Head Of Flying Spaghetti Logarithm

(By Dlanorrenrag)

Head Of Flying Spaghetti Logarithm (“HFSL,” aka “God”):

Stephen Hawking considers himself more a deist than a theist. I think Hawking may consider the character of consciousness to be the key concern for the next century of scientific consideration.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking :
“His key scientific works to date have included providing, with Roger Penrose, theorems regarding singularities in the framework of general relativity, and the theoretical prediction that black holes should emit radiation, which is today known as Hawking radiation, or sometimes as Bekenstein-Hawking radiation.”

Hawking’s oft collaborator, Roger Penrose, may be more a believer in an indivisible consciousness, perhaps more like a theist.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_penrose :
“Penrose has written controversial books on the connection between fundamental physics and human consciousness. In The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of human consciousness.”
“He argues against the viewpoint that the rational processes of the human mind are completely algorithmic and can thus be duplicated by a sufficiently complex computer -- this is in contrast to views, e.g., Biological Naturalism, that human behavior but not consciousness might be simulated. This is based on claims that human consciousness transcends formal logic systems because things such as the insolubility of the halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorem restrict an algorithmically based logic from traits such as mathematical insight. These claims were originally made by the philosopher John Lucas of Merton College, Oxford.”

My intuition is that Penrose is correct, that the rational processes of the human mind are [NOT] completely algorithmic and can thus [NOT] be duplicated by a sufficiently complex [UNCONSCIOUS] computer. That is, I suspect a “Flying Spaghetti Logarithm” is ultimately organized for being headed by One Unifier of Consciousness.

However, I intuit nothing to preclude conscious artificial intelligence — provided that an “intelligent computer” would not be a mere computer — rather, it would be associated with a holographic perspective of consciousness. That is, it would have moral capacity.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_%28geneticist%29, about Francis Collins:
“In Collins' book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (published in July 2006), he considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and Intelligent Design. His own belief system is Theistic Evolution (TE) which he prefers to term BioLogos.”

Regardless, “my take” (and the take of many others) is that various philosophers of consciousness seem to be drifting towards a notion of one holistic, indivisible consciousness (“God”?), which expresses Itself in various holographically indivisible perspectives of sensate-ness and/or sentience (mortals). Such take may be gathering support among various followers of David Bohm and David Chalmers.

Spiritual overtone of such take may implicate something about a universal character of spiritual empathy (Golden Rule?) — which may be subject to intuitive appreciation, but not subject to empirical proof.

Hence, for all things empirical, I prefer a “Flying Spaghetti Logarithm” over a “Flying Spaghetti Monster.” However, for concerns that cannot be reduced to mathematics or empiricism, such as about human will and moral guidance, I do intuit/believe in a unifying organization of empathetic consciousness (“Flying Spaghetti Elohim”?).

For that, I think Socialist-Secular-Humanists (such as Karl Marx, Herbert Marcuse, Richard Dawkins, Code Pink, and NYT) are far wide of the mark for a practical moral compass. Relying purely on science or positive rationalism (as opposed to rationalized spiritual empathy) in order to derive moral ethics, one soon appreciates there is “no there, there.”

ENGAGING EMPATHETIC COMPANIONSHIP

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

MEANS FOR ENGAGING EMPATHETIC COMPANIONSHIP:

DIVERSIFYING PERSPECTIVES:

Does Holistic I-ness (“God”), in aloneness, fashion purely mathematical means for pretending, assuming, or assigning variously measurable holographic perspectives --- as “virtual companions?”

Does God’s capacity for splitting perspectives of Will avail us the wonder of competing companions, thereby making meaningful our expressions of Imagination --- within a fluxing, hierarchical system for manifesting place-holding mathematical-functions of play?

Is our common physics “real” only in derivative respect of our common need for manifesting placeholders in order that holographic perspectives can play on (or touch and concern) a same, shared, or similar “page?” Apart therefrom, might “physicality” of such manifestations not “really” exist? Once each play game-cycle concludes, in preparation for the next, might each previously imagined system of physically-manifesting placeholders no longer be needed?

May God’s availing of a fluxing-hierarchy-of-logarithmic-functions avail means of perpetual reincarnation and change? May God, as Fat Lady, lead a never ending Jazz-Opera, consisting of infinite sequences of scenes and cycles? Perhaps, while God is always intuited or anticipated, God does not sing holistically --- except in a still, quiet voice of background, or in intermissions between cycles and scenes.

Upon eventually exiting or dropping our commonly shared charade of physicality, we may come to see and empathize in each other our differently entangled selves, pretending to wear different hats, in respect of different investments with fluxing holographies of logarithmic representations of Imagination.

EVEN VIRTUAL QUANTA REPRESENT ENTANGLED, SYSTEMIC APPRAISALS:

Physical quanta seem not to be individually existent or conscious, in-themselves. Rather, quanta seem to represent systemic expressions of a higher logarithm, which itself is part of a fluxing hierarchy of logarithms, which itself is an expression of God. That is, physics is a figurative placeholder in respect of God’s imagination.

Even each bit of quanta manifests systemic, synchronizing appraisals as choices are effected. Even each bit of fundamental or virtual quanta (before or in association with each previous or next manifested engagement) represents an assessment of holographic possibilities preliminary to representing a “choice.”

