("RAM").........Red Alert Moderates

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

ECO-POLITICS

The Prog/LGBT/Atheist/Elitist argument seems to be that some ineffable, immeasurable (spiritual) basis abides for authenticating the values of collectivistic hedonism, but not for authenticating the values of those who preach that each of us who longs for freedom, dignity, and property as an individual should do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Elitists who want to rule collectives under force of government hate when individuals prefer to rule themselves under love of spirituality. Like pre-Reformation priests, "scientific" elitists don't like for the lower masses to presume to think (and pray) for themselves. So they insult Christians for their spiritual faith, even as they pretend (falsely) not to indulge any faith (elitist based socialism) of their own.
So why do Elitist Socialists (ES) expressly denounce Christians, but not Muslims? Several reasons. For one, many ES are metrosexualized, androgynous cowards who fear the violent reputation of Muslims. For another, Muslims, like ES, tend to be socialists, but they remain apart and unassimilated -- so they seem to be a less significant threat to ES. But there is a main reason. The main reason is that ES want to ally with Muslims to tear down Christianity. Thereafter, they imagine Marxism or Scientific Socialism, if forceful enough, will have the resources to defeat Islam, if needed.
ES laugh at affronts by Islam against civilized Christians, by telling Christians that their religion is "no better." That is indicative of the moral bankruptcy of ES. ES, instead of lording that their God is greater, lord that their (so called) "scientific moraliy" is better. And they are as willing as Muslims to consign the rest of the world to hellfire to prove it.
ES are morally numbed by their mincing worship of elitist-led hedonism. That is why they are so proud ("gay") and willing to groom, profane, and abuse children. The fact that ES are willing to give Muslims license to impose horror on much of the world, even the West, is indicative of how hollow and uncaring ES, apart from their NWO cause, really are. If convenient to their cause, there is nothing of innocence or Christianity that ES, like most collectivized mobs, would hesitate to degrade or burn. In that, they compete for the apex of evil.

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

Wanted: Someone to wade through the fires of hell to save the ungrateful, the disrespectful, and the despicable. Someone willing to change the diapers of 25-55 year old infant socialists that have been trained to deem it hateful to profile or be judgmental against believers in the most truly horrific. Someone to redeem and show a better way to those who hate the good and love the bad, who would otherwise smile blissfully to bend and be beheaded.

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

The political parties are realigning as adult Americans v. childish and grubering Globalists. Autonomous Human Beings v. Automaton Pleasure Widgets.

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

The typical Elitist Socialist's faith is in Pagan Gaia, whose priests are knowitall noseinair whineyboys. They are quick to bring out the whine of racist, xenophobe, blah blah. To hear them, they don't hate. They just want to run everyone's life, and they hate when others prefer not to abide by their silly pc or regulations. I detest childish incompetents presuming they or their lying leaders ought to be running my life. They need to go join a mosque or peddle their nonsense elsewhere. Preferably beyond Pluto.

Do you have faith in progressively pursuing better governance under programs laid out by educated elites? If no, then as an atheist, you have no point. If yes, then that is faith, however demented. Nothing in empiricism can prove the moral legitimacy of such faith. No real adult needs to have that explained.

I don't dance and spin. Atheists do act on faith. So the lot of them peddle bs. That is self evident. It takes a dunce educated beyond the power of his intellect not to see it.

What is self evident does not need to be proven, nor can it be proven It just is. That which defines cannot itself be defined. Rather, it is inextricably interwoven in the cosmos, to be empathetically intuited by all who can remove blinders. But you have to remove the blinders you have allowed to be forged for yourself. You either see that, or you don't. Trillions of words could be wasted on it. If atheists' wastage of words does not constitute its own kind of faith, however, demented, then faith has no meaning. I can't fix that for you.

The power of dunces is more in their conditioned feelings than in any intelligent reasoning. I have little time for them. Once I see a person tends to militant atheistic socialistic fascism, I just don't have the patience to try to "save" them. Go and save yourself.

All I ask is that you not oppress or regulate me based on your unintelligible "feelings" about "fairness." If you lack faith in the innate freedom and dignity of individuals apart from the central appratus of knowitall elitists, go social-justice-warrior-jihad to someone else. I don't buy what you're selling. Be gone.

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

Push come to shove, I doubt you have much of a clue what you are. Clue: To try to tolerate everything, including that which does not tolerate yourself, is to nullify yourself.

In case you have not noticed, there are millions of people bent on agglomerating power that would not tolerate your position. Examples: Knowitall socialists, jihadi Muslims, militant atheists, treacherous oligarchic crony corporatists, phony priests, phony "moral scientists." If you stand for nothing, you fall for everything.

The test for what I stand for is based on this concern: What system of checks, balances, and moral forums is needed to establish, defend, and nourish decent civilization that will accord freedom, dignity, opportunity, and property to individuals, and that will limit such freedom only where needed to preclude individuals from putting the survival of such system in peril?

That test, in specific applications, is not amenable of scientifically detailed prescription. Rather, it depends on the inspired competency of a liberty-literate people of good will and good faith. But you say you lack faith, so not much is expected from you.

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

I tend to identify with people who are not elitist socialists, regardless of how they like to label themselves. Provided they are not elitist fascists or traitors to the representative republic. Of them, it tends to be a minor point to me whether or not they want to admit they take their own leaps of faith. Unless, that is, they are giving aid and comfort to the knowitall militant atheists who do exist and do want to impose their own kind of grinding rule or who do want to invite into our borders those cultures that are bent to destroy us.

Provided their atheism is where they are in their own personal journey, that is one thing. I was once there myself. But when they advocate for the general destruction of religious faith, that is another thing altogether.
In many respects, I appreciate the wit of the Four Horsemen. Where I think they go off the beam is where they (especially Sam Harris) cross over from science to "moral science." I think that is a giant camel nose advance for elitist diktat. But for that, my appreciation of the "Old One" may not be that far removed from theirs.

*************
I respect the right of anyone to believe anything they want and I don't hate them for it. What I don't respect and what I do hate is when they act on their religion or belief system in ways that undermine the freedom and dignity of others. If I see their purpose is to undermine the freedom and dignity of others or of the legal system of our country, then I don't want to invite them in. They can believe what they want, make of their own country what they will, but I do not want them to be undermining the system, documents, and laws that define my country.

You say you support the Constitution. To a lot of socialists and SJW people, that does not mean much because they tend to find whatever they want to find in the Constitution.

But if there are principles in the Constitution to which you truly adhere, then ask yourself why. Is it because those principles are scientifically and empirically proven true in nature? Is it because you have been indoctrinated so to adhere? Or is it because you have weighed the concerns and sought in good faith to determine whether, when, and how you should or should not support the Constitution? If so, how do you come by that process of weighing in good faith, if not in feedback respect for something of the cosmos that speaks to your fundamental intuition and empathy?

Do you understand how hard it is to restore a land of freedom once freedom is lost, either by being conquered or by inviting parasites to come and take it? A lot of people have bled and sweated to provide your freedom. What would give you or anyone else the "moral right" to sell it out to a mess of parasites for a mess of pottage, in a way that would harm the progeny of those who bled and sweated for it?

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

Liberals come in two flavors: Corrupt amd incompetent. As such, they want everyone to be either a people farper or a people farmee. They hate the very idea of any land where people by and large are competent to do for themselves. The vey existence of such a land is an affront to their assurances to their captives in lands of socialism, communism, and Islamism.

Similarly, realms where Christianity flourishes, at least where distinctions are held between voluntary charity and governmental force, are affronts to wannabe people farmers and farmees. This is why they and their cronies work so hard to infest every institution to try to bring down every independent, representative republic.

This is why they call you names, like nationalist, thumper, Trumper, phobe, redneck, racist, misogynist, privileged, colonialist, etc. As to racism, misogyny, special privileges, etc, those tend to abide far more with liberals, progs, radical gays, socialists, fascists, communists, feminazis, femimen, militant atheists, and jihadis than with ordinary Americans. They should be sent back to their cribs and told: Bite it!

*******************
You can label IT as you like, but it is what it is, and there is no good reason to believe it is much at all like the way Allah is described. Nor that it has as its purpose to impose perpetual hellfire on the spirits or bodies of all who fail to live up any of the injunctions as set out in the Koran. Nor that it wants women to be second class citizens, infidels to be slaughtered, of girls to be mutilated. Nothing of the cosmos or good sense makes any of that virtuous or sensible.
Edit: Nor can PC make it virtuous, sensible, or even tolerable.

Will someone who thinks it can be done please clarify the differences between moderate Shia and immoderate Shia, and between radical Sunni and non-radical Sunni?
Frankly, the whole idea of a Frankenstein God that gets his rocks off by sending people to hellfire for failing to acknowledge bs stories about him, even though he made them that way in the first place, is disgusting to every mind that is not sick. Yes, I do mean to infer that Proggies are sick in the head.
Apparently, Allah, playing with dollies, deliberately made some so ugly he could jolly himself by burning them forever, over and over. Is he mad because Mrs. God shamed him? What's his problem, anyway? What is there about this obscene "religion" among men who wear dresses that entitles it to the PC protection of fascists who want to pretend to have manners?

For Pagan Elitists, ethics is a cover tale told by idiots. What really matters is making a killing --- and making sure to pay the right people.
The more Elitist Socialists (and SJW's) twist gov to "help" us, the more they injure us. Let charities do charity. Let gov set rules. But let gov stay away from new charities unless the nation is in peril. We need to stop confusing force with charity.

Forget methane trapped in frozen ground. Think about political favors trapped in secretive banks, and elitism trapped in corruption. In politicians, crap floats faster than methane seeps. Hillary's up to her eyeballs in it.

Wanted: Someone to wade through the fires of hell to save the ungrateful, the disrespectful, and the despicable. Someone willing to change the diapers of 25-55 year old infant socialists that have been trained to deem it hateful to profile or be judgmental against believers in the most truly horrific. Someone to redeem and show a better way to those who hate the good and love the bad, who would otherwise smile blissfully to bend and be beheaded.

The political parties are realigning as adult Americans v. childish and grubering Globalists. Autonomous Human Beings v. Automaton Pleasure Widgets.

For what non- circular reason do you deem the Constitution entitled to respect? Do you have one? Do you have faith that there is one?

