory impressions (Eddington), so that all moments of time exist together (Hoyle), with the division between past and future merely a holdover from our primitive ancestors (Ballard). Perhaps the most trenchant opinion is that of Hoyle (1966), who summarizes the situation thus: “There’s one thing quite certain in this business. The idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is wrong. I know very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But we’re all victims of a confidence trick. If there’s one thing we can be sure about in physics, it is that all times exist with equal reality.” ”
….
“Thus the idea of time as a kind of subjective ordering device, by which we make sense of a simultaneous world, appears quite natural.”
RE: http://soundlearning.publicradio.org/subjects/science_health/einstein_and_god/illusion_of_time.shtml
My summary: Dyson simplifies on an interpretation of Einstein’s view as if everything is geometry (i.e., higher math, not actual physical things or time?).
RE: http://www.flipkart.com/stubbornly-persistent-illusion-stephen-hawking/0762430036-45w3f5adqb
I don’t have this book by Hawking. If memory serves, he believes there exists, not time itself, but merely some sort of “chronological protective mechanism.” My concern is: Is that mechanism “physically” existent, or is it a construct derivative of subjective consciousness?
My suspicion: I suspect that how we communicate any point of view about “reality” depends on the assumptions or models about a frame of reference from which we begin. Depending upon the purpose of one’s perspective of consciousness, one may model time AS IF it were illusion, geometry, granular, or continuous. But I am not confident that “time in itself” exists to be any of those things or aspects. IOW, I suspect time does have a fluxing reality, but one that is dependent upon a higher reality, i.e.: purposes of perspectives of a unifying consciousness, communicating in respect of variously assumed frames of reference.
ABOUT MODELS:
The PROBLEM WITH WORDS of laymen is that they are not rigorous; therefore, such words are ambiguous. Their meaning in any particular application must be subjectively derived, based on some sort of holistic intuition or feel for the context. Even animals do this, as when they “speak” with ears laid back and hair on edge.
The PROBLEM WITH MATH of empiricists is that it proceeds from a conceit that some “physical thing” (Higgs boson?) actually exists, objective in itself, which translates its relations in mathematical models, by which we can eventually map reality, perfectly. IOW, they ASSUME a model is available to mortals by which math may be adduced for providing us with an objective map of “physical” reality. IOW, they assume empirical “rigor” is possible. (I think a holistic algorithm may eventually be available to us, but not based on any notion that there actually exists any “physical thing or ultimate particle in itself.”)
MY TAKE: There is a holistic Source of rigor, but it is beyond the “perfect comprehension” or control of any particularized or “mortal-ized” perspective of such Source. As mortals, we would enjoy no “freedom” at all were there no such rigor. Were there no law, there would be terror, not freedom. Even so, we are availed with “fuzzy comprehension.” Depending upon how we limit our focus and purpose, we may achieve astounding relative rigor. That is: That which we consciously experience is precisely and measurably what we consciously experience.
However, while the focus of any sense (or senser) is diverted to a partial attraction, “other things” will be going on, at a level of complexity that we cannot holistically reduce. (Even though the Nobel twins, Al Gore and Obama, think they understand global warming.) We may eventually understand an algorithm by which such Source produces us, but we will not be able to control its essentially subjective nature.
In short, we will need to reconcile with a higher dimension of subjectivity, whose existence is superior, which is beyond measure, but which avails subordinate dimensions, which can be experienced as being measurable in relations among subordinate forms for expressing consciousness. We may reconcile, intuit, and even appreciate aspects of such higher dimension in each of us, but we mortals will not measure or control it, as Itself.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Sunday, December 27, 2009
SHAME
SHAME
From A.T."
http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/504891/505190.html#msg-505190
Re: "The media are still what Justice Thomas famously called a "high-tech lynch mob." They operate by collusion and by destroying the lives of their critics. That is another running sore in Stalinism 2.0. It is yet another reason why the media must be purged by the free market...."
Well, the writer reinforces an ongoing alert. However, the supposed "cure" is pollyannish. There is no "free market" once a vibrant middle class is rendered politically impotent. Economics simply merges with politics, crime, and skirmishing among organized criminals over spheres of influence that have little to do with national boundaries. I do not take skirmishing among organized criminals over spheres of influence to be a "free market."Your "cure" merely excites small business Kulaks to run between rounds of mortar fire being lobbed by opposing gangs of Rino corporatist wolves and Dino unionizing wolves. If we allow to be killed the traditions and institutions that defend the idea of America, as an independent territorial oasis for individual liberty, then the "free market" becomes a cruel hoax.
The only power that can sustain the idea of America is faith in a Higher Consciousness (aka, God, even if you don't want to call it that), which promotes empathy for the separate dignity of each receptive perspective. This is higher than faith in materialism or heaven on Gaia. It is the opposite of abject surrender of individual thinking (i.e., Islamofascism).
No amount of clever checks and balances, constitutionalism, legalism, or materialism can sustain or defend dignified freedom of enterprise in the absence of inculcation of respect for a higher source of empathy. As we lose respect for God, so also shall we lose the idea of America. There is no law that is stronger in iron. As we disrespect that law, so shall we sink into a despairing world of the abused and the abusing.
Regain and restore respect for an idea of America that avails and defends national independence and individual freedom and dignity. Do not join with those who seek to profit by reducing America to the lowest common denominator or to the sort of sociopathic rule that is endured by most of the rest of the world. Instead, raise a light, to show the rest of the world a better way.
