DEFAULTING WILL

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

May it reasonably be maintained that there exists a holistically synchronizing, pre-set, vector-logarithm for defaults, which functions and removes degrees of freedom for situations in which any willful or appreciative choice-making, at any level, whether reactionary, sensate, sentient, subconscious, or deliberative, is either not made or is actively suppressed?

Is every quantum leap, at every level of uncertain and incomplete measure, controlled by a pre-set, chronology protecting, synchronizing logarithm? Must such pre-set logarithm for controlling defaults, insofar as it is holistic, be beyond empirical or statistical control or measure by mortals?

To mortals, must it appear that the effects of such defaults are “random,” yet within “degrees of freedom,” even though such effects are actually and precisely consistent with a logarithmic array that controls defaults?

Must such default mechanism, although pre-set, continuously adjust its functioning, in synchronous anticipation and respect for each and every mortal, willful choice? Is it in respect that each willful choice may only be made within degrees of freedom that the default mechanism can remain inviolate, even while permitting mortal levels of consciousness to make choices?

Must the pre-set mechanism for defaults function as “Nature,” with “intelligently synchronizing anticipation,” but without sense of personal identity or choice making will? If so, how did such “Nature” come about?

If pre-set Nature functions with intelligent, synchronizing anticipation, then is a concept of “God” superfluous, thus irrational? No.

“God” is our conceptual label for a source of holistically willful, moral purposefulness. Regardless of whether physical events may be pre-set, we, being conscious, still experience emotional, empathetic, morally interpretative participation with such events. Consciousness, both ours and God’s, does not know that it is pre-determined (if it is).

Regardless of whether, in “ultimate relation,” there may be no such thing as degrees of freedom, conscious beings will still interpretively experience such degrees of freedom. Indeed, our feedback loop stubbornly suggests that degrees of freedom may be based in more than illusion. In such respect, “God” is the holistically representative aspect of our degrees of freedom, from whom we strive to be humbly and courageously receptive to moral insight and appreciation.

Consciously believing our degrees of freedom are “real,” and being unable to prove the contrary, it becomes “rational” to intuit that there may exist a real, spiritual source for our degrees of freedom. After all, from whence came the pre-set Nature that nurtures our bodies and permits our sensations of moral freedom and responsibility?

May any conscious source of holistic Will (God) combine or participate with such Nature? Must Nature automatically adjust to each and every exercise of will --- either of holism or of holography, of God or of mortals?

So long as God functions holistically and synchronously, consistently with such natural degrees of freedom as seem necessary to nurture mortals, God may interact greatly, yet necessarily remain beyond the measure or empirical control of mortals --- even if not beyond the empathetic intuition of mortals.

When God interacts in respect of mortals, God respects mortal parameters. Because God does not act in ways that would violate our degrees of freedom, we cannot measure God. For mortals to measure God, God would have to upset logarithmic parameters that allow mortal bodies to live. Were mortal bodies to die, they could not serve as perspectives from which to measure God.

Although God remains beyond mortal measure, God does not remain beyond mortal intuition. Although God is not in the wind, we may rationally believe that “God is.” The same may be said of any other label for moral idealization or authority.