I respect the right of anyone to believe anything they want and I don't hate them for it. What I don't respect and what I do hate is when they act on their religion or belief system in ways that undermine the freedom and dignity of others. If I see their purpose is to undermine the freedom and dignity of others or of the legal system of our country, then I don't want to invite them in. They can believe what they want, make of their own country what they will, but I do not want them to be undermining the system, documents, and laws that define my country.
You say you support the Constitution. To a lot of socialists and SJW people, that does not mean much because they tend to find whatever they want to find in the Constitution.
But if there are principles in the Constitution to which you truly adhere, then ask yourself why. Is it because those principles are scientifically and empirically proven true in nature? Is it because you have been indoctrinated so to adhere? Or is it because you have weighed the concerns and sought in good faith to determine whether, when, and how you should or should not support the Constitution? If so, how do you come by that process of weighing in good faith, if not in feedback respect for something of the cosmos that speaks to your fundamental intuition and empathy?
Do you understand how hard it is to restore a land of freedom once freedom is lost, either by being conquered or by inviting parasites to come and take it? A lot of people have bled and sweated to provide your freedom. What would give you or anyone else the "moral right" to sell it out to a mess of parasites for a mess of pottage, in a way that would harm the progeny of those who bled and sweated for it?

I tend to identify with people who are not elitist socialists, regardless of how they like to label themselves. Provided they are not elitist fascists or traitors to the representative republic. Of them, it tends to be a minor point to me whether or not they want to admit they take their own leaps of faith. Unless, that is, they are giving aid and comfort to the knowitall militant atheists who do exist and do want to impose their own kind of grinding rule or who do want to invite into our borders those cultures that are bent to destroy us. Provided their atheism is where they are in their own personal journey, that is one thing. I was once there myself. But when they advocate for the general destruction of religious faith, that is another thing altogether.
In many respects, I appreciate the wit of the Four Horsemen. Where I think they go off the beam is where they (especially Sam Harris) cross over from science to "moral science." I think that is a giant camel nose advance for elitist diktat. But for that, my appreciation of the "Old One" may not be that far removed from theirs.

Hubristic Elistist Socialists who want to impose bs regulations against the little people, who just want to be left alone to assimilate their own appreciation of the moral universe, need to be smacked around enough to understand their "help" is not wanted.

The test for what I stand for is based on this concern: What system of checks, balances, and moral forums is needed to establish, defend, and nourish decent civilization that will accord freedom, dignity, opportunity, and property to individuals, and that will limit such freedom only where needed to preclude individuals from putting the survival of such system in peril?
That test, in specific applications, is not amenable of scientifically detailed prescription. Rather, it depends on the inspired competency of a liberty-literate people of good will and good faith. But you say you lack faith, so not much is expected from you.

Do you have faith in progressively pursuing better governance under programs laid out by educated elites? If no, then as an atheist, you have no point. If yes, then that is faith, however demented. Nothing in empiricism can prove the moral legitimacy of such faith. No real adult needs to have that explained.
I don't dance and spin. Atheists do act on faith. So the lot of them peddle bs. That is self evident. It takes a dunce educated beyond the power of his intellect not to see it.
What is self evident does not need to be proven, nor can it be proven. It just is. That which defines cannot itself be defined. Rather, it is inextricably interwoven in the cosmos, to be empathetically intuited by all who can remove blinders. But you have to remove the blinders you have allowed to be forged for yourself. You either see that, or you don't. Trillions of words could be wasted on it. If atheists' wastage of words does not constitute its own kind of faith, however, demented, then faith has no meaning. I can't fix that for you.
The power of dunces is more in their conditioned feelings than in any intelligent reasoning. I have little time for them. Once I see a person tends to militant atheistic socialistic fascism, I just don't have the patience to try to "save" them. Go and save yourself.
All I ask is that you not oppress or regulate me based on your unintelligible "feelings" about "fairness." If you lack faith in the innate freedom and dignity of individuals apart from the central appratus of knowitall elitists, go social-justice-warrior-jihad to someone else. I don't buy what you're selling. Be gone.

Grey eminences are fascist busybodies. They come in flavors of crony corporatists, socialists, communists, and new central idealists. They don't much like trusting the little folk to think or do for themselves. Instead, they want to mold the little people to serve their ideal of a "more perfect state." That is their own kind of religion. As someone who prefers mostly to think and do for himself, I loathe them and the religion they ride in on.

Beingness in purposeful feedback is. It does not need what you call your faith to be. It just is. It abides beyond your proof, logic, or faith. You can rationalize that however you like, but you cannot make it not so.

You fight your fight and I'll fight me. -- Doug Keershaw.

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

Trump: "Those who are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return home immediately."

With that statement, Trump grabbed the jugular of the main concern of Metro-Femi-Lefties, even though they themselves have been incompetent to state it.

That statement makes sense under our documents of foundational liberty --- provided Trump means to protect the safety of minorities, Muslims, and Gays, but not to eviscerate the First Amendment to do so.

It is one thing to express concern for protecting such minorities. It is another to make them superior. Thus far, minorities and their metro-hubristic elitists have sought to enact national provisions to guarantee protection of self esteem. Thus, they have sought to hobble everyone else with regulations against "hate speech," cultural assimilation, and white privilege. Instead, they have sought to establish special minority privilege and to provide for special reparations and affirmative action. This program has been their Trojan Horse for destroying and rendering meaningless (fundamentally changing) the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Once elected, Trump ought to advocate for Immigration policies for preseving a liberty-literate citizenry. Not an anti-liberty electorate of Metro-Femi-Lefties and knowitall Elitist Socialists. For too long, Lefties have been blind to the main consequence of their anti-First Amendment stance, which is this: To justify feel-good limitations on freedom of expression and enterprise is to promote elitist authoritarians. To promote elitist authoritarians is to grease the way for Islamists, Communists, Sociopaths, and People Farmers.

The more the Cattle People allow themselves to be persuaded to compromise the First Amendment, the more they are reduced to tender veal for the owners of the means of persuasion (media, movies, academia, etc.). That Femi Lefties tend unwittingly to vounteer for the ovens is indicated by their support for all the measures that have done so much destruction to inner-city families. Metro-Femi-Lefties might be forgiven for knowing not what they have been doing to America and its innocent progeny. They cannot be forgiven for caring not what they do.

Economic Shell Game

A shell game that commonly pollutes logics of individual versus group economics relates to slips between wholes and parts. Between those who play within the system and those who play above it. Between those to whom the law applies and those to whom the law does not apply. The twilight zone of international relations among crony corporatists.

Economic trade between societies organized as nations can never be "free," because each trading nation will always seek to advantage its economic controllers by influencing the politics of all other traders.

The U.S.'s economic controllers are not the people, but the people-farming cronies that treat people, politicians, and even governments as commoditities. They are quite amenable of selling out the people, nation, and its resources for corruptly laundered personal profit. The same applies to the despotic gangs that rule foreign nations, especially third world nations.

As a nation, our ordinary citizens are not benefitting, politically, by our trade policies -- regardless of whether one calls those policies free or fair. Rather, as a nation, our troops and workers who bled and sweated to defend our country are put under the thumbs of crony corporatists bent on selling them out. The consequence, worldwide, is a movement to reduce the masses to the lowest common status of desperate serf laborers. In this, those who run our major political parties are united.

The economic wealth that does accrue to ordinary Americans tends to come more from inheriting the work of people killed and replaced by abuse and war than from increases in efficiency brought on by "division of labor." The U.S., from sea to shining sea, has little need of most labor or resources from other parts of the world. To a large extent, what trickles down to ordinary Americans is a consequence of the dollar being the world's reserve currency. Other nations presently have little choice but to work for the dollar -- even though Americans nowadays produce mostly fluff. That, however, will soon leach out, like a back-washing tsunami. By then, most of our cronies will have found their safe harbors and islands.

Cronies, on the other hand, need one another to keep rolling their schemes for laundering political favors -- the consequence of which tends to be to hollow out the jobs and resources of their fellow countrymen -- the ones who actually bled and sweated to build and defend the nation.

"Free trade" tends to be a shell game by which cronies who rule above the game pick the pockets of individuals who play within the game. (They even inspire followers among unionists and homies by promising "free stuff." They own the ghetto people, because they own both major political parties and all significant institutions of political persuasion.)

The ordinary rules simply aren't applied to well connected cronies, and likely never will be. If Americans want to be "free," they will need periodically to overturn the tables of the crony money masters. (Water the tree of liberty.) Otherwise, no representative republic can long survive the cronies that will buy and sell its politicians and their "laws" as if they were little more than the devil's commodities. The biggest threat to the republic is the lack of effective spiritual and formal checks against the influence laundering of faith-breaching cronies.

By itself, no flat tax against crony consumptions can ever be effective to impede their snowballing agglomerations of political influence, that will always tend to the destruction of republics.

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

Socialists love Big Brother. However, the Bill of Rights is concerned with the freedom and dignity of individuals within States. To maximize individual freedom of thought, expression, and enterprise, provided it is not tolerated to destroy the freedom of thought, expression, and enterprise of others. Islam, like socialism, trades with the devil by destroying freedom in phony trade for safe spaces for the hiveminded.

There is no freedom among Muslims in Islam to express disbelief. That will cost you your head. There is little freedom in socialism to go against the line of the ruling party. That will get you an ice pick in the head, as Trotsky found out. There is no honest dealing in the Dem Party, as those who believed in Debbie Wasserman Schultz found out.

Islam, communism, radical socialism, and militant atheism are all intolerant of non-believers. For them, "progress" is the spreading of their intolerance. Those who believe in human freedom and dignity too often and too short sightedly condemn themselves by being so tolerant that they tolerate that which means to destroy them -- whether immediately or by a thousand cuts. Hive minds lack the freedom that is essential to mend them. Once sufficiently in power, the hive-borg kills freedom, relentlessly and permanently. Once enough voters elect to be ruled by despotic elitists who promise they will be benign, they forfeit their dignity and become reduced to subhuman status. That kind of socialism becomes a big-brother religion for subhumans.

