TRINITY:
With any appearance of two of (measurable) [1] Mass (“Father,” in its fuzzy, pre-measurably observed collapse?), [2] Consciousness (“Son”?), and [3] Information (“Holy Ghost”?), the third is a necessary accompaniment. Of the Trinity, none can exist by itself, though each may reflect a different perspective of itself in respect of its interrelation to the other two. Each will most subjectively and intimately sense itself to be conscious, and will objectify the other two as consisting in mass and information. Yet, each may intuit that it also may be objectified by the other two, and not directly or measurably be sensed by them as being conscious.
Intuitively, the only possibility is to have perspectives for all three: mass, consciousness, and information. So information is a constant accompaniment to the existent Trinity. No matter the form or perspective by which information is expressed, any such expression must necessarily be synchronized (“finely tuned”) in respect of its Source, i.e., the Trinity.
Information entails a mathematical and sequential perspective for an organization of the “eternal-present,” and necessarily implicates mass and consciousness. This implicates inherent potential for expressing sequential arrangements. Time is purely a derivative, which, without information, would connote no meaning as anything in-itself. In accompanying capacities for reacting to feedback (mathematically and alternatively, both discretely and continuously) as information is organized, information implicates plural perspectives of consciousness. May Information (Holy Ghost?) also implicate a singular Consciousness (Son?) of perspectives?
In respect that meta-mass (fuzzy, un-collapsed mass) is not measurable, could “math-in-itself” (Information; Holy Ghost?) “be the territory” for objectifying relationships? But how could a meta-math which pertains only to other math, thereby and on its own, constitute the superior Source from which all other relationships, reactions, signs, sensations, and perspectives of consciousness are tricked out, translated, and derived? Must not any such meta-math implicate some essence or Source which has aspects beyond mere math, beyond mortal capacity to sense, measure, or comprehend? Must not such Source (aka, “God”) consist with that which mortals subjectively intuit, appreciate, empathize with, and remain generally receptive to, but unable to measure or objectify?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Civilizing Imperative
(by Dlanorrenrag*)
Civilizing Imperative:
MORAL CONCEPTIONS: As a concept, morality may be variously based, such as in absolutism, commandment (imperative), duty, consequence, aspiration, or virtue.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: Kant’s commandment (or imperative) based morality, or “Categorical Imperative,” was first formulated thusly: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative.)
REDUCTION: However, John Stuart Mill “criticised Kant for avoiding saying what the Imperative reduced to - the ends justify the means, a primary tenet of consequentialism - and thus using it to come to the opposite conclusion.” See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological.
REFERENCE POINT: Even so, the Categorical Imperative offers a possible test, or reference point, in respect of which each individual person may try to guide moral decisions. (Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics.)
CIVILIZING IMPERATIVE: Such test should be inculcated among individuals, to teach them to identify and project their moral concerns with concerns for their civilization.
A variation might be restated as follows: Act according to such ethical rules (or laws) as you would employ to govern your sentient civilization, were such rules to be made applicable to all sentient civilizations.
Thus, a moral test that relates to Kant’s categorical imperative may be based on an end-concern for what civilization needs, in order to survive and flourish (be stable, sustainable, and surpass-able).
MYSTERY: Regardless, no test formula seems, in itself, to offer moral guidance that is completely consistent. Rather, all mortal tests eventually punt in respect of an ultimate mystery that eludes them. While a formula may seek generally to reference such mystery (such as “Higher Purpose”), no formula knowable to mankind may elucidate such mystery in consistent completeness.
PUNT --- BEFORE ALL ELSE FAILS: Thus, I punt to this formulation: In enlightened empathy, be each of us receptive to trust, hope, and service to our good faith notions of Higher Purpose. Alternatively stated: Before tiring on account of failing in all else, try doing the right thing. (Usually, it only seems hard to do the right thing, while the harder thing becomes to justify the wrong thing.)
Monday, June 16, 2008
Reach - Searching for Something Higher
A person's reach should always exceed their grasp!
Does natural selection become “not random” in respect of favoring those traits that provide an edge?
Well, could any trait provide an edge within any system, were such system not “willing” to allow such trait to have an edge? After all, neither the trait nor the system within which it is found is stagnant; rather, both are “moving targets.” Why, then, should the wider system “just happen” to remain favorable to any particular trait, even as the system as a whole is continuously fluxing?
I am not confident that any purported explanation of the process of selection “as not being random” is complete. Nor am I confident that the process of selection is not in some sense “willfully guided.” I doubt we can “know.”
Rather, I suspect we merely conceptualize differently, for different contexts and purposes. For scientific purposes, it is practical to conceptualize “as if” all events, at ultimate level, must be completely “indifferent.” For moral purposes, it may be practical to conceptualize (or believe) “as if,” at ultimate level, each of us is merely a perspective of a unifying, guiding, empathetic, “Caring Will.”
Otherwise, why (and how) should I choose to will (or care about) anything?
I suspect Carl Sagan may have responded that he could not "know" why anyone should believe in the value of anything, but, if one did not engage value preferences on some level, then one would not become manifested in evolution as a member of a sentient, civilizing species. (Well, few of us do purport to "know." Rather, our concern pertains to what is "reasonable to believe.")
I suspect Sagan may have considered it scientifically ok to pretend to believe in moral purposes, but not ok to pretend to believe in a Guiding Source of such purposes.
