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?