People will work for themselves, their families, their significant others, and to improve their property. They will not long work for others if they can find ways to bilk the system. Socialists never learn this. People who use gov property do not respect such property -- even when socialists try to force such respect by lining up and shooting offenders in order to make examples. Elites are human beings, not angels. To give them the kind of unlimited power over others that socialists lean to, unmoderated by religious like faith, is to corrupt them, absolutely.

If socialists have any "red lines" they would enforce against the degradation of humanity and its children, what are they? They have none. Define your red lines and your non-religious science that proves them, that defend the innocence of children. You have none. You would replace the love of parents with the diktat of soulless statists, and then sell children for their body parts.

Whether you believe in Jesus or not, He gave the essence of the spiritual, moral law: Love God, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is a basis for human freedom and dignity, property rights, individual enterprise, and freedom of thought. Jesus did not send Apostles to demand belief in trade for not having your head cut.

Among decent, thinking people in the West, those two laws have taught intuition and empathy to moderate the Mosaic law. That is why you do not see modern Christians acting like primitive 7th Century islamists. To pretend modern Christianity is comparable to the depravity of Stalinism and Islamism is uninformed nonsense.

To denigrate all religions is also uninformed nonsense. You say you believe in socialism. Is your belief based in insight, intuition, and empathy, or is it based in empirical science? You do not say socialism is per se proven good by science. So you recognize it itself is a religion. Now, if you base it in a spiritual, interpenetrating, perpetual, immeasurable, empathetic, feedback aspect of the cosmos that is beyond empirical proof, then I am partly with you. The difference is this: My idea of "good socialism" (civilization) entails maximal respect for human freedom and dignity, which I would not, without overpowering reason, surrender to immediate gratifications or "safe spaces" for hive minds. I suspect, notwithstanding the abominations of the 20th Century, that socialists suffer from historical illiteracy that renders them excessively vulnerable to phony fallen elitists.

Regarding religious tests: The First Amendment gives the right to the free exercise of religion. In Islam, as in the Mafia, there is no free exercise. Apostasy will get you stoned.

Regarding Article VI, see http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438536/immigration-religious-test-constitution-does-not-ban-vetting-immigrants-religion:

"Of all all the ignorant pronouncements in the 2016 presidential campaign, the dumbest may be that the Constitution forbids a “religious test” in the vetting of immigrants."

"The clause said to be the source of this drivel is found in Article VI. As you’ll no doubt be shocked to learn, it has utterly nothing to do with immigration. The clause states, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”. On its face, the provision is not only inapplicable to immigrants at large, let alone aliens who would like to be immigrants; it does not even apply to the general public. It is strictly limited to public officials — specifically to their fitness to serve in government positions."

Bottom line: Because socialists apparently only read drivel, they only spread drivel. No doubt, however, drivel-spreading, socialistic Progs will find some idiot judge to rule. And why? Why, because Prog phonies have utterly corrupted our demographics.

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Motorcycle Zen

The world unfolds as if something of innate consciousness wanted to entertain a system-simulation of feedback, to test what would assimilate. Maybe even to test the variety of ways in which intution and empathy would rationalize credit to that something or someone. Maybe even to participate in guiding the simulation.

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

Whatever the quality of the ultimate "thing" out of which all other things are avialed to be quanticized, IT itself is beyond quantification. The only thing that fills that bill for being existentially experienced yet beyond quantifiable measure is the sense of Conscious beingness.

Thus, a reasonable hypothesis would seem to be that the ultimate Source of measurable Substance is no-thing more than Consciousness interfunctioning to express forms (to in-form) that obey math-based sequences and extensions.

This "hypothesis" is not empirically testable, but is based only on direct experience and internal consistency. It is not valuable for pursuing a theory-of-everything to explain everything in ways that are mathematically consistent and empirically testable. Its value is qualitative, not quantitative. Its value is in relating direct experience of Conscioiusness to the appreciation of existentiality. It merely provides shorthand terminology by which people may make reference as they come together in various forums in good faith and good will to seek to assimilate civilizing and meaningful moral values.

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

There is no ultimately measurable "thing" or "physical" building block out of which appearances are built to unfold consistent in their relations with math-based algorithms and equations. Rather, accumulations of Information, stored as present manifestations of Substance, are coordinated to appear in respect of perspectives of Consciousness.

In-form-ation means no-thing that is not made to appear to potentiality of Consciousness. Information that cannot inform would not "be" Information, but a pre-annihilating absurdity. Substance that cannot store Information would not be Substance, but a pre-annihilating absurdity. The coordinate existentiality of accumulations of past Information and present manifestations of Substance requries the existentiality of a unifying Source of apprehensive perspectives of Consciousness. It does not require that inanimate objects be deemed to contain Consciousness. It requires only appreciation that inanimate objects would not meaningfully appear or abide without coordination and reconciliation, at some level, among perspectives of Consciousness. Without part-icipation with such Source of Consciousness, both Information and Substance would "be" pre-annihilating absurdities.

I do not expect by this observation to lead to measured analysis of the ultimate character of Consciousness. I expect only to label a non-measureable thing that obviously exists to every perspective's sense of beingness, so that it can be legitimately discussed and communicated about. The purpose is to invite civilizing assimilations of intuitions, empathies, and values. I expect only to communicate that a "real" basis for higher mindedness abides and exists. So hedonists may be less conditioned for profit to tolerate the undermining of all attempts to assimilate human decency, dignity, individual responsibility, and freedom. So we can aspire to be human, rather than subhuman.

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

When a photon strikes a body of mass, the photon imparts some of its Information TO the body of mass, in exchange for receiving some of the Information that is available FROM the body of mass. The photon participates with the exchanging of old I for new I. This changes the state of the Information that is stored with the body of mass. Is the body of mass, in its new state, therefore no longer the same Identity as the old body of mass? As a body of mass, was it ever, really, an identifiable, measurable "thing"? Or was it a "thing" only in respect of its practical aspect, in respect of a math-based meta-system of activated equations? The body of mass will, in main, continue to be a sore of previously accumulated I, plus the new I imparted to it by the photon.

Is the photon "really" an identifiable particle, or a spread out field, or both, or neither? Is it "really" a placeholder for a mathematical transposition that is being reconciled by a meta-Auditor, that is calculably accurate to whatever the level of attention that the Auditor, from any perspective, has capacity to give to it?

**************
As an example of Substance, consider what we take as light. No one has ever actually seen a photon itself. Our idea of a photon pertains to some-measurable-post-manifestation that that was carried and transmitted as Information. As a photon transmits some part of its Information, it reloads other Information. As in a equation, that balances its functions sequentially, chronologically, expansively, and transpositionally. Once it collapses to unload its Information to store it with another receiver, then, as it absorbs and substitutes new Information, does it retain its Identity as the "same" photon?

Until a photon imparts its Information, its specific Identity is unknown. Once it imparts its Information, its substantive Identity has changed (no longer exists). We, as Conscious Observers or Receptive Recorders, experience such a photon by measuring (storing Information concerning) its trace, not by measuring the photon "itself." The Information that was carried by the photon (Energetic Substance) becomes stored in whatever form or book (Material Substance) with which we store it. Moreover, by our Conscious actions, we participate in choosing which photons (and therefore which Information) we wish to avail to become manifest (stored to material Substantive accessibility).

Thus, the existentiality that is expressed with the photon is transposed and fluxed with present Substance, cumulated Information, and participatory Consciousness. That is, the Trinity (Father-present [I am that I am], Holy Ghost-past [comforter], Son-future apprehensive [why hast thou forsaken me]).

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

I don't know the "reality." I have a conceptualization that seems to me to be as consistent, coherent, and complete as I have been able to ascertain. But I have little doubt that it is not perfect.   If I find a better "explanation," I will phase to it.

By my present conceptualization, there abides a Godhead that consists of a Trinity that correlates with a field, but it is not a measurable field. Rather, it is a field that avails measuring. That is, a math field. The Godhead operates with a math field in a way that fluxes out (qualitating) Consciousness, (measuring) Substance, and (cumulating) In-form-ation.

By my conceptualization, measurable physics is a subordinate derivative. The ultimate "nature" is no-thing but a field of math. It appears to be physical because that is the upshot of reconciling communications among the various perspectives of the Conscious aspect of the unifying Godhead. Because the conscious aspect of the Godhead is of a qualitative (spiritual) character, I cannot empirically prove its nature. Because it is superior to measurable provable nature.

I doubt there is a controlling algorithm for defining the math field with which the Godhead operates that is knowable or appreciable to limited mortals. Still, all that unfolds to our measurement must obey parameters of the math field. Who/what sets the math field? Does the math field itself phase or "expand"? I punt to the Godhead.

What unfolds to measurable experience does so in obedience to maths of chronological and spatial sequences, i.e., "meta-equations." As to whether or how those meta-equations may phase shift, I have little clue.

Yes, events follow chronologies. But I suspect they "circle back." I don't believe in YOLO. And while any perspective is dormant, it would not experience time. So its recurrence may from some perspectives be eons, but only an instant from its perspective. Even though it would seem not to know precise aspects about its previous forms of identity.

I don't believe in free will. I believe in a flux-feedback process that entails reconciliations of part-icipatory will. I do believe in a higher, spiritual, Godhead. I intuit it, and every perspective of it, to be at some layers and levels, always and innately empathetic. To me, that is the root of higher mindedness. Which was much more poetically stated by Jesus, in pronouncing the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. There is much that is worth discussing, warts and all, in most sacred religious texts. In the Koran, however, there is mostly warts, that are more to be spurned by any decent society that aspires to civilizing freedom and dignity as opposed to subhumanizing mind enslavement.

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

Atheists tend to think most Christians believe all the sacred metaphors in the Bible are meant as literal facts instead of as points of discussion. Big delusion.

I suspect, among those with a modicum of education, there are as many delusionaries among atheists as there are among spiritual believers. Moreover, many atheists share in deluded notions about the measurable solidity of all of "reality" and its independence from observations of perspectives of Consciousness. They have little insight regarding an interpenetrating and reconciling aspect of the Observer Effect.

That said, I agree that "physical literalists" that call themselves either athests or believers tend sometimes to be dangerously stunted in their philosophies.

I would conceptualize that the reality of our world appears in concordance with a trinitarian flux of Consciousness, Substance, and Information -- each of which fluxes in back and forth transposition among the others. In essence, an ineffable system of qualitative-quantities that is comprised of no-thing more than webs of math and perspectives of a Mathematician.