Human health, welfare, volunteerism, and dignity are better served by competition and cooperation among people of individual initiative and empathy than by the false promises and faux-caring of corporatists, unionizers, and their unholy renditions of Big Brother and Big Gov.
Modern Liberals have been misled to believe the lies of corporatists and unionizers, that small business, middle class, individualists (i.e., Conservatives) do not care about the health and welfare of the less fortunate. Modern Liberals have bought the lie that liberty must be sacrificed in order to spread health, welfare, and wealth. The truth is the opposite. Modern Liberals are Little Red Riding Hood, being deceived by the Big Bad Wolf, dressed in Granny's clothes. Shame on every leader of every institution who facilitates this charade! Shame!
From A.T."
http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/504891/505190.html#msg-505190
Re: "The media are still what Justice Thomas famously called a "high-tech lynch mob." They operate by collusion and by destroying the lives of their critics. That is another running sore in Stalinism 2.0. It is yet another reason why the media must be purged by the free market...."
Well, the writer reinforces an ongoing alert. However, the supposed "cure" is pollyannish. There is no "free market" once a vibrant middle class is rendered politically impotent. Economics simply merges with politics, crime, and skirmishing among organized criminals over spheres of influence that have little to do with national boundaries. I do not take skirmishing among organized criminals over spheres of influence to be a "free market."Your "cure" merely excites small business Kulaks to run between rounds of mortar fire being lobbed by opposing gangs of Rino corporatist wolves and Dino unionizing wolves. If we allow to be killed the traditions and institutions that defend the idea of America, as an independent territorial oasis for individual liberty, then the "free market" becomes a cruel hoax.
The only power that can sustain the idea of America is faith in a Higher Consciousness (aka, God, even if you don't want to call it that), which promotes empathy for the separate dignity of each receptive perspective. This is higher than faith in materialism or heaven on Gaia. It is the opposite of abject surrender of individual thinking (i.e., Islamofascism).
No amount of clever checks and balances, constitutionalism, legalism, or materialism can sustain or defend dignified freedom of enterprise in the absence of inculcation of respect for a higher source of empathy. As we lose respect for God, so also shall we lose the idea of America. There is no law that is stronger in iron. As we disrespect that law, so shall we sink into a despairing world of the abused and the abusing.
Regain and restore respect for an idea of America that avails and defends national independence and individual freedom and dignity. Do not join with those who seek to profit by reducing America to the lowest common denominator or to the sort of sociopathic rule that is endured by most of the rest of the world. Instead, raise a light, to show the rest of the world a better way.
Human health, welfare, volunteerism, and dignity are better served by competition and cooperation among people of individual initiative and empathy than by the false promises and faux-caring of corporatists, unionizers, and their unholy renditions of Big Brother and Big Gov.
Modern Liberals have been misled to believe the lies of corporatists and unionizers, that small business, middle class, individualists (i.e., Conservatives) do not care about the health and welfare of the less fortunate. Modern Liberals have bought the lie that liberty must be sacrificed in order to spread health, welfare, and wealth. The truth is the opposite. Modern Liberals are Little Red Riding Hood, being deceived by the Big Bad Wolf, dressed in Granny's clothes. Shame on every leader of every institution who facilitates this charade! Shame!
Friday, December 25, 2009
Un-Religion
Neither Reparation Obamism nor Islam are religions under any sensible definition of religion. They are no more religions than any other fascist secular belief system, such as radical secular humanism. The only aspect about Reparation Obamism, Islam, and Radical Secular Humanism that is religious is the notion of red or green purpose or Sharia after death, under facilitating grace of either a Higher Consciousness or a pagan Mother Gaia. To advocate further and seek to impose divine right of red or green rule under some mortal fascist, enhanced with SchutzStaffel or Friends of Obama, is not religion, but secular tyranny! If we are so ignorant as to let these people have it both ways through such a transparent ruse, they will exclude all from the public square except their faux religion -- even as they breed, deceive, and evangelize while doing it. In short, we are allowing empathy for higher consciousness (God) to be swept behind ever closing walls, while giving free reign to Chicago thugs and secular fascists posing as people who care about God and us. This is soulless madness. Unless vigorously opposed, it will sink America.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Pantheism vs. Panentheism
Pantheism vs. Panentheism:
An A.T. Commenter ("Old Dog") said, "You know...I just don't understand why...why? What possesses these people to make them want to destroy America? I can only come up with two words. Ignorance and Evil. Not a good combination but it is the only answer to why."
*****
Well, they have lost almost all faith. Many have been so misled or abused as to have become incorrigibly conditioned for serving only themselves, having learned no appreciation for just how hollow that sort of service is. The moral belief system to which they hang on to for dear life is the one that is most accessible for zombies who are already almost dead spiritually. This belief system is also the default system for sociopaths, gang-bangers, cult-bangers, and those so twisted as to wish to stamp out all contrary belief systems (and infidels?) as being alien to empirically based logic. This belief system drives most adherents (Pelosi?) to barely concealed rage, which its adherents duplicitously channel in order to pretend they are our champions (Stalin and Soros?). Intuitive empathy for any higher level of consciousness slips beyond them. Their ideal becomes this: That no consciousness exists beyond the consciousness they now know. The after-world as they conceive it is a "physics" that is populated only by dead rocks. Thus, they behave as if all higher empathy should already be dead. For them, there is no conscious source of empathy. There is only random physical evolution for expressing recurring memes. Know what has twisted this enemy, for it is a dangerous adversary of decency. At every reasonable opportunity stand fast and employ tough love, while wishing the poor shells that carry these lurching creatures about, "Merry Christmas."
