Regarding The God Particle

From A.T. --
@RickK, Re: "Dlanor, So you're saying only conscious beings can add complexity to a system?"

That's interesting, even though I had not quite said or contemplated that. I suppose random complexity may be added when you have a system of limiting parameters wherein components are subjected to a continuous directional force or energy. (Aside: what or who would be the author of such a continuous directional force?)

Note that since matter is stored energy, and energy can be conceptualized as a kind of substance, the broader concern should probably more properly be labeled one of substantialism rather than of materialism. Regardless, the terms are often used loosely and interchangeably. I think you are saying that energy is independent of consciousness and that in such independent capacity energy can add complexity. I have not much considered that, perhaps because I am not confident that energy in fact is independent of consciousness. This gets down to trying to understand what is the character of consciousness at its ultimate or finest point.

Key may be in considering what could be the other side of the concept of energy, as in: what is pure energy? If the ultimate building block is qualitative consciousness rather than quantitative mass, another key may be in considering: what is the ultimate character of consciousness?

If consciousness is more qualitative than quantitative, then it may be better approached with intuitive adducements than with pure reliance on empiricism. This is sort of like the query of how everything material could arise out of nothing that is material, except that I carry it further: If everything material could arise out of nothing that is material, then why could not everything that is material be considered to continue in interactive respect of nothing that is material? That is not to say that it is nothing, but only to say that it is qualitative rather than quantitative, sort of like free will and moral choosing.

Edwin Klingman, who, I assure you, is adept with logic, math, computing, and physics, has detailed some interesting ways of considering this. He has summarized much in a short book, The God Particle. Although short, I would be hard pressed to summarize it here. However, an important taste may consist in this: There may be "particles" or perspectives of consciousness, as condensate from a field of consciousness. Although they have some fine, innate level of will (like a selfish gene?), their capacity for expressing intelligence evolves with their capacity to self organize ("conscious design"). The eternal field from which such organizations of conscious condensate are derived may be conceptualized as an aspect of "God."


I would defer to Klingman's book. However, it seems straightforward to apprehend the idea that consciousness is perhaps the only non-trivial aspect of being of which we can have direct knowledge. Why is this important? Because it avails a basis for conceptualizing free will as a part of reality, and a basis for intuiting a source for connecting and reconciling such perspectives. That is, if you and I are perspectives of but one field, then there is hope we can learn better to draw on that in order to reason our way towards reconciling empathies and interests. The stance of materialistic reduction, on the other hand, seems not especially suited to assimilating a willingness to reason together in respect of a real and higher field of reconciliation.

I don't mean to suggest there aren't empirical aspects to Klingman's hypothesis. Insofar as notions about slices of the field, many aspects of his ideas are as empirical, testable, and reliable as the Standard Model, but with a virtue the Standard Model lacks: a basis for considering moral expressions of free will to be part of reality, rather than mere convenience of pretense.

Re: "As for consciousness - if you're so unable to state what it is, how can you be so confident about how it can and can't arise?"

I don't think consciousness itself arises. I just think it is. I think perspectives of it condense, couple, and organize.

Wall of Separation

Can a particle erect a wall of separation between the expression of itself and the field from which it is derived?  If consciousness as it is communicated among perspectives is derivative of a reconciling Field of consciousness, i.e., "God," then it becomes impossibly ridiculous to think in terms of trying to erect a wall of separation between God and our political expressiveness -- which may be why our founders deployed no such language in our constitution.

Psychohistory of America

Will America still be competitive against China, India, Germany, Japan, or Dar al Islam at the end of the century?  Well, any attempt at psychohistory ought to consider the more than 50 percent of America's electorate that is utterly incapable of growing out of political adolescence.  Libertarian Conservatives think our salvation is free trade with China and simply have little comprehension regarding the importance of assimilating national values.  Corporatists, who give not a fig about the American middle class, will pull our adolescent sheeple around by their noses.  Yes, there is a newly invigorated tea party, but our middle class in main has too aptly demonstrated its impotent idiocy and vulnerability to big corporatist investment in buying government.  I suspect much of the so-called conservative movement actually sees the salvation of conservatism in international corporatist capitalism, national borders be hanged.  The NWO juggernaut has slowed only to allow its supply lines to catch up with its forward advance.  Much will depend on people like John Bolton.  Could he, or folks like him, govern in respect of what is actually best for America and its middle class?  If not, the Big Boy will not be America, but those who own and toy with America.