From Robert M. Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:

"[T]he Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of the mountain, or in the petals of a flower."

“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in.   No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow.   They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”

“Sometimes it's a little better to travel than to arrive”

"[V]erbalized statements about reality are never presumed to be reality itself."

“We have artists with no scientific knowledge and scientists with no artistic knowledge and both with no spiritual sense of gravity at all, and the result is not just bad, it is ghastly.”

**************************
Regarding Robert M. Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:   An Inquiry Into Values -- I found some good stuff here:    http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/175720-zen-and-the-art-of-motorcycle-maintenance: :)

“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling.”

“You look at where you're going and where you are and it never makes sense, but then you look back at where you've been and a pattern seems to emerge.”

“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”

“Sometimes it's a little better to travel than to arrive”

“Is it hard?' Not if you have the right attitudes. Its having the right attitudes thats hard.”

On a cycle the frame is gone. You're completely in contact with it all. You're in the scene, not just watching it anymore, and the sense of presence is overwhelming.”

“We take a handful of sand from the endless landscape of awareness around us and call that handful of sand the world.”

"[N]umbers exist only in the mind. I don't get upset when scientists say that ghosts exist in the mind. it's that only that gets me."

"Your common sense is nothing more than the voices of thousands and thousands of these ghosts from the past.”

If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.”

"If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed.”

“The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of the mountain, or in the petals of a flower. To think otherwise is to demean the Buddha - which is to demean oneself.”

“The real cycle you're working on is a cycle called yourself.”

"[V]erbalized statements about reality are never presumed to be reality itself."

“When analytic thought, the knife, is applied to experience, something is always killed in the process.”

“We have artists with no scientific knowledge and scientists with no artistic knowledge and both with no spiritual sense of gravity at all, and the result is not just bad, it is ghastly.”

“Absence of Quality is the essence of squareness.”

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

MY OWN MOTORCYCLE ZEN:

A niche will sometmes avail cows to be sucked dry of blood by mosquitos. Every time our legislators enact a re-form, blood thirsty opportunizers twist it.

We live in a time of rapid flux and phase shifts. Even a tactic of frequent turnover and reform may become inadequate to keep predators and parasites under manageable control.

Among predators and parasites, there is little of morality that restrains them. Without a revival of respect for spirit-based morality, the trend towards mass people farms will likely accelerate.

To steer towards a miracle, it would help to keep in mind a Source of miracles. Motorcycle Zen: When I want to steer my motorcycle, I first look to where I want to go. And then the bike goes there. Just ask any cyclist.

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

It's hard to say how much of subhuman-crony-communism is due to genetic nature versus cultural nurture. However, it would be unscientific just to assume that none of it is due to genetics.

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

Too many good people lack experience to discern that Evil has its worshippers. And history shows that those proponents of Evil often float to high power over others. Good people tend to expect that the exposure of bad actors will lead to their being shunned. Wrong. Among Rainbows, such exposure just helps identify the next leaders they will want to promote.
There are worshippers of Evil. I call them Rainbows only because they fly a rainbow flag. They are many. And they dog whistle to one another, to gain power over sheeple. The reason exposure of bad actions causes Republicans to be actively shunned by Rainbows is because the Rainbows were already primed to look for reasons to shun them! But Rainbows are NOT primed to shun their own. Indeed, they promote the bad actors among themselves. Exposing Hillary to be a demented crony-commie will NOT dissuade them. Eventually, it will attract them. These people are beyond fixing. They will have to be defeated and restrained.
To the extent goodness tends to spread, the demented deviance of Rainbows can be defeated, but only if and when good people wake up to the reality that Rainbows do not share their values concerning human freedom and decency. The cooption of the term "rainbow" by perps, pimps, pedophiles, and people-farmers is just one among many of their affronts to decent good sense.

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

Lefty Religion: Sitting on your fat ass for a hundred years while telling Whitey he is "morally obliged" to make reparations. (Reparations for what? For providing the best nation with the most opportunity on earth?) Lefty Religion is about whining how the "birth lottery" made you a "rainbow," as if the birth lottery had not imposed far heavier weights against billions of sick, lame, blind, slow, and ugly people. Somehow, most of them grow up and learn to take responsibility for themselves. But not the BLM and SJW folk. The explanation: They don't suffer under the BLT religion of the BLM folk.

Everyone has problems. Decency is about learning how to cope with them. Not about learning how to demand reparations from others. Where do reparations end? Should all the sick, lame, blind, slow, and ugly people of the world be entitled to reparations from Black citizens? Enough of this crap!!! https://youtu.be/oKg2FX1OvfA

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

I don't t say to trust central gov to launder bribe money. My meaning is that gov that is not allowed to remain benighted COULD help. It could help if, instead of training people to be entitlement-minded, it required them to work for their welfare.
But I agree that most such work should not be done by central gov, because central gov is inherently too corrupt. It tends to float crap, not cream. If (that's a big if) most functions were taken away from central gov and rdistributed to the States, local people would have more local oversight. There would still be corruption, but not on the same scale. Good people may have a better chance to dampen it. Foreign corruption would be less likely to threaten the replacement of the republic as a whole.
IAE, jobs for maintenance of infrastructure would not be done by bureaucrats, but by competing private domestic American contractors. Would you rather have private-enterprising Saudis bidding to take over toll road monopolies? How is private development by foreign corporatists better than local letting of infrastructure jobs to domestic bidders? After all, every dime foreign rentiers make by selling back to our citizens our own national resources would be taken from them by abuse of trust and foreign intrigue.
I doubt you believe abuse by disloyal international crony oligarchs is better than abuse by home-grown gov bureaucrats. What needs to be more appreciated is that there is a rentier-promoting kickback-alliance between mooching international corporatists and faithless treasonous home-grown cronies. Buying and selling pols as if they were commodities has become big international business.
Indeed, the pols that float to the top are now the ones that get the most dollars put in their shorts for doing the best strip teases. For goodness sakes, the nation elected Obama and may elect Hillary! The problem is not gov bad, corporation good. The problem is the agglomerating alliance between central gov and nation-less corporatists.
Just turning over everything to such corporatists would solve nothing. Indeed, oligarchic control over gov is what has put us where we are. Do you think there is magic in international corporatism more so than in local government? Or in distributing welfare without requiring work in trade?

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

Meme magic. A thought large enough to gain traction with enough minds will manifest in external reality. Confirmation bias works. Successful pols use it to advantage.

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

Buying into "white privilege" only increases the zeal of race baiters, parasites, and predators. What is this white privilege? Privilege to work, to pay taxes, to shed blood and sweat to defend and build the representative republic, to do the hard work to sustain the nation and human decency, to volunteer to help in community churches and schools and social clubs, to be scapegoated by every loutish lazy socialist and corrupt crony rentier.

I psss on "white privilege" as a meme! The libs who buy into it are metrosexualized weenies. The rapping minorities who whine about it tend to be little more than professional burdens on society. To end "white privilege," think about what causes it.

What causes it are the people who profit from raising it. The arms dealers who foment crisis, war, and unrest. The hedgers who play to make advantages by controlling crises. The pols who depend for reelection on a poor and easily misled class that can never be allowed to grow up or to leave the vote-for-a-living farm. And, of course, the shill and loot leaders, who are often paid by the hedgers and even provided with protest signs. And, of course, the mass of looters and leeches themselves.

What would end white privilege? Round up the crises farmers and/or tax them out of business. Stop the mollycoddling PC. Stop paying heed to distinctions based on bait by hedgers bent on fomenting division. Understand that eveyone carries his/her own cross. That most of the world is far less well off. That the end game for the hedgers is not to raise American minorities, but to reduce the masses worldwide to desperate serfs. Look instead to higher values. To innate morality or to the Godhead. Stop imagining that the world is required to give diddly about your special skin color, lack of talent, misfortune, or ugliness. If you want success, work for it. If you want charity, deserve it. If you want to do good, make a worthwhile business or contribute to a worthwhile charity or church. But STOP with the endlessly more cental Gov, rules, forced redistributions, PC dictatorships, and affronts to good sense and good will and individual freedom of expression and enterprise.

If someone wants to stifle racism, the way to help do that is to stop talking about it and stirring it up. The LAST thing BLM, Progs, Dems, and NWO Cronies want is to dampen racial animosities!!! They OWN racism. They profit from it. They rule by it. They will give it up the same day talentless Muslims give up Sharia law. To give in to people who should long ago have grown beyond infantilism merely because they whine is a form of abuse. It abuses people to lead them to believe they are entitled to demand that the world owes them a living. It is also an abuse of the republic. Stop the abuse!

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

Something that amazes me about some so-called atheists is their lack of insight or appreciation that they DO make leaps of faith that are based more on rationalization-to-desire (pleasure) than on pure reason. Many argue vehemently on behalf of causes, principles, or systems of belief to which they cling in ardor and faith. IOW, they are religious about how much they care about rationalizing their lack of religion. They are religious about the principles they would substitute for the religions of others. Indeed, communist atheists (superior "reasoners"?) were very adamant in their methods of "persuasion."

But these moral and ethical "principles" of atheists tend more to be simple rationalizations for individual preferences, which they often hope to convince (by persuasion if possible, by force if necessary) others to follow, religiously, as if they were innate principles (or applications of principles) of pagan Mother Nature. For example, some Gays want to believe in a Great Gay Mother Nature. That gayness is "natural" (if not beloved by Nature). That appreciation of Gayness should be taught in grade school, to which students should be forcibly exposed.

Some say they are "objective" minded scientists, indifferent to appeals except to pure empiricism or reason. Yet, they care deeply about their lack of caring (i.e., stance of indifference). Some say they base their higher mindedness in reason, apart from notions about religion or God. OK then, justify these higher-minded principles without resorting to any leap of faith. Show me their universailty and their objective derivation. Show me, in pure empiricism or natural reason, divorced from all leaps of faith, why every (or any) society ougtht to adopt such principles. And show your work.

I submit there abides higher mindedness, but it is not justified in pure science or logic. Rather, it is justified, if at all, in the direct qualitative experience and sense of being that is innate at some level to every perspective of consciousness. But I also submit that such cannot be proved or quanticized, apart from direct experience. That is, we each take on a leap of faith that our beingness is (or can be) meaningful and worthwhile. To care about arguing to the contrary is by such action to defeat such contrary argument.