An A.T. Commenter ("Old Dog") said, "You know...I just don't understand why...why? What possesses these people to make them want to destroy America? I can only come up with two words. Ignorance and Evil. Not a good combination but it is the only answer to why."
*****
Well, they have lost almost all faith. Many have been so misled or abused as to have become incorrigibly conditioned for serving only themselves, having learned no appreciation for just how hollow that sort of service is. The moral belief system to which they hang on to for dear life is the one that is most accessible for zombies who are already almost dead spiritually. This belief system is also the default system for sociopaths, gang-bangers, cult-bangers, and those so twisted as to wish to stamp out all contrary belief systems (and infidels?) as being alien to empirically based logic. This belief system drives most adherents (Pelosi?) to barely concealed rage, which its adherents duplicitously channel in order to pretend they are our champions (Stalin and Soros?). Intuitive empathy for any higher level of consciousness slips beyond them. Their ideal becomes this: That no consciousness exists beyond the consciousness they now know. The after-world as they conceive it is a "physics" that is populated only by dead rocks. Thus, they behave as if all higher empathy should already be dead. For them, there is no conscious source of empathy. There is only random physical evolution for expressing recurring memes. Know what has twisted this enemy, for it is a dangerous adversary of decency. At every reasonable opportunity stand fast and employ tough love, while wishing the poor shells that carry these lurching creatures about, "Merry Christmas."
Monday, December 21, 2009
OF MARRIAGE
OF MARRIAGE:
Why is it important for some folks to redefine marriage? If marriage is already equivalent in law to a civil union, then why should anyone be required to pretend a union between two people of opposite gender is the same in physical fact as between two people of the same gender? Next, will the agenda be to make it a hate crime to distinguish between same gender unions and traditional marriages? Precisely what is the agenda, if not to weaken foundations of Western Civ? Must we next take our eyes to be deceivers? If the concern is civil "rights," then why try to force changes in spiritual sacraments? And just why should sustainable civilizations avail equal "rights" and incentives to civil unions between people of the same sex? Just how does foisting and forcing civilization to do that help nourish sustainable civilization?
Obviously, what gay rads want is do is to render deluded minds so confused as actually to believe apples are oranges. Why? Because they desperately want to rewrite "normal" so that nothing is abnormal. Mr. Gay Rads, precisely why should civilization be required to accord equal rights and incentives to civil unions between two persons of the same sex but not between 3, or 5, or bi-communal unions, etc.? Are you poly-phobic of other kinds of unions? Notwithstanding your overwrought hand wringing, few thinking people give a fig, much less condemn you for, what you do behind closed doors. But many of us do care when you try to enlist government to give you the "right" to force us to say itis normal or to force us to avail it with precisely the same degree of social support or civic "rights."
Will you next be advocating that civic law should require that citizens pay precisely the same amounts to purchase or support prices for orange growers as for apple growers, because they have equal "rights"? As I said, your mix of apples and oranges is nonsense -- logically, civically, and historically. Basically, your "argument" that parriage should be deemed marriage reduces to "because I wanna." Well, that's not an argument. And if you wanna argue why parriage should entail precisely the same "rights" as marriage, then you need to explain why. Simply to say "it's my right because it's my right" is no better as an "argument" than to click your heels three times while saying "there's no place like home."
Why is it important for some folks to redefine marriage? If marriage is already equivalent in law to a civil union, then why should anyone be required to pretend a union between two people of opposite gender is the same in physical fact as between two people of the same gender? Next, will the agenda be to make it a hate crime to distinguish between same gender unions and traditional marriages? Precisely what is the agenda, if not to weaken foundations of Western Civ? Must we next take our eyes to be deceivers? If the concern is civil "rights," then why try to force changes in spiritual sacraments? And just why should sustainable civilizations avail equal "rights" and incentives to civil unions between people of the same sex? Just how does foisting and forcing civilization to do that help nourish sustainable civilization?
Obviously, what gay rads want is do is to render deluded minds so confused as actually to believe apples are oranges. Why? Because they desperately want to rewrite "normal" so that nothing is abnormal. Mr. Gay Rads, precisely why should civilization be required to accord equal rights and incentives to civil unions between two persons of the same sex but not between 3, or 5, or bi-communal unions, etc.? Are you poly-phobic of other kinds of unions? Notwithstanding your overwrought hand wringing, few thinking people give a fig, much less condemn you for, what you do behind closed doors. But many of us do care when you try to enlist government to give you the "right" to force us to say itis normal or to force us to avail it with precisely the same degree of social support or civic "rights."
Will you next be advocating that civic law should require that citizens pay precisely the same amounts to purchase or support prices for orange growers as for apple growers, because they have equal "rights"? As I said, your mix of apples and oranges is nonsense -- logically, civically, and historically. Basically, your "argument" that parriage should be deemed marriage reduces to "because I wanna." Well, that's not an argument. And if you wanna argue why parriage should entail precisely the same "rights" as marriage, then you need to explain why. Simply to say "it's my right because it's my right" is no better as an "argument" than to click your heels three times while saying "there's no place like home."
Monday, November 30, 2009
LOSS OF FAITH IN NATIONAL LEADERS
LOSS OF FAITH IN NATIONAL LEADERS:
LOSING CONFIDENCE IN CHARACTER OF LEADERS:
As we age, among other things, we learn that:
1) Many judges decide issues based on who contirbutes to their campaigns. (Example: Most folks would think it a no-brainer that relatives within the same vehicle who are injured in an accident and who sue the same defendant highway contractors or trucking companies should, in the interest of judicial economy and conservation of resources, have their claims consolidated for consideration before the same court. In my evaluation, however, the most common and decisive factor is based on what the plaintiff’s attorney wants and whether he holds local political clout.]