Head Cloud

If humanity does not soon undo itself, the "capitalism of stuff" may be on its way out.  The new competition may consist less in things than in fractal clusters of clouds, ideas, inspiration, and organized information.  Indeed, the concept of a particular self, limited to the perimeter of a physical body, may be on its way out, once means are discovered for leveraging the capacity of the human brain, at will.  Then, the competition will be to entice different perspectives of consciousness to share (mind meld?) or invest in various possibilities for the unfolding experience of information.  The actual construction of what we take to be "physical things" may come to be delegated to a system of various levels of macro and micro computing machines (merger of Matrix and Tron?).  When that happens, what would become of the role of capitalism?  Instead of managing money, will not some system be needed for managing and trading psychic credits?  Ought God, when inspired to particular apprehension, then be conceptualized as the head cloud of psychic investment chips, each chip being encoded with each organized perspective of consciousness as some kind of charge-potential or bio-psychic metric?  Once human beings evolve to no longer do the physical work to manufacture stuff, but only participate mentally in the directing of stuff, then under what competitive process will manufacturing and consuming be organized, and how will the psychic herd be thinned?

Instantiating Beliefs

Morality is closely tied to a concept of free or conscious will. If there is no quality of free will, then every event is either predetermined or random or driven entirely by some process for bringing order out of chaos, such as natural selection, wherein the pattern that then and there happens to survive to provide the context for the next succeeding pattern is deemed, trivially, the fittest, or the cause. When it comes to causation and correction, most moralists sense there is something trivial or incomplete about the concept of physical causation under terms of determinism, randomness, or natural selection.

Firstly, what is the nature of these patterns that are being fluxed, repeated, and changed? Are they fully modeled in respect of a potential for expressing themselves to observers in dualistic, alternating capacities as fields and particles? What is the role of perspectives of consciousness in effecting the manner of representation of these field-particles? Should consciousness itself best be modeled as having capacity to express and communicate itself in some alternating form of field-particle feedback? May that capacity sponsor the signification of non-conscious organizations of patterns of appearance?

Secondly, why is it that humanist moralists, who do not believe conscious free will is other than derivative artifact of physicalism, nevertheless deem it necessary or proper for a civilization to act as if (i.e., pretend) free will were a real existent? If all of decent society is merely a matter of proper (B.F. Skinner) conditioning based on that which is, rather than that which ought to be, then why bow to a notion of morality at all?

Well, the fly in such ointment is in the word "proper." It is necessary to choose (or believe, based on conscious free will?) that conditioning which is proper. It is necessary to choose who should decide and the principles under which they should decide. So, most humanist moralists eventually bow to the expediency of at least pretending to believe in free will.

This begs a quesion: Having bowed to the need to pretend to believe in free will, why then do humanist moralists stiffen their necks not to bow to a common or interconnecting Source for such free will? If morality consists in empathetic good will towards other perspectives of consciousness, why, absent some connection with such other perspectives, should I be empathetic? If morality is taught among "Brights" to be only a front for survival of the fittest, why should I not be devious and enslaving? If morality consists only in a genetic predisposition brought upon us by evolution of selfish or altrusitic genes (btw -- are these consciously selfish and altruistic genes?), and if evolution is morally blind, then, for my own most selfish and fittest advancement, why should I not seek to establish a superior order of sociopathic beings whose genes are mutated so that they have no qualms about reducing all other Americans (and the entire middle class) to mere serfs, to do as they are instructed or bribed? Why should I not seek to participate in directing my own superior evolution? Indeed, why should any reasonably intelligent humanist trust any other humanist?

If a moralist can believe in conscious free will, and the quality of consciousness is empirically inexplicable, then why should not a moralist believe in spiritual free will, or free will based on an interconnection of field-particle aspects that are of a quality that, at some superior level, simply defy individual empirical analysis?