Some atheists argue they can justify a system of morality without resort to "religion" or an innate godliness in beingness. OK then, why and how does a parent or friend teach morality, ethics, or principled empathy to a child? Does the parent say to the child, "There is really no basis for such higher mindedness, apart from self interest?" If so, how does the parent define self, interest, or self interest? Does he say it is ok to hurt others if it is in one's overall greater self interest? Does he try to shape what his child's or friend's (or dupe's) self interest should be? Or to shape or condition what his child's sense of responsibility to family, friends, nation, humanity, planet, or beingness should be?

A problem with atheists, such as communist atheists, is that they often want to take over the force of the government and use it to force conformity in "principles" among the masses. But these "principles" are always the self-justifying principles of the controlling, ruling class. So their "natural principles" get made into governmentally forced rule. They make the state the new religion, the freedom and dignity of each citizen be dammmmed! Their new ("reasonable") religion becomes: "Thou shall have no gods before thee -- except Gov" (or the reasoned droppings of its paid shills)(or in the cases of fascist Muslims -- MoonAllah, or in the case of Greenies -- Mother Planet.)

So, which "should" prevail, and when: self interest, elitist ruling interest, or social-scientist-unicorn-community-interest? Why "should" such ever be so? Will not every "answer" be a rationalization? As a rationalization, is not every such answer akin to a conditioned religion (using religion in the sense of a ritualized way of approaching things)?

So, what "higher-minded atheist" can really and consistently claim to an entirely unfaithful (anti-religious) "reasoner" about what principles should be accepted as being moral or ethical? Give me an example, and show your work. What are these" principles" that a cocksure atheist should believe should be fit to lay on all of humanity (either by force for their own good or by tricks of persuasion for the "progress" of humanity)? Do they find Mother Nature to have written these "principles" on stone tablets, by lightning? Are these principles innate to beingness? If so, on what faith or "reasoning"?

For myself, I believe moral empathies and principles are innate. That a qualitative aspect about Consciousness is inherently beyond measure, hence spiritual. That a shorthand way to cite the most important principles was taught by Jesus, as the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. That for any elitist, crony, oligarch, fascist Muslim, atheist, or knowitall Communist to attempt by force to condemn and replace the traditional or religious mores, parables, and metaphors of every individual is -- EVIL.

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

In main, I think I agree. :)

Light/energy, insofar as they are measurable to any present observer or recorder, are Substance.

But light/energy/Substance does not express or create by itself. It carries a history (cumulation of In-form-ation) and its "collapse" into a form for being sensed as either particle or wave (field) depends on its interfunctioning with an observer or recorder (Conscious Observer Effect).

At a deep level, all that is measurable as Substance (space, time, matter, energy) depends on an inter-flux with Information and Consciousness. And insofar as anything is measurable, it must conform to an interfunctioning web of transposing equations, i.e., a Math Field.

An animating Mathematician (Consciousness) expresses all that it measures subject to the Math Field with which if works.

What the Godhead expresses fluxes as Consciousness, Substance, and Information. Representations of what was Substance in the past have now been fluxed and cumulated into Information. What is the Information concerning the past is presently carried by energy or stored with matter. IAE, the carried Information does not manifest (collapse or reconcile) as Substance without some layer or level of part-icipatory Consciousness.

Within themselves, none of the aspects of C,S, or I is causal. Rather, what is "caused" to be expressed in each and every sequence or instance is the unfolding and reconciled upshot of a process of part-icipatory feedback that entails all three.

Depending on a tinkerer's practical purposes, he can operate from an assumption that any one of the three is "primary." But I doubt that any grand explanatory scheme can ever establish that any one of the three is "really" primary.

The Burlesque of People Farming

People-farming crony-elites have contrived by "immigration," "education," and infestation of all institutions of persuasion and force to twist our citizenry so that perhaps 65% are liberty-illiterate, individually incompetent, needful of safe spaces, and just want to trust elites to look out for them. By definition, such a society of industrial-strength stupidifieds cannot be fit for self governance -- except in burlesque or kabuki.

People-farmers have built a system in which most people are fit only to be farmed, and they will become violent if anyone tries to put space between them and their farmers. Given this situation, it is hardly irrational for the remainder of the populace to have the good sense to be "phobic" against bringing in more subhumans that want to be farmed as pleasure pigs and mad dog muslims. If the 35% that do not want to be subhumans do not soon unite, representative republicanism will perish from the earth.

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

I don't say to trust central gov to launder bribe money. My meaning is that gov that is not allowed to remain benighted COULD help. It could help if, instead of training people to be entitlement-minded, it required them to work for their welfare.

But I agree that most such work should not be done by central gov, because central gov is inherently too corrupt. It tends to float crap, not cream. If (that's a big if) most functions were taken away from central gov and rdistributed to the States, local people would have more local oversight. There would still be corruption, but not on the same scale. Good people may have a better chance to dampen it. Foreign corruption would be less likely to threaten the replacement of the republic as a whole.

IAE, jobs for maintenance of infrastructure would not be done by bureaucrats, but by competing private domestic American contractors. Should we rather have private-enterprising Saudis bidding to take over toll road monopolies? How is private development by foreign corporatists better than local letting of infrastructure jobs to domestic bidders? After all, every dime foreign rentiers make by selling back to our citizens our own national resources would be taken from them by abuse of trust and foreign intrigue.

I doubt we should believe abuse by disloyal international crony oligarchs is better than abuse by home-grown gov bureaucrats. What needs to be more appreciated is that there is a rentier-promoting kickback-alliance between mooching international corporatists and faithless treasonous home-grown cronies. Buying and selling pols as if they were commodities has become big international business.

Indeed, the pols that float to the top are now the ones that get the most dollars put in their shorts for doing the best strip teases. For goodness sakes, the nation elected Obama and may elect Hillary! The problem is not gov bad, corporation good. The problem is the agglomerating alliance between central gov and nation-less corporatists.

Just turning over everything to such corporatists would solve nothing. Indeed, oligarchic control over gov is what has put us where we are. Do you think there is magic in international corporatism more so than in local government? Or in distributing welfare without requiring work in trade?

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Einstein v. Bohr -- THE NATURE OF PHYSICAL, OBJECTIVE, AND SPIRITUAL REALITY

The world unfolds as if something of innate consciousness wanted to entertain a system-simulation of feedback, to test what would assimilate. Maybe even to test the variety of ways in which intution and empathy would rationalize credit to that something or someone. Maybe even to participate in guiding the simulation.

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

I prefer to believe not that each person is a god, but that each person is an extension of a single assimilating moral Principler. Instead of thou art God, thou art an expresson of God. A work in perpetual progress.

THE NATURE OF PHYSICAL AND OBJECTIVE REALITY:

The way light performs is an indication of the way we relate to a math-field that defines and supports us. I suspect that the reason light exists for both wave and particle calculations is because light is an expression of the relation of each perspective of consciousness to a math-field (or a series of "reality cones") that happens to define and support it.

The Equational Nature of our math-field is such that, for every particle, there seems to be an anti-particle at some level of entanglement. For every manifestation by a particle, there seems to be a coordinate manifestation by a polarity-entangled co-particle. If you stop a particle enough to coordinate a measure of it, you induce a coordinate and contemporaneous expression of its equation-balancing twin.

Suppose you stop a pair of co-particles and do not yet take a measure of either. If you try to contrive so that a measure of one will entail a measure of the other as an opposite, then a "trickster effect" may block you. If you try to contrive so that a measure of one will entail a measure of the other as a duplicate, then, again, a "trickster effect" may block you. So, is the "spooky trickster effect" on the twin particle pre-determined, or is it contemporaneously established with the effect that is imposed on the original particle? Einstein and Bohr debated whether randomness concerning quanta entanglements was real or only apparent.

MY SUSPICION:

Neither. Ultimately, the ideas of randomness and predetermination are inadequate to the task. Because the "particle itself," as Substance, considered apart from Consciousness and Information, does not objectively exist. Rather, its manifest existence for interfunctioning with me is dependent on its interfunctioning with the "Reality Cone" (light cone) that happens to be shared by myself and all other beings with whom I happen to be in potential communication.

Bohr was correct, in that no Reality Cone is pre-determined. But I suspect he was correct in that, only because both he and Einstein were incorrect in presuming that a Reality Cone exists independently, objectively, by itself.

Einstein: "I like to think the Moon is there (continues to exist) even if (when) I am not looking at it." Myself: Yes, the Moon continues to exist even when I'm not looking at it. But only because other perspectives with which I share my Reality Cone, with whose experiences those of my own are reconciled, happen to continue to be "looking" at it (feeling its effects) -- even when I am not. If no perspective of Consciousness were feeling (or potentially measuring the effects of) the Moon, then the Moon could not intelligently or rationally be said then and there to be existentially manifest.

So, each Reality Cone unfolds as it is reconciled with the interfunctionings of such perspectives of Consciousness and Information as happen to share in it. And the way it will unfold cannot be perfectly pre-known or pre-set by any mortal perspective. Rather, a meta-process beyond our ken coordinates and reconciles all manifest interfunctionings within our Reality Cone. We part-icipate with it, and our apprehensions and appreciations (prayers and observations) factor with it, but we do not have means for controlling, confining, or measuring it -- except indirectly, intuitively, empathetically. The math must always balance, but potential fluxes enjoy general parameters of freedom -- so long as they remain tethered to factors for keeping the math field balanced.

IOW, we, and no-thing with which we manifestly relate, are not entirely causal to our unfoldings, as opposed to being merely correlative and appreciative. So, events as manifested are not knowable by us to be pre-caused, nor are they ultimately knowable by us to be contemporaneously or intertwinedly caused. For a mortal to anguish whether events are "really" first caused, pre caused, chaotically random, or participatorily chosen tends to be idle. Rather, each way of modeling tends to enjoy its season and purpose.

Ultimately ("really"), it must be enough to appreciate that what supports us is a godhead, whose aspects present to us in Consciousness, Substance, and Information. We part-icipate with the godhead, via our prayers (apprehensions), praising observations (appreciations), and good faith (good will, spiritual insight, innate empathy, generally intuitive sense of beingness, and moral higher-mindedness).