2) Scientists are no less human than judges, and may easily become invested in fudging data, as for pharmaceutical companies, for improving chances for government grants, etc.
So, as we become adults, we see past the stars in our eyes, and it becomes mundane to see people we entrust to decide and report important matters fall far short.
Now we find we have people who want to change: marriage to mean parriage; diversity to mean no national or assimilating ethos; national defense to mean completely open borders; patriotism to mean paying taxes to finance the melding of Big Gov with Big International Corp; and liberty to mean complete protection (and subjugation) under the State.
So how do we as a nation assimilate socializing mores?
TURF WARS AND AGENDA DRIVEN LEADERS:
How do you instill character for keeping science honest (i.e., not agenda driven) without instilling character? To me, the import of the main article cries out in anguish about the loss of trustworthiness (character) in our nation's leaders --- politicians, judges, and now scientists.
When people have character, they can be trusted to exercise a general liberty, without needing grossly intrusive legal compulsion or constant supervision. Is not character inculcated by conditioning people to consciously assimilate respect for a higher source of moral values and principles? Those moral principles do not appear to be objectively proveable in science, math, or godless communism. If they were, I doubt we would have such a history of outrages by sociopathic socialists. Rather, principles for sustaining decent civilization appear to be intuited and inculcated by people who act in good faith. (That does not make such principles less valid.)
So, what is “good faith,” if it is not based in faith in something supernatural, i.e., superior to complete reduction to pretenses of objective natural science? To me, having good faith without expressly mentioning God is simply to have good faith while impliedly appreciating … (think it, you don’t have to say it).
There is a turf war going on, during which some among both secularists and spiritualists have become over greedy. Given human nature, I think it is naïve at best to believe that our leaders in politics, law, and science can simply be trusted to be honest and authentic without either (1) having in some fashion been “churched” to assimilate socializing mores or (2) having become kept under totalitarian watch of Big Bro. IOW, except upon assimilating good FAITH, how do we as a nation assimilate socializing mores?
A Global Atheist Convention is being scheduled in Melbourne, the point of it being: “The bigger we can make this convention, the stronger the signal it will send to Australia's religious and political institutions that atheism and secularism are forces to be reckoned with.”
For instilling a “secular brand of good faith,” one may easily substitute in the quote above, so that the words “that atheism and secularism are forces to be reckoned with” may just as well be changed to say “that religion and traditional family values should be swept into a small corner.”
Many well-buttered people have learned to argue that their positions are objectively based, such as in science or in equal representation under the Constitution. Those who disagree, perhaps based on respect for longstanding importance of traditional values, are then denigrated for disagreeing with “objective and fair reasoning.” This is prelude to ridiculing those who believe we should consider long term effects on civilization, before we simply toss out longstanding traditions and calling them: unobjectively founded (what moral principle is completely founded in “objectivity”?), irrational, against the consensus of science, or, worst of all, outmoded principles of “intolerant religious fundies.”
About faith: Sociopathic leaders of Big Gov have faith not well founded in objective nature, i.e., faith that they should count above everyone else. Followers of Big Gov have faith not well founded in maturity, i.e., childlike faith and trust in authorities of Big Gov. So why is it that only those with faith for being receptive to God are the ones whose faith is ridiculed as being unhelpful, unnecessary, non-objective, and “supernatural”?
OF ATHEISM:
What drives interest in the rise of atheism? To me, it seems a general angst is gathering, and competing schools are assimilating to try to address it. Some scientists feel their domain (even enlightenment itself!) is being threatened by over greedy creationists. And now religious and spiritual believers feel themselves threatened by over greedy scientists. It seems as if one side truly believes in saving souls, while the other side truly believes in saving the planet.
Regarding over greedy atheists: I’m not confident that scientists’ leading of militant atheism will be either scientific or enlightening. I could appreciate if scientists’ bugaboo were religious literalism, if religious literalism were a threat to science or enlightenment. But science already suffers from its own over greedy charlatans and wannabes, looking for easy grants. To expect empirical objectivism to squeeze out spiritual intuitionism and culturally assimilating religious allegories is to push empiricism too far. IMHO.
I suspect there are plenty of smart folks who consider the notion of being receptive to a higher guiding source of conscious purposefulness to be rational --- not in a purely empirical sense, but in an intuitive, moral, and perhaps mathematical sense.
If atheistic empiricists consider that humanity “should” substitute some new reasoning or source for civilizing mores, then how do they expect to derive specific “shoulds”? Do they expect to use allegories rather than rigorous science to inspire humanity to accept such new mores? If so, they are merely kicking the religious can down the road. So if the leadership for atheists hopes to invade mores, to provide us with new lists for moral behavior and human purposefulness, then I wonder why? Why must they pretend such replacement would be based in science, as opposed to being based in subjectively conditioned, personal preferences among the new leadership?
Do atheistic activists expect to prove empirical validity for a new list of mores, so that all clear thinkers will undoubtedly follow? Or do they instead intend to foist or force their new mores? Absent connecting proof of legitimacy, why should society accept any such new listing, except upon a meta based leap of faith? How should society come to join hands to take such a leap? For moral guidance, should we be ready to replace priests with empiricists? Why?