Somehow, with respect to the purpose of engaging beliefs about moral purposefulness, I would not find Sagan's "solution" to be a reasonable solution. Nor, with respect to the issue of belief in (a spiritual source of) moral purpose, do I find science to be superior to philosophy. I suspect a great many scientists focus so much time, energy, and brain power on empiricism that they simply fail to appreciate their philosophical limitations.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Hyper-Environments
(by Dlanorrenrag*)
Observer Collapsing Of Ambiguous Flux:
Apart from arbitrary choice of reference or perspective, no clear division-in-itself avails among mathematically measurable forms or representations of “things.” Rather, mathematically and statistically measurable relations inter-permeate, overlap, and flux among all of the physics with which we interact.
Yet, various levels and degrees of forms and patterns seem to recognize, fit, key, and interact with one another. That is, a contextually sympathetic observer would perceive certain patterns as affecting each other somewhat holistically, as patterns --- even though, in themselves, such patterns, as patterns, have no self identity.
Depending upon anthropic context, Something about our relations seems inclined to avail experiences of perspectives of patterns of mathematically computational reactivity and/or sensitivity. Something seems to avail the Reading by perspectives of patterns within such perspectives’ vicinity, as well as the Readability of patterns by perspectives within such patterns’ vicinity. It is as though each entire holographic context were communicating between two aspects (the Reading and the Readability) of itself.
Little in mathematics would seem to limit the morphological potential of such cross-forms of evolutionary computation. As computer assisted skills in computation continue to increase exponentially, shall we not soon have HYPER-ENVIRONMENTS, ambiguously poised to anticipate and/or serve the desires and whims of program-favored personages? Are entire holographies evolving towards serving superior focus levels of sentience?
Shall an increasingly mathematical organization of computational information bring otherwise ambiguous cause and effect to depend ever more upon observers?
Ask and ye shall receive!
****
Compare Asimov's notion, in Foundation's Edge, of the form of a door for expressing capacity, as door, to be "happy."
Note: Once a holography has morphed to the point of producing, say, a frog, such frog will have evolved so as to Read much the same of patterns as would we, and such holography will have evolved so as relatively soon to be amenable of producing such patterns of Read-ability to such as us. That is, the potential for our formation would be implicated in the same holography that formed the frog, such that, eventually, such holography would be “happy” to in-form us.
****
NOTE: For Readable patterns to seek patterns to Read them, it would seem that they must shut out empathy for such other holographies or worlds of patterns as are beyond their Readability. Thus, synchronicity among parallel worlds, each oblivious to the patterns of the others, may argue against their inter-empathy. However, such parallel synchronicity does not argue against any particular holography’s intra-empathy or against intuition of an ultimate Source of empathetic Will. Synchronicity suggests coordination, not cause and effect. That is, mere happenstance, such as tripping over a vase, as by a being in a parallel world, does not implicate causation in our world.
Observer Collapsing Of Ambiguous Flux:
Apart from arbitrary choice of reference or perspective, no clear division-in-itself avails among mathematically measurable forms or representations of “things.” Rather, mathematically and statistically measurable relations inter-permeate, overlap, and flux among all of the physics with which we interact.
Yet, various levels and degrees of forms and patterns seem to recognize, fit, key, and interact with one another. That is, a contextually sympathetic observer would perceive certain patterns as affecting each other somewhat holistically, as patterns --- even though, in themselves, such patterns, as patterns, have no self identity.
Depending upon anthropic context, Something about our relations seems inclined to avail experiences of perspectives of patterns of mathematically computational reactivity and/or sensitivity. Something seems to avail the Reading by perspectives of patterns within such perspectives’ vicinity, as well as the Readability of patterns by perspectives within such patterns’ vicinity. It is as though each entire holographic context were communicating between two aspects (the Reading and the Readability) of itself.
Little in mathematics would seem to limit the morphological potential of such cross-forms of evolutionary computation. As computer assisted skills in computation continue to increase exponentially, shall we not soon have HYPER-ENVIRONMENTS, ambiguously poised to anticipate and/or serve the desires and whims of program-favored personages? Are entire holographies evolving towards serving superior focus levels of sentience?
Shall an increasingly mathematical organization of computational information bring otherwise ambiguous cause and effect to depend ever more upon observers?
Ask and ye shall receive!
****
Compare Asimov's notion, in Foundation's Edge, of the form of a door for expressing capacity, as door, to be "happy."
Note: Once a holography has morphed to the point of producing, say, a frog, such frog will have evolved so as to Read much the same of patterns as would we, and such holography will have evolved so as relatively soon to be amenable of producing such patterns of Read-ability to such as us. That is, the potential for our formation would be implicated in the same holography that formed the frog, such that, eventually, such holography would be “happy” to in-form us.
****
NOTE: For Readable patterns to seek patterns to Read them, it would seem that they must shut out empathy for such other holographies or worlds of patterns as are beyond their Readability. Thus, synchronicity among parallel worlds, each oblivious to the patterns of the others, may argue against their inter-empathy. However, such parallel synchronicity does not argue against any particular holography’s intra-empathy or against intuition of an ultimate Source of empathetic Will. Synchronicity suggests coordination, not cause and effect. That is, mere happenstance, such as tripping over a vase, as by a being in a parallel world, does not implicate causation in our world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)