****
The measurement problem:  Within the reality tunnel, did every physical thing come from no physical thing, based on acts of measurement somehow made and communicated among various perspectives of a single reconciling Consciousness? Is there no such thing as a single particle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dpRPTwsKJs&feature=related

Is consciousness the only experience we know to be true? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8AXmJdmzfM&feature=related

Are reality and information built out of participatory belief? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhX1KxV0obY&feature=related

Do neurons instantiate meaning? If so, how? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWmTJALe1w

Are you me? Is this just a ride? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnnQYQeL98s&feature=related

I suspect Pagans tend to relate more to a panopoly of empirically measurable energy fields, while Theists tend to relate more to an immeasurable and single field of consciousness. For a Pagan to take the step to become an empathetic Theist may be little more than taking the step to intuit the ultimate quality or character of conscious energy.

Great Awakening May Be Too Late

Signs that the Great Awakening may be too late: Signs of The Borg -- how many of these have come to pass?


1) Divide and rule, bread and circuses, eartags and monitoring, networks tightening into spider traps, entire societies following paths to cultural suicide;

2) International corporatist control of government programs for regulating all major social institutions: banking, currency, religion, medicine, family, academia, media, regulators, politicians, courts, internet, mass spectator sports, interpreters of history, and science consortiums;

3) Discrediting of traditions for promoting decent regard for privacy and modesty;

4) Weakening of traditional expressions of respect for independent identities;

5) Promoting of political correctness to the extent of banning of ideas and words that threaten competition among international corporatist hegemonists;

6) Accelerating of organizations of minority axis in order to weaken, level, or replace every tradition and institution that has heretofore rewarded individual independence;

7) Promoting of doped out hedonism, common lack of shame, and collapse of mind into communal heap;

8) Increasing of means for psychological monitoring, profiling, and collapsing of individual will;

9) Pushing of freedom of expression and enterprise into ever more regulated corners;

10) Manipulating of cultural purposes, interests, and fads;

11) Manipulating of math and science to convince weak minds of masses that what has been decreed by now prevailing powers is for the moral best, even necessary to save the planet;

12) Inducing distrust of privacy of individuals whose interests are not well known or controlled;

13) Corporate inducing of members of lower class into debt slavery, then enticing them to try to escape by spreading wealth, the cost of which is to be sloughed onto the middle class, to reduce the influence of all its independent minded persons;

14) Severing of lines for moral representation, connection, foresight, and intuitive empathy among the great middle class;

15) Weakening of capacity for vision regarding relationships of feedback with the higher field of consciousness;

16) Infestation of sects that promote total submission and subjugation of all minds of the middle class;

17) Dividing the military in the ranks, while selecting for its upper echelon among those who are most sychophantic to international corporatism;

18) Replacing of conscious will of individuals with natural selection among heart-of-darkness corporate zombies;

19) Replacing the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule with humanist fidelity inculcated for the planet and the superior wisdom of its corporate managers.

Creation Myth

Creation Myth

For a modern twist on the parable of the blind men and the elephant, suppose: all ultimate particles were paradoxical points, otherwise without size or shape. Upon collapse of the field that gives them expression, would the field itself become without size and shape, and also without motion or direction? Or would it retain potential, capacity, and charge enough to flux with feedback in itself?

What would be the potential of such a collapsed, holistic field to store and remember information, to express or convey information, and to apprehend or learn of new contingencies? Is there a Character that wills a contingent capacity for giving expression to such a charged field? So long as the field remains charged, can it ever be collapsed into a single point of no shape or size? What manner of point could this be, and does it have capacity to count or to represent, model, and remember information? Upon collapse, may such a field in fact become a mere point, so that it can reasonably be conceptualized as illusion or contingent representation or translation of information, like binary bits activated by some meta computer?

Well, that is one possible popularization, intuitively mixing the quantitatively measurable with the qualitatively immeasurable in order to construct a creation myth. Note that the creation myth may image a Creator character just as reasonably as a random bubble in the void. Actually, insofar as a Creator myth avails intuitions of connections in moral empathy, it may be more suitable for inspiring and sustaining civilization. Obviously, myths have a self fulfilling aspect, almost as if reality can be directed or even created by bootstrapping from invented contingencies. Maybe God is the greatest story teller. Alternatively, a Sisyphus may opt to try to confine God to a “scientific” approach, to make a math fetish out of often absurd modeling (see global warming), contrived from confluences of necessarily incomplete perspectives (as if mortal creatures could stand outside their context to measure or confine God or creation).