I do think it would be well for leading thinkers to consider what mores should guide us. But I don’t think resolution or reconciliation will be found purely in the scientific method, nor in traditional religious literalism. We need ongoing means for pursuing the reconciliation of moral empathies, but I doubt hubris will suffice. We need to pursue appreciation for what separates the math which we experience as physics from the purposeful empathies which we experience more subjectively, as moral intuition. (Of the rational validity of intuition: I can no more measure subjective “you-ness” than I can physically, empirically, and rigorously measure moral intuition.)
It's not enough to think or say, "Me smart (bright?) scientist; you dumb believer."
GROUND OF REALITY: Are our moral empathies driven by nothing more than some sort of ultimate, unifying basis for what we experience as physics, sort of like a physics-in-itself (entirely derivative of some sort of [meta?] god particle)? Or are our moral empathies in respect of some sort of perspective-driven capacity for sharing renormalized and conserved images of mathematical equations? Upon what ground of reality do our scientific-based laws of conservation rest: is the ultimate ground some sort of (meta) physical thing, or may it consist in something not entirely explicable either by physics or math?
LOSING CONFIDENCE IN CHARACTER OF LEADERS:
As we age, among other things, we learn that:
1) Many judges decide issues based on who contirbutes to their campaigns. (Example: Most folks would think it a no-brainer that relatives within the same vehicle who are injured in an accident and who sue the same defendant highway contractors or trucking companies should, in the interest of judicial economy and conservation of resources, have their claims consolidated for consideration before the same court. In my evaluation, however, the most common and decisive factor is based on what the plaintiff’s attorney wants and whether he holds local political clout.]
2) Scientists are no less human than judges, and may easily become invested in fudging data, as for pharmaceutical companies, for improving chances for government grants, etc.
So, as we become adults, we see past the stars in our eyes, and it becomes mundane to see people we entrust to decide and report important matters fall far short.
Now we find we have people who want to change: marriage to mean parriage; diversity to mean no national or assimilating ethos; national defense to mean completely open borders; patriotism to mean paying taxes to finance the melding of Big Gov with Big International Corp; and liberty to mean complete protection (and subjugation) under the State.
So how do we as a nation assimilate socializing mores?
TURF WARS AND AGENDA DRIVEN LEADERS:
How do you instill character for keeping science honest (i.e., not agenda driven) without instilling character? To me, the import of the main article cries out in anguish about the loss of trustworthiness (character) in our nation's leaders --- politicians, judges, and now scientists.
When people have character, they can be trusted to exercise a general liberty, without needing grossly intrusive legal compulsion or constant supervision. Is not character inculcated by conditioning people to consciously assimilate respect for a higher source of moral values and principles? Those moral principles do not appear to be objectively proveable in science, math, or godless communism. If they were, I doubt we would have such a history of outrages by sociopathic socialists. Rather, principles for sustaining decent civilization appear to be intuited and inculcated by people who act in good faith. (That does not make such principles less valid.)
So, what is “good faith,” if it is not based in faith in something supernatural, i.e., superior to complete reduction to pretenses of objective natural science? To me, having good faith without expressly mentioning God is simply to have good faith while impliedly appreciating … (think it, you don’t have to say it).
There is a turf war going on, during which some among both secularists and spiritualists have become over greedy. Given human nature, I think it is naïve at best to believe that our leaders in politics, law, and science can simply be trusted to be honest and authentic without either (1) having in some fashion been “churched” to assimilate socializing mores or (2) having become kept under totalitarian watch of Big Bro. IOW, except upon assimilating good FAITH, how do we as a nation assimilate socializing mores?
A Global Atheist Convention is being scheduled in Melbourne, the point of it being: “The bigger we can make this convention, the stronger the signal it will send to Australia's religious and political institutions that atheism and secularism are forces to be reckoned with.”
For instilling a “secular brand of good faith,” one may easily substitute in the quote above, so that the words “that atheism and secularism are forces to be reckoned with” may just as well be changed to say “that religion and traditional family values should be swept into a small corner.”
Many well-buttered people have learned to argue that their positions are objectively based, such as in science or in equal representation under the Constitution. Those who disagree, perhaps based on respect for longstanding importance of traditional values, are then denigrated for disagreeing with “objective and fair reasoning.” This is prelude to ridiculing those who believe we should consider long term effects on civilization, before we simply toss out longstanding traditions and calling them: unobjectively founded (what moral principle is completely founded in “objectivity”?), irrational, against the consensus of science, or, worst of all, outmoded principles of “intolerant religious fundies.”
About faith: Sociopathic leaders of Big Gov have faith not well founded in objective nature, i.e., faith that they should count above everyone else. Followers of Big Gov have faith not well founded in maturity, i.e., childlike faith and trust in authorities of Big Gov. So why is it that only those with faith for being receptive to God are the ones whose faith is ridiculed as being unhelpful, unnecessary, non-objective, and “supernatural”?
OF ATHEISM:
What drives interest in the rise of atheism? To me, it seems a general angst is gathering, and competing schools are assimilating to try to address it. Some scientists feel their domain (even enlightenment itself!) is being threatened by over greedy creationists. And now religious and spiritual believers feel themselves threatened by over greedy scientists. It seems as if one side truly believes in saving souls, while the other side truly believes in saving the planet.
Regarding over greedy atheists: I’m not confident that scientists’ leading of militant atheism will be either scientific or enlightening. I could appreciate if scientists’ bugaboo were religious literalism, if religious literalism were a threat to science or enlightenment. But science already suffers from its own over greedy charlatans and wannabes, looking for easy grants. To expect empirical objectivism to squeeze out spiritual intuitionism and culturally assimilating religious allegories is to push empiricism too far. IMHO.