Substance (the Moon) does not exist objectively apart from Consciousness (observation) and Information (accumulation of maths). But neither do Consciousness and Information exist apart from Substance.

TRINITARIAN GODHEAD:
Character of Mind or Consciousness: Whatever self-identifies to take a stand (adopt a perspective) thereby takes a manifested measurement.
Nature of Substance: Substance is the thing or body that is measured, apart from its math value (math field), and apart from the conscious perspective that apprehends it as Substance.
Math of Information: Whatever remains fuzzy and itself unreduced to manifest measure and appreciation remains part of the math-field.

The character of an Unchanging-Changer (Consciousness) reconciles all that measurably unfolds out of potentiality to experientially manifested observation and participatory appreciation (Substance) -- out of no-thing more than a field of math (Information). The eternal abiding of the Trinity is unchanging. Yet, the Trinity changes in regard to the perceptions we experience in respect of how it presents to us -- in aspects that flux among Consciousness, Substance, and Information (CSI). The Kaleidescope remains the same. But the way we interfunction with it changes.

FAITH: What presently fluxes how the math field is experienced to unfold amounts to meta-level reconciliations of then-and-there feedback concerning the collective store of all the observations, apprehensions, and appreciations of all perspectives of Consciousness that happen to share a Reality Cone. Each perspective must and does rationalize as if it alone determines (causes) its reactions to how the Reality Cone is presented to it. The math must always balance, but potential fluxes enjoy general parameters of freedom -- so long as they remain tethered to factors for keeping the math field balanced.

ORIGINAL CREATION AND BIG BANG: Was there really a singular originating event or big bang? Or is it only that every that every perspective that happens to share any overlapping cone or point of view necessarily rationalizes as if there were a beginning point in measurable time and space that renormalizes to the first appearance of the Reality Cone in which it happens to share?

IMAGINATION AND CONCEPTUALIZATION: "Dark" energy and matter may be conceptualized as that which comprises all the generally measurable aspects of the math-field that are not precisely measurable or provable between individual perspectives of Consciousness. Dark energy and matter is that which cannot be entirely renormalized to the beginning point of a particular perspective's Reality Cone.

REAL FORMS AND PHYSICAL REALITY: For pragmatic purposes, we can tinker out ways to refer to a "same line." Even though such line does not, as a thing in itself, exist. And even though no precise or exact renormalization of such line is possible for us. However, the "same" line may be differently long, straight, or curved, depending on each perspective's point of view, relative motion, and interpretive experience. There may not "really exist" any re-normalizeable "same line" to measure. There may simply abide fluxing, nodal overlaps among perspectives of Mind. The only "real" synthesis for the straight line may abide with some thing or quality of reconciling Holism -- whose essence is beyond our ken.

CONSCIOUSNESS: Consciousness may be considered to be that which organically emerges and adopts to experience a set of mutually sustaining signals in a way that is qualitatively apart from the mathematical sum of its components.

COORDINATION AMONG SENSE RECEPTORS: A single pattern or form may evolve an electromagnetic or other force-based sense receptor that advantages its preservation and replication. It may evolve to coordinate with other patterns and kinds of sense receptors. By itself, a sense receptor will not give as good a representation of environmental challenges and opportunities in order to allow its owner to thrive. But sense receptors often evolve so that they coordinate Information that is refined and interpreted to avail a broader and more coherent and ooordinate interpretation of practical and surrounding Reality. The better such receptors coordinate to avail a more consistent, coherent, and complete interpretation or representation of Reality, the better their owner is equipped as an organism to survive and reproduce. Advanced consciousness of self tends to emerge with and adopt itself to the generation of coordinated interpretations of sensory inputs. Eventually, such self consciousness may acquire transhuman transbiological transmachined capacity to penetrate space-time to astonishing degrees and kinds.

PHASE FLUX: More and more, the Informational boundaries that feed back and forth between what is inanimate-unconscious-quantitative-Substance and what is organically-aware-qualitative-Consciousness will fuzz and flux, depending on point of view and purpose of focus. The way by which Information happens to be reconciled to self-organize coordinates with and influences the way by which Consciusness and Substance unfold.

CONSCIOUS FEEDBACK: At some level of conceptualization, cells and fractals that comprise every pattern that through feedback opportunize and persevere through space-time against changes in their exterior environment have been adopted to some level of feeding-back conscious identity. At some level of feedback beyond mortal analysis, there is hovered, rooted, bonded and/or entailed to every pattern that manifests and exhibits sensate consciousness some level of Identity. Every Identity apprehends fluxes among Substance, Information, and Consciousness. The fluxes are coordinated and reconciled with consciousness that perseveres concerning each and every such pattern, even if such consciousness is not caused by the pattern itself. Thus, the Godhead abides.

THE CLOUD -- SPIRITUAL DIGNITY AND FREEDOM: How can a civilization on a "physical world" remain based in freedom and dignity, once too many individuals acquire knowledge and skills for the absolute destruction of the shared "physical world"? As knowledge increases for mind manipulation, and as skill increases for the destruction of civilizations, ecosystems, biology systems, and physical worlds, must not survival require increases in monitoring, regulating, and strait-jacketing? Can virtual worlds, cyborgism, and transhumanism provide ways to phase beyond skill of destruction, towards advancement and preservation of spiritual freedom and dignity? Maybe.

FREEDOM, DIGNITY, AND SPIRITUALITY: Our future will entail more respect for spirituality, or it will entail destruction on a scale beyond reckoning.

DUALISM: Eternity resides with Infinity, as Waves reside with Particles and a Mathematician resides with Math. And as ungridded math and form-ulas (balancing equations of algebra and calculus) reside with gridded math (fluxing geometric forms and dissipating space-time). As God resides with Nature to co-relate to Morality.

Math must somehow be fluxing, both in ungridded and gridded aspect. In itself, ungridded. With self-perpetuating fractal-fluxes and "contacts" and sensations, gridded.

Some aspect must co-relate with a math web, to activate "contactual sensations" and rebalance reconciliatory feedback among its fractalizing form-ulas.

Math must somehow be innately sensate to a reconciling Mathematician, with degrees and kinds of fluxing formulaic freedom.

Without Image-ination innately summoning some such Mathematician, math would be without form as a gridding web, and it would be meaningless or absurd to speak of any existential math-web. Math implicates sensate rebalancing of equations, and therefore an innate Web Master.

ACTIVE MATH: Suppose geometry of space-time is not a form that is "itself" "physically real." Suppose space-time in itself is mainly derivative of interpretation by Consciousness of math-like Information, that presents AS IF it were in itself real (or at least practicably and measurably representative). Were space-time not interfunctioning with Conscious experience and interpretation, it could be thought of as being more like a self-perpetuating form-ula than an externally-existential form.

What then of part-icles that present AS IF moving through space-time? Would not the particles also be thought more like self-perpetuating form-ulas than actual forms? So, how would such particular formulas be conceptualized to interfunction with an "encompassing" formula for space-time, except by moving as forms "through" it?

Well, what if each math-based part-icle form-ula is conceptualized to be immune to "erosion" or interactive corrosion from space-time in the absence of pre-conditioning phases? How is it that some quanta "tunnel" through other form-ulas AS IF they were not factors, while "impacting" and being catalyzed or changed by other form-ulas?

IDEA: When so-called particles tunnel through others, without either being altered or changed, it is because their active formu-las remain to some extent self-contained and uninfluenced. When they are mutually changed, it is because their formulaic maths (equations) are charged, changed, and rebalanced. (Because all particles, i.e., form-ulas, seem to come in potentially annihilating pairs, no particle seems to be completely self contained. All are subject to "contactual" influence. But the key to such influence may reside in other particles of select charges or polarities. Until a particle comes into the influence of another that can complete or alter it, it can "tunnel.")

When the rebalancing is sensed by a perspective of Consciousness, the event will be interpreted AS IF each of the form-ulas that is perceived to be interfunctioning "really" had mass, vector, charge or "occupation" of space-time. Even though, in "reality" apart from each interpreting perspective, there are neitther particular forms nor general space-time, independent in themselves.

Ideas concerning Quanta seem to have to do with math values that are self containing for some purposes and charged (not self containing) for other purposes. To make a particle is to split no-thing but a math web, since every particle entails a counterparticle. To make a particle is to make a form from no-thing but a math web, that, as a form-ula, is charged to sense and seek its counterparticle. And if it finds it, to annihilate one another. Thus, no particle can in itself be complete, and any particle that does achieve completeness annihilates back into the math web.

Much of observational interpretation is correlative with how pairs of form-ulas happen to be mathematically entangled and how those entanglements are charged or affected by interfunctioning forces of quanta, gravity, and electromagnetism. For example, some Robins are tested to find North by tricks of quantum entanglements in respect of magnetic poles. And frogs are tested to morph from tadpoles by similar tricks for breaking down protein-based collagens. Moreover, an "observer effect" seems broadly to influence many interactions.

When considered apart from Consciousness, it is AS IF measurable Substance were little more than Active Math. Considered apart from Informational accumulation of Conscious interpretation, the "real existentiality" of Substance seems to be illusory-like.

PHILOSOPHICAL CONSEQUENCE: Any idea that Science can be based purely in measurables is illusory. Rather, a well-formed appreciation of Reality necessitates an undergirding philosophy that facilitates understanding of fluxes among a triad: Consciousness, Substance, and Information. Information concerns what appears to be (manifests) "physical," but Information itself is not physical.

MORAL CONSEQUENCE: Interpenetrating Consciousness is a fundamental aspect among a triad. Projections of empathy are intuitive and innate. Too many profs, stooges, and shills mislead people to believe things about science, nature, spirituality, and the godhead that simply are not so. It is only in that way that people become more hardened against ideas of spiritual-based empathy.

FRACTALS WITH ENTAILS: Form-ulas that would otherwise remain independently self-perpetuating may be brought into "contact" with others that result in their mutual change and rebalancing. Their "contact" may results in their "remembering" or recording of fractal copies, entails, or imprints of one another. Entails that represent as geometry-based entanglements, polarities, attractions, repulsions, spins, particles, and/or waves may facilitate fractal-cell representations in ways that facilitate the interpretation, recordation, transmission, transmutation, communication, and/or "sensation" of one another.