I suspect there are plenty of smart folks who consider the notion of being receptive to a higher guiding source of conscious purposefulness to be rational --- not in a purely empirical sense, but in an intuitive, moral, and perhaps mathematical sense.
If atheistic empiricists consider that humanity “should” substitute some new reasoning or source for civilizing mores, then how do they expect to derive specific “shoulds”? Do they expect to use allegories rather than rigorous science to inspire humanity to accept such new mores? If so, they are merely kicking the religious can down the road. So if the leadership for atheists hopes to invade mores, to provide us with new lists for moral behavior and human purposefulness, then I wonder why? Why must they pretend such replacement would be based in science, as opposed to being based in subjectively conditioned, personal preferences among the new leadership?
Do atheistic activists expect to prove empirical validity for a new list of mores, so that all clear thinkers will undoubtedly follow? Or do they instead intend to foist or force their new mores? Absent connecting proof of legitimacy, why should society accept any such new listing, except upon a meta based leap of faith? How should society come to join hands to take such a leap? For moral guidance, should we be ready to replace priests with empiricists? Why?
I do think it would be well for leading thinkers to consider what mores should guide us. But I don’t think resolution or reconciliation will be found purely in the scientific method, nor in traditional religious literalism. We need ongoing means for pursuing the reconciliation of moral empathies, but I doubt hubris will suffice. We need to pursue appreciation for what separates the math which we experience as physics from the purposeful empathies which we experience more subjectively, as moral intuition. (Of the rational validity of intuition: I can no more measure subjective “you-ness” than I can physically, empirically, and rigorously measure moral intuition.)
It's not enough to think or say, "Me smart (bright?) scientist; you dumb believer."
GROUND OF REALITY: Are our moral empathies driven by nothing more than some sort of ultimate, unifying basis for what we experience as physics, sort of like a physics-in-itself (entirely derivative of some sort of [meta?] god particle)? Or are our moral empathies in respect of some sort of perspective-driven capacity for sharing renormalized and conserved images of mathematical equations? Upon what ground of reality do our scientific-based laws of conservation rest: is the ultimate ground some sort of (meta) physical thing, or may it consist in something not entirely explicable either by physics or math?
Friday, November 27, 2009
MORAL CONSTANCY OF CHANGE
MORAL CONSTANCY OF CHANGE:
AMBIGUITY OF POTENTIAL FOR INFORMATION: Information exists in an ambiguous vacuum or state of potential, until such time as it is reduced or collapsed to the navigational experience of perspective(s) of consciousness.
CONTINUITY AND DEFINITION: A conscious being, existing within a frame or field of reference as a particular observer of a point of view, needs general continuity for experiencing itself as an Identifiable Being, but also needs means for discretely demarking and measuring particulars about its situational environment. That is, to experience meaningful changes, a conscious being needs to perceive as if there were both continuity and discreteness.
FEEDBACK PARTICIPATION IN CHOOSING: Consistent with “feedback design,” God, animals, and man may leverage and introduce various “devices” for generating, recording, and taking measures of information about developing potentials within a state of being. A device (such as a star) may be prompted for generating and recording information about a continuous sequencing of events, such as under a field or wave perspective. If so, all perspectives of consciousness which eventually access such information, to interpret it consistently, would likewise experience it consistently with a field or wave interpretation.
Alternatively, a device may be prompted for generating, recording, and taking measures of a discrete sequencing of events, such as under a particle or quanta perspective. If so, all perspectives of consciousness which eventually access such information, to interpret it consistently, would likewise experience it consistently with a particle or quanta perspective.
SHARED FIELDS OF INFORMATION MADE MANIFEST: Suppose, within a state of unfolding potential, one device is introduced for taking measures consistent with a wave interpretation of continuity, while another is introduced for taking measures consistent with a particle interpretation of discreteness. If information “had existence” independent of perspective, it would seem problematic were one device to interpret it as wave-like, while another device interpreted the “same information” as particle-like.
However, information does not have manifest or independent existence apart from perspective. There is no “existent information” that could be interpreted in two different or conflicting ways because information does not exist as an identity in itself. Information is experienced to generate shared experiential feedback, but information does not in itself exist.
SHARED RULING ALGORITHM: Because of a ruling Algorithm, each and every device within each and every shared perspective of reference will have the information it measures and interprets shared and renormalized consistent with the experience of each perspective which shares, records, and interacts with it. Each device and perspective which shares interpretations of information is sharing meaningfully communicable interpretations of potential, AS IF such interpretations were real, even though none of such interpretatons of potential constitutes reality-in-itself.
Rather, each device and perspective that shares interpretations of potential is part of a derivative or inferior reality, which is only shared with such potentials of consciousness as are consistent with such interpretations of potential. We do not share a same physical reality, because there is not such a thing. Rather, what we share is an overlapping renormalization of experiential reduction of potential of reality to shared and communicable interpretations of perspectives.
COMMUNICATING ABOUT SHARED PRETENSES: Indeed, not even that which we take AS IF it were the identity of each perspective of consciousness is intependent in itself, but is part of an interprtation of potential, for sharing and communicating with other such perspectives (such as, friends). Although my friends do not “really” share a same “physical universe” with me, they do share significantly overlapping and renormalized aspects of a shared interpretation of the potential of beingness --- AS IF it constituted a real universe. (As to Who or What avails the sharing of interpretations of potential information, I intuit: There is meta-action in respect of a higher Consciounsess, interacting with a field of potential information in accordance with a parameter setting algorithm.)
PHYSICAL REALITY: An infinity of parallel physical universes does not exist, because there is no real physical universe in itself. Likewise, there is no real time travel, because there is no real physics within which to time travel. Likewise, an infinity of perspectives of consciousness which are in identity with my own and which are inhabiting parallel universes does not exist.
UNIQUENESS OF LIFE PATHS: Rather, each perspective of consciousness takes the measure of its path of experience through the field of potential information in its own unique way. It could “repeat” only if information reduced to conscious or recorded experience within the field could be lost. If such information, once made manifest to experience, cannot be entirely lost (which I intuit to be the case), then each layer of new information will necessarily preclude any subsequent sequence from being precisely repetitive. In other words, our perspectives of consciousness are discretely different, even though our ultimate source of consciousness is continuously the same.
META-ENTERTAINMENT: It is through us, the various perspectives of consciousness, by which the experience and interpretation of information from the field of potential beingness are made meaningful. I intuit that aspects of information from our experiences are somehow preserved or continued, for influencing the continuing unfoldment of beingness, for the meta-entertainment of a higher, unifying, synchronizing, holistic Source of consciousness.
RENORMALIZING TRICK: Thus I concpetualize the trick by which our shared experiences of chronological sequences of information are interpreted, both as continuous and as discrete, in ways that are renormalized to preserve our shared experiences, i.e., illusions derivative of higher Source.
MODELING CONSCIOUSNESS IN MATH: Instead of trying to model math and physics for why space-time is either continuous or discrete (“either-or”), we need to model how math is consistent with both continuity and discreteness, depending upon purpose and choice of perspective of consciousness. That is, “perspective-of-consciousness” needs to be interrelated with our math, for renormalizing “particular point-of-view” and “field frame-of-reference.” We need to overcome “either-or” notions about “physics-in-itself” and move on to try to interrelate and understand “consciousness of beingness in itself.”
CONSTANCY OF CHANGE: Regarding one’s meaningful experience of change: Continuity preserves a sense of Identity of a thing that is being experienced of measured. Discreteness facilitates its measurement. “As if” experience, both of continuity and discreteness, is requisite to the meaningful experience of change. Neither continuity nor discreteness can be banished from existential relevance merely by “either-or” thought processes.
CARING CHOICE, PREDETERMINED FATE, AND RANDOM INDIFFERENCE: Consider that a device, recorder, or person has been introduced into a state of being for “taking measurements” of apsects of field-like information versus particle-like information. How “should” such introduction into the state of potential information be conceptualized? Ultimately, should it be conceptualized as in some sense having been (1) chosen; (2) predetermined; (3) randomly generated; (4) mixed; (or (5) imagined? Regressively, if imagined, should a field of imagination be conceptualized as having been chosen, predetermined, or randomly generated?
GOD’S ALGORITHM: As best I can intuit and conceptualize, I believe each such introduction of each such “device” is backed originally by a higher Source of conscious choice, which avails a field of potential by which such device is imaged, and which also predetermines a patrameter limiting algorithm for generating random interactions of such devices, subject to a continuous role for such higher consciousness and its avatars or perspectives for exercising feedback choices or degrees of freedom within such parameter limiting algorithm.
As for the most fundamental “device”: It would seem to be a basic unit with a meta-aspect for controlling how information (about expressions that we measure as “matter” and “energy”) is conserved.
In other words, that which we take to be “physics” is derivative of a “God particle” interacting with a field of potential information. As a result, parameters for such physics were chosen or set for ruling degrees of freedom. Holistic God and particular Avatars of consciousness, in expressing such interactions and in participating in taking measures thereof, by such means effect meaningful feedback choices within such degrees of freedom.
SPIRITUALLY EMPATHETIC CHOICES: Ultimately, such exercises --- of degrees of freedom, avatars of consciousness, and algorithm for generating shared limits for experiencing potential of beingness --- are all derivative in respect of a meta God particle interacting with a meta field of potential information.
AMBIGUITY OF POTENTIAL FOR INFORMATION: Information exists in an ambiguous vacuum or state of potential, until such time as it is reduced or collapsed to the navigational experience of perspective(s) of consciousness.
CONTINUITY AND DEFINITION: A conscious being, existing within a frame or field of reference as a particular observer of a point of view, needs general continuity for experiencing itself as an Identifiable Being, but also needs means for discretely demarking and measuring particulars about its situational environment. That is, to experience meaningful changes, a conscious being needs to perceive as if there were both continuity and discreteness.
FEEDBACK PARTICIPATION IN CHOOSING: Consistent with “feedback design,” God, animals, and man may leverage and introduce various “devices” for generating, recording, and taking measures of information about developing potentials within a state of being. A device (such as a star) may be prompted for generating and recording information about a continuous sequencing of events, such as under a field or wave perspective. If so, all perspectives of consciousness which eventually access such information, to interpret it consistently, would likewise experience it consistently with a field or wave interpretation.
Alternatively, a device may be prompted for generating, recording, and taking measures of a discrete sequencing of events, such as under a particle or quanta perspective. If so, all perspectives of consciousness which eventually access such information, to interpret it consistently, would likewise experience it consistently with a particle or quanta perspective.
SHARED FIELDS OF INFORMATION MADE MANIFEST: Suppose, within a state of unfolding potential, one device is introduced for taking measures consistent with a wave interpretation of continuity, while another is introduced for taking measures consistent with a particle interpretation of discreteness. If information “had existence” independent of perspective, it would seem problematic were one device to interpret it as wave-like, while another device interpreted the “same information” as particle-like.