PHYSICAL CONTACT: So, how is it programmed, simulated, chosen, determined, or chanced that some form-ulas (physically?) "contact" others while some "tunnel through" others? Is such process under a preset algorithm, a participatory Author, a chaos of pattern forming, and/or a fluxing triad? Is the Triad comprised of measurable quantitatives (Substance), immeasurable qualitatives (Consciousness), and accumulated properties (Information)?

GODHEAD: Is a holistic and reconciling property or Identity of Consciousness fluxing with a perpetual and infinite math field (of present Substance and potential Information)? Is that how senses evolve, via fractals of form-ulas as reconciled via a meta-Source (godhead)? How can we have an idea of "causation" or "first cause" if all we experience are limiting perceptions of chronologically and correlatively connected manifestations? We say, tautologically, that "such and such came to be as it came to be" -- with no way of knowing what came before what first produced our present interpretations and sensations of self.

CAUSATION: Our idea of "causation" (past, present, and future) thus seems to reduce to little more than tautological begging of the question: How and why did what preceded us (that continues to precede us) come to be?

APPRECIATION: Yet, even though one's idea of causation is fuzzed, one still contemporaneously and appreciatively part-icipates in one's unfolding experiences and perspectives.

CULTURE OF TECHNOLOGY: Technological advances will depend on discovery and development of new math and algorithmic co-relations. That will change our perspectives, brains, bodies, and environment. It may also alter the availability of pathways to new usages of maths. And the nature of space-time.

What is possible to transmit with math-based tech will depend on the algorithmic direction along which tech unfolds. How we change ourselves, our perspectives, our purposes, and our philosophies will affect the potentialities of math as they unfold before us. Our maths are limited in that they have to contact, connect, flux, and rebalance. Beyond that, limits, if any, on potentialities of clouds offered by eternity and infinity are hard to see. In a way, we are always only at an accumulated beginning for potentialities of infinity.

BEINGNESS AND PARTICULARIZATION: If space-time is not really an objective physicality, then what in chronology or distance really separates any particle from its anti-particle, or from any other particle? Perhaps what separates them is ultimately no more independently and "physically real" than the physicality of the part-icles themselves. Perhaps what "really" separates them is not chronology or distance, but the image-ination of Consciousness, for imagining Substantive placeholders for present accumulations of Information.

But for the part-icipation of Consciousness, part-icles would not exist. Particles, because they are sensate of their co-particles, are themselves, at some level,"Observers." The Observer Effect, writ large. Human beings are simply more fractally complex organizations for leveraging the innate senses that associate with particles. Consciousness "interpenetrates" Reinhold Niebuhr's word) the math web.

MORAL GUIDANCE:

The Godhead is what it is. We need not pretend that it is what it clearly is not. It is not without innate creative desire, interest in testing its capacities, and innate empathy. No particle of any particular manifests into existence unless and until the Godhead has facilitated it from a web of math that otherwise would be without apparent physical form. No particle becomes manifest without having been contemporaneoulsy charged and paired against either a balancing counterparticle or a counter aspect or form-ula. Every particle that manifests thus capacitates a kind of "physical" sensateness.

Thus, every perspective of sensateness is innately a representation of both consciousness and empathy. From that innate capacity, the Godhead facilitates organizations of perspectives built on complex fractals of particles upon particles.

Nothing suggests that the Godhead's underlying creative drive and innate empathy ever terminate. Nothing suggests that any apparent locus or perspective of Consciousness is of any essence that is apart from all others. Consciousness is consciousness. Empathy among perspectives of Consciousness is innate. However, it can become stunted or perverse to its natural interests. It can become twisted to the point of needing to be rehabilitated or eliminated. Creative destruction is part of necessary feedback and reconciliation.

Twisted perversion and misery tend to come of pretending that the Godhead is other than what it is. Pretending that is it "linear to a final earthly purpose" leads to falls of towers of Babel. Pretending that phased replacement (destruction) is not part of the process of creative feedback leads to disillusion and withdrawals into cynicism. That is, people farming. Promoting unchecked population leads to vast pollution of the earth. Undue social and governmental facilitation of nutcase religions leads to destructive disassimilation of decent social mores. Promoting libertine and socialistic pleasure in irresponsible polyamorous sex while replacing responsibility for child rearing with stringent gov oversight and regulation of pc leads not to a City on a Hill, but to bureaucratic hell on earth.

After the "good guys" "won" the Cold War, polyannish cretin pastors counseled it was time to let libertine pleasure bloom and to "apologize" to pansexual gender-fluid people for ever having counseled moderation and social responsibility. PolyAnns also counseled that gov bureaucrats operating under instructions from their moral "betters" and elites should take central control over material wealth and then redistribute it charitably, equally, and "fairly." IOW, they pervertedly conflated Caesar, Gov, and Force of Arms with voluntary charity. So what have these "do gooders" produced?

They say the world tends now to be a better place. If so, it is with little thanks to the heads-in-the-sand of crony-commie "do-gooders." Inner cities and infrastructure are a mess. Minority households tend to be without fathers. Recipients of "gov welfare" tend to be entirely unthankful smart alecs. They blame the producing redistributors for not redistributing more. They believe the world ("Whitey") owes them a good living on account of the past "sins of the world" (the Godhead). They seed and feed self-righteous anger, division, looting, mayhem, and madness. They become mind slaves to cynically faithless puppet-masters that care not in the least for them.

This is what our Leftist, Progish, Socially Charitable, Socialistic Priests, Pagans, Profs, Pimps, Pervs, and Perps are producing. Even as they target responsible Americans (who advocate real charity, individual responsibility, and work dignity) for resisting. If Americans "won" the Cold War, the social scum we have facilitated are grasping defeat from the jaws of victory. In short, many of our moral "leaders" have become stupid, ludicrous, twisted, and evil.

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

Well, I don't think I can evaluate the essence or "final purpose" of God. It is what it is.

Regardless, by the same argument, God would have had no need to create us as imperfect beings in the first place. God could have made us perfect, without need of trial or tribulation. If so, I see no reason to assume He would need to provide for us a "final judgment."

I suspect the conscious aspect of the Godhead needed us for some purpose. If so, then that aspect was not in itself perfect. Not without the trinitarian addition of Information and Substance to the Conscious aspect. CSI = Trinitarian Godhead.

I would conceptualize the trinitarian Godhead to be perfect in its essence, but pursuing in its flux among its trinitarian aspects.

What does the Conscious aspect pursue? I don't think it's anythng linearly final. Rather, to my intuition or belief, it's more like a fluxing feedback. An artist needs his art, and his art, to be good or meaningful, needs its artist. If so, the important question becomes: What is needed as feedback between Conscious Source and Imperfect Expresson to facilitate appreciation of meaningful pursuits among and between them?

[On a less ambitious scale, the important question for a society that wants to preserve human freedom and dignity is: What is necesssary to preserve human freedom and dignity?]

Whatever "heaven" "finally" is may be "known" to the trinitarian Godhead, but perhaps not completely known to the Conscious aspect of that trinity.

When I think about creation occurring out of nothing more substantive than pure math, I think then about the nature of math. In that, I intuit perpetuities in time and infinities in space, but not a final point. At least, that's where I am now. :)

I suspect we tend to use latin phrases to dupe ourselves into believing that circular assumptions about the character of God constitute proofs. But the essence of God defies proof insofar as the Changeless Changer is what it is.

To my conception, we cannot reasonably assume IT has a final rendezvous, and then take that as proof that such is so. Human beings often apply logic that works well for aspects of quantitatively measurable Substance under an assumption as if if should apply equally well for aspects of qualitatively immeasurable Consciousness. But I don't see why we should assume such to be the case.

There abides cosmic Math and a cosmic Mathematician. While unfolding parameters for the cosmic Mathematician may be limited for their expression to a chosen web of Math, I doubt such math could measure the Mathematician. I just don't see reason to believe in a Beginning in tme and space for the Trinity, nor for an End. I suspect the process is more like one of endless phase shifts and fluxes among cosmic bubbles that are comprised of no-thing more than fluxes among CSI as it works math with its web of math.

IOW, I believe in ongoing judgment, not "final judgment." Expressions of Conscious perspective simply phase among varying outlets and forms, but all are alike in a common respect: They are all expressons of the unifying and trinitarian Godhead. IOW, I think YOLO is as wrong headed as an idea of a final perfect Heaven.

I get that goodness tends to spread, but I think it confronts many snares along the way. What doesn't kill you tends often to make you stronger. And I don't believe the process is ever at an end.

I would conceptualize "the perfect being" as the Trinity (CSI). But the Conscious apsect of it is a flux: A flux that never ends, but that does change in form-ulas for how it accumulates, filters, and discards aspects of Information and Substance. Living Math, perpetual and infinite.

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

Some, including myself, believe the existence of anything is qualitatively beyond logic. However, I also believe empathy (which is not the same as love) is innate. Beyond needing proof. Simply directly experienced. Consciousness identifies with other expressons of itself. To me, that can provide a foundation for good faith and good will. Unless it is perverted by a system of mind enslavement, such as Islam.

I do not seek to prove other belief systems are wrong (though I may point out internal inconsistencies, since I think a mature belief system should be as internally consistent, coherent, and complete as possible). So long as other belief systems promote good faith and good will, I tend to honor them. (I do not think Islam as a belief system is compatible with either good faith or good will. I think it is more compatible with subhumanizing mind enslavement.) However, if I am wrong, it seems to me that some computer and computational system could prove it. I simply doubt that will ever happen.

Re: "He could have made us perfect, without need of trial nor tribulation,
but then justice would dictate that there could be no reward."

Well, once final judgment were to occur with wheat separated from tares and led to perfection, the same could be said: Trial and tribulation would end and there could be no (further) reward. So I think that argument does not work. At least, for myself. However, I accept that those who believe it does work still tend to be brothers in good faith and good will. I tend to have no problem with them having that belief.

I agree that time and space are not things in themselves. The appearance of their extensions into perpetuity and infinity are derivative of the potential perpetuities and infinities in Math, as fluxed by the Mathematician. Which, to me, is the Trinity of CSI. That is a conception that seems to work for me. Other conceptions may work as well for others. IAE, I much doubt that any mortal, using even the best of logic and programming, can ever know.