However, information does not have manifest or independent existence apart from perspective. There is no “existent information” that could be interpreted in two different or conflicting ways because information does not exist as an identity in itself. Information is experienced to generate shared experiential feedback, but information does not in itself exist.
SHARED RULING ALGORITHM: Because of a ruling Algorithm, each and every device within each and every shared perspective of reference will have the information it measures and interprets shared and renormalized consistent with the experience of each perspective which shares, records, and interacts with it. Each device and perspective which shares interpretations of information is sharing meaningfully communicable interpretations of potential, AS IF such interpretations were real, even though none of such interpretatons of potential constitutes reality-in-itself.
Rather, each device and perspective that shares interpretations of potential is part of a derivative or inferior reality, which is only shared with such potentials of consciousness as are consistent with such interpretations of potential. We do not share a same physical reality, because there is not such a thing. Rather, what we share is an overlapping renormalization of experiential reduction of potential of reality to shared and communicable interpretations of perspectives.
COMMUNICATING ABOUT SHARED PRETENSES: Indeed, not even that which we take AS IF it were the identity of each perspective of consciousness is intependent in itself, but is part of an interprtation of potential, for sharing and communicating with other such perspectives (such as, friends). Although my friends do not “really” share a same “physical universe” with me, they do share significantly overlapping and renormalized aspects of a shared interpretation of the potential of beingness --- AS IF it constituted a real universe. (As to Who or What avails the sharing of interpretations of potential information, I intuit: There is meta-action in respect of a higher Consciounsess, interacting with a field of potential information in accordance with a parameter setting algorithm.)
PHYSICAL REALITY: An infinity of parallel physical universes does not exist, because there is no real physical universe in itself. Likewise, there is no real time travel, because there is no real physics within which to time travel. Likewise, an infinity of perspectives of consciousness which are in identity with my own and which are inhabiting parallel universes does not exist.
UNIQUENESS OF LIFE PATHS: Rather, each perspective of consciousness takes the measure of its path of experience through the field of potential information in its own unique way. It could “repeat” only if information reduced to conscious or recorded experience within the field could be lost. If such information, once made manifest to experience, cannot be entirely lost (which I intuit to be the case), then each layer of new information will necessarily preclude any subsequent sequence from being precisely repetitive. In other words, our perspectives of consciousness are discretely different, even though our ultimate source of consciousness is continuously the same.
META-ENTERTAINMENT: It is through us, the various perspectives of consciousness, by which the experience and interpretation of information from the field of potential beingness are made meaningful. I intuit that aspects of information from our experiences are somehow preserved or continued, for influencing the continuing unfoldment of beingness, for the meta-entertainment of a higher, unifying, synchronizing, holistic Source of consciousness.
RENORMALIZING TRICK: Thus I concpetualize the trick by which our shared experiences of chronological sequences of information are interpreted, both as continuous and as discrete, in ways that are renormalized to preserve our shared experiences, i.e., illusions derivative of higher Source.
MODELING CONSCIOUSNESS IN MATH: Instead of trying to model math and physics for why space-time is either continuous or discrete (“either-or”), we need to model how math is consistent with both continuity and discreteness, depending upon purpose and choice of perspective of consciousness. That is, “perspective-of-consciousness” needs to be interrelated with our math, for renormalizing “particular point-of-view” and “field frame-of-reference.” We need to overcome “either-or” notions about “physics-in-itself” and move on to try to interrelate and understand “consciousness of beingness in itself.”
CONSTANCY OF CHANGE: Regarding one’s meaningful experience of change: Continuity preserves a sense of Identity of a thing that is being experienced of measured. Discreteness facilitates its measurement. “As if” experience, both of continuity and discreteness, is requisite to the meaningful experience of change. Neither continuity nor discreteness can be banished from existential relevance merely by “either-or” thought processes.
CARING CHOICE, PREDETERMINED FATE, AND RANDOM INDIFFERENCE: Consider that a device, recorder, or person has been introduced into a state of being for “taking measurements” of apsects of field-like information versus particle-like information. How “should” such introduction into the state of potential information be conceptualized? Ultimately, should it be conceptualized as in some sense having been (1) chosen; (2) predetermined; (3) randomly generated; (4) mixed; (or (5) imagined? Regressively, if imagined, should a field of imagination be conceptualized as having been chosen, predetermined, or randomly generated?
GOD’S ALGORITHM: As best I can intuit and conceptualize, I believe each such introduction of each such “device” is backed originally by a higher Source of conscious choice, which avails a field of potential by which such device is imaged, and which also predetermines a patrameter limiting algorithm for generating random interactions of such devices, subject to a continuous role for such higher consciousness and its avatars or perspectives for exercising feedback choices or degrees of freedom within such parameter limiting algorithm.
As for the most fundamental “device”: It would seem to be a basic unit with a meta-aspect for controlling how information (about expressions that we measure as “matter” and “energy”) is conserved.
In other words, that which we take to be “physics” is derivative of a “God particle” interacting with a field of potential information. As a result, parameters for such physics were chosen or set for ruling degrees of freedom. Holistic God and particular Avatars of consciousness, in expressing such interactions and in participating in taking measures thereof, by such means effect meaningful feedback choices within such degrees of freedom.
SPIRITUALLY EMPATHETIC CHOICES: Ultimately, such exercises --- of degrees of freedom, avatars of consciousness, and algorithm for generating shared limits for experiencing potential of beingness --- are all derivative in respect of a meta God particle interacting with a meta field of potential information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