Part of what the Godhead made is a system of flux that entails organisms competing with and eating organisms, systems "eating" (building upon) systems, and equations "eating" equations (transitioning and phase shifting terms). This entails competitive and cooperative change. But it is of little value to say change is good, because not everyone takes all change to be good. Some consider some changes and choices good, and others not so good. This brings in the problem of evil. I don't think attempts to make logical sense out of "final resolutions of evil" make consistent sense. But again, that is just me.

I don't have a problem with Latin phrases. After all, I am a lawyer. I just point out that they sometimes seem to mislead or divert analysis. Much like mortal mathematicians seem often to mislead themselves by assuming every pertinent factor has been accounted for as a term within an equation.

Re: "How can you believe in ongoing judgement but not a final judgement?"

My Answer: Because I think the Godhead is in some qualities beyond reason. Do you believe the Eternal God must finally judge Himself and bring an end to time and change? I think, so long as change continues, there will continue to be choices, i.e., judgments. And, if all change were to stop, so would consciousness. Which would mean YOLO.

Regarding justice in this world: I don't think an event must be perfect for it to move in reconciled appreciation towards justice. I don't think a painting has to be perfect for me to appreciate it. I think justice unfolds as a reconciled upshot, subject to future revisionism.

Justice is reconciled subject to our part-icipation. If we deem ourselves incompetent to participate in defining and meting out justice, then how can we assume competence to decide which among God's presentations are just, in those cases where the power of choice is put in our hands? What is just in a world ruled by human beings will phase shift as the world moves towards being ruled by machine enhanced beings. Feedback and phase shifts: They happen.

Afterlife: I don't think consciousness ever ends. I think it fluxes and phase shifts. "You" will continue (although your in-form-ational store of memories will often be phase shifted).

Re: "what’s beyond logic has to be accepted by faith (an argument from authority)"

Yes, but I think the "argument from authority" includes innate intuition and empathy that comes with good faith consideration of the "book of the cosmos." I often prefer my own reading of that "book" to the formulas that applied to a bygone age, that could not have factored all that has unfolded to us today.

We seek a way of communicating about the cosmos (substantive physics and spiritual Godhead) that is as internally consistent, coherent, and complete as possible, without contradicting reliable empiricism. Problem is, it is doubtful that any conceptual system that can be apprehended by mortals will ever be complete (perfect).

We each do the best we can. And many lack skill, time, or inclination to ponder such issues. They find it more practical simply to accept whatever the sacred-story-system that is commonplace to their preferred society. They often lack means or time to try to resolve cognitive dissonances, so they simply accept them -- warts and all. By leap of faith, more than precise logical or mathematical proof.

Re: "God exists independently and outside of these properties of our universe"

I don't know about that. I think God actively interfunctions with us. I don't think we have "free" will. I think we have participatory will. Under my conception, I do agree that time and space are derivatives of the Godhead interfunctioning with no-thing more than math.

Again, I have no animus to your system. I think it is an important part of the effort to sustain human freedom and dignity on earth. I believe in a Godhead that pursues meaningful participation with us. I simply part in my philosophy of "end times."

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

You say Einstein "knew" our universe is pre-determined? I don't see how he could "know" such a thing.

Einstein and Bohr debated whether randomness concerning quanta entanglements was real or only apparent.

MY SUSPICION: Neither. Rather, I suspect quantum entanglements become measurably real only as a consequence of interfunctionings among aspects of an ineffable essence that fluxes to give expression to fluxing relationships among Conscousness, Substance, and Information. IOW, what collapses into apparent and measurable Substantive "reality" does so only in concert with part-icipatory effects of Consciousness and Information.

Ultimately, the ideas of randomness and predetermination seem to be incomplete or inadequate to their task. Because the "particle itself," as Substance, considered apart from Consciousness and Information, does not objectively exist.

Rather, its manifest existence for interfunctioning with me is dependent on its interfunctioning with the "Reality Cone" (light cone?) that happens to be shared by myself and all other beings with whom I happen to be in potential communication.

Bohr was correct, in that the Reality Cone is NOT pre-determined. But I suspect he was correct in that, only because I think both he and Einstein were incorrect in presuming that a Reality Cone (of measurables) exists independently, objectively, by itself (a-part from immeasurables).

Einstein: "I like to think the Moon is there (continues to exist) even if (when) I am not looking at it." Myself: Yes, the Moon continues to exist even when I'm not looking at it. But only because other perspectives with which I share my Reality Cone, with whose experiences those of my own are reconciled, happen to continue to be "looking" at it (feeling its effects) -- even when I am not. If no perspective of Consciousness were feeling (or potentially measuring the effects of) the Moon, then the Moon could not intelligently or rationally be said then and there to be existentially manifest.

So, each Reality Cone unfolds as it is reconciled with the interfunctionings of such perspectives of Consciousness and Information as happen to share in it. And the way it will unfold cannot be perfectly pre-known or pre-set by any mortal perspective. Rather, a meta-process beyond our ken coordinates and reconciles all manifest interfunctionings within our Reality Cone. We part-icipate with it, and our apprehensions and appreciations (prayers and observations) factor with it, but we do not have means for controlling, confining, or measuring it -- except indirectly, intuitively, empathetically. The math must always balance, but potential fluxes enjoy general parameters of freedom -- so long as they remain tethered to factors for keeping the math field balanced.

IOW, we, and no-thing with which we manifestly relate, are not entirely causal to our unfoldings, as opposed to being merely correlative and appreciative. So, events as manifested are not knowable by us to be pre-caused, nor are they ultimately knowable by us to be contemporaneously or intertwinedly caused.

For a mortal to anguish whether events are "really" first caused, pre caused, chaotically random, or participatorily chosen tends to be idle. Rather, each way of modeling tends to enjoy its season and purpose.

Ultimately ("really"), it must be enough to appreciate that what supports us is a godhead, whose aspects present to us in Consciousness, Substance, and Information. We part-icipate with the godhead, via our prayers (apprehensions), praising observations (appreciations), and good faith (good will, spiritual insight, innate empathy, generally intuitive sense of beingness, and moral higher-mindedness).

Substance (the Moon) does not exist objectively apart from Consciousness (observation) and Information (accumulation of maths). But neither do Consciousness and Information exist apart from Substance.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Proslogium Critique

Without God it is ill with us. Our labors and attempts are in vain without God.

St. Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogium (Kindle Locations 21-22). Magisterium Press. Kindle Edition.

we believe that you are a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.

St. Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogium (Kindle Locations 68-69). Magisterium Press. Kindle Edition.

*******************
A Source essence, changeless-changer. A non-relatable relater. An infinite eternity in the passing form of tne here and now. How cana passing form hope to understand tnat which is beyond passing? A non-particular that particularizes?
*******************

it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another to understand that the object exists.

St. Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogium (Kindle Locations 71-72). Magisterium Press. Kindle Edition.

*******************
The intuition of the non-measurable "thing" that measures.

IT exists with passing potentiality elsewhere in time and place, in the infinite-eternity of tne math-web of non-particular time and place.

Understanding of terms is needed with regard to existentiality and reality. A math that relates the potentiality of infinite eternity to the particular experientiality of the passing phasing here and now.
*******************

creates all things from nothing.

St. Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogium (Kindle Location 106). Magisterium Press. Kindle Edition.

*******************
Creates all things from things that in ultimate reality are no-thing other than formulas ruled and formed out of math being put to function by consciousness.
*******************

alone exists through itself, and creates all other things from nothing?

St. Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogium (Kindle Location 107). Magisterium Press. Kindle Edition.

We see whence the river flows, but the spring whence it arises is not seen.

St. Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogium (Kindle Locations 158-159). Magisterium Press. Kindle Edition.

*******************
Bonded with the here and now, we measurably sense the here and now, but the infinite-eternal is not measurably represented to any senses apart from the intuitive and direct sense of conscious beingness.
*******************

it is right to believe that you justly pity the wicked.

St. Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogium (Kindle Locations 177-178). Magisterium Press. Kindle Edition.

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

Perfect justice cannot be linearly apportioned without allowance for phase shifts. Once death is the reward, it cannot be accorded further proportionality in the absence of karma. And if karma were purely math based, there would be no need for a qualitatively appreciative mathematician.

But, without a body, in what quality or sense may we comprehend that God appreciates anything or any feedback?

We cannot, except via an intuitive leap of faith.

How does the Godhead reconcile values as appreciated between the perspectives of the holism and the particulars? It does not experience bodily satiation or pleasure as a particular. So, how doe IT appreciate such experiences, in order to value, triage, favor, and choose among them?

I don't grok it. Unless maybe as some meta upshot that is simply beyond mortal ken. Some heirarchical or circular process of delegation and vicarious bonding with chosen, passing, and phasing moments and forms. Some meta interest in choosing among degrees of freedom for directing the unfoldings of parameters. Some meta capacity for bonding with mortal experiences. Perhaps IT needs mortal and particular perspectives to feed meaningfulness to itself as an infinite-eternal holism. Otherwise, how could any aspect of existentiality choose any path beyond random cycles of chaotic evolutions of patterns? And why would there be layers upon layers and levels upon levels of repetitive fractal patterns -- as if a mathematician must rule the umfoldments of math based expression? Why should immaterial math functions repeat themselves in so many fractals? Why should every expression of a local pattern necessitate sponsorship or coordinate relationship with higher and lower levels of similar math based functions, as if math were causing math, rather than billiard ball pinging with billiard balls?

I do not accord that a Qualitative Being must occupy self with math precision in meting out material rewards for temporal and placeholder purposes. Nor do I accord that the eternal and infinite must be chained to any here and now interpretation of justice. Rather, justice must carry a participatory, feedback, systemic, appreciative aspect. What seems just for our niche may not be just for all. Simply put, we participate in innate good faith and good will, keeping in mind what is needed to sustain a consistent, coherent, decent society that avails participatory freedom and dignity among empathetically and intuitively copesetic perspectives. It is more spiritually good and just to think about faith and works than aboit perfect justice. The godhead metes out reconciliatory guidance within parameters. Not chokehold justice. Still, the godhead does reconcile parameters for connecting paths.

See The Bridge over San Luis Rey.

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