Systemic holography seems to be built-in, in respect of synchronizing entanglement. While the expression of each particle seems to be subordinate to synchronous holography, holography does not seem to be subordinate to the expression of any one particle.

MISTAKEN CHOICES:

Even Holistic Will of God may be incomplete. After all, were God’s Will complete in itself, why should God continue to need “to will” anything?

Even God may rely on feedback, to use hindsight and history to help evaluate and inform subsequent choices. Even God, based on previous experiences, may try to anticipate future courses, yet receive surprises as results come in. Even God may evaluate previous courses as having been routine, pleasantly fortuitous, surprising, or calamitous.

Even God's power of anticipation may be limited and incomplete (in respect of a meta-principle of uncertainty). As God focuses to anticipate one holography, God may incompletely appreciate relations and responses among others.

Even were God simultaneously to appreciate all perspectives of sensation, a “tragedy of commons” will often preclude any among such perspectives from correctly planning or anticipating a course (in respect of a meta-principle of the whole being superior to a sum of its parts). That is, even when each perspective correctly attributes a same motivation to all others, their common apprehensions may easily divert all to a result (or “tragedy”) that is other than that for which each anticipated, desired, or was motivated.

Even Holistic Will of God may “feel mistaken” in respect of incomplete appreciation of surprising results of relations and responses, as delegated among hierarchically-fluxing, holographic-perspectives of Will (in respect of a meta-principle of incompleteness).

“ELOHIM” --- FLUXING HEIRARCHY OF PERSPECTIVES OF WILL:

What sort of Mind (or point of view) would seek to enslave itself to perpetual, uninterrupted, comprehensive appreciation and conscious measurement and evaluation of every possible bit or nit of information?

It would seem Will of God may not invasively synchronize all events, except through a synchronous default or delegation among a fluxing hierarchy of algorithmically competing perspectives (“Elohim”).

It would seem that all unfoldment of physical manifestation is chosen and caused through a synchronizing default or delegation of wills --- subject to feedback, constantly adjusting through sequences of “God’s time.”

Within such a fluxing hierarchy for manifesting Will, each lower level would seem to function as a limited, holographic perspective of Holistic God. Each holographic sub-level would seem to incarnate --- as finite (limited in expressing a perspective in Will), yet unbounded (free to make choices within allowable parameters).

KARMIC CONSEQUENCES:

Would a singular perspective (God) sustain capacity, interest, or delight in any sequence of possibilities, were such possibilities not to show (or touch and concern) consequences?

Upon one’s death, may God, or “God’s delegee,” “reach down” to get one’s context, thus to assign consequence in respect of mathematical parameters for next incarnation? Thus, may God incrementally modify or re-assign each decedent’s mathematical function of “spiritually reality?” (From Luke 12:7, http://bible.cc/luke/12-7.htm: "Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered.")

How each perspective of holography tangos in this life may be consequential to how it entangles in the next. Such consequence would seem to relate not to eternal damnation, but to an eternal progression.

HOLOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVES OF WILL:

Each particular sign of an expression of Will, to manifest, must be limited in respect of a default system, which is respected in common with other expressions and perspectives of Will. Thus, the moral empathy of a perspective of Will would be relevant only at such perspective’s sharp end, where it has power to effect choice among allowable parameters.

Each exercise of Will must respect the psychological-weight and default-momentum of the full holography with which it is expressed. No mortal perspective of Will, as such, has power to step outside its own holography to assume a supposedly objective mantle or justification of God.

Because mortals, as mortals, have no moral choice but to make choices, it is not practical for a mortal to critique any particular moral dilemma merely by recognizing that every mortal is similarly and subjectively challenged. Ultimately, the sharp point of the spear of Will must be engaged based not on indifferent objectivity but on ever-involved seeking of Will’s self-fulfillment.

Whatever the elusive harmony, beauty, or emotional resonance that may pull along one’s rationalizations or willful choices, such rationalizations cannot be justified objectively; nor may such rationalizations be justified subjectively, apart from respect for one’s holography.

Necessarily, one’s holography encompasses one’s sense of world, country, culture, tribe, family, and self. One may not free one’s expression of Will from such psychological sense of larger weight and momentum. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita, where Krishna explains to Arjuna his duties as a warrier and Prince.

ADMONISHING "TO ENGAGE":

Cosmological background may subsume default functions and DUMB-Borg*, which provides our common beat. But, Free Spirits pick up tempo and passion. Both *Borg and Free Spirits are necessary, but it seems that no Free Spirit would wish to be enslaved. Before engaging to pick up a beat, a Free Spirit needs first to feel it.

An admonishment to engage the sharp end of one’s Will with a particular issue is not an admonishment to act or vote first and then to learn or feel later.

Until one appreciates a “dog in a show,” one has little reason either to engage or to vote. Before becoming passionate about a dog show, one should first get to know one’s dog. To help decide a controversy, there is little reason or justification to expect worthwhile or fulfilling contribution upon asking someone who has engaged little by way of investment in information, interest, or emotion. Rather, one would do as well to avoid a situation in which he or she is called upon to guess, without access, at least contemporaneously, to information enough to make at least an informed or passionate guess.

Although declining to vote is itself a choice, so declining would usually seem the better part of discretion --- when one’s identity is not informed or invested in a controversy. When it comes to voting, such a one may choose not to vote, that is, not to take a side. No great service to democracy is accomplished upon recruiting uninformed persons to vote or to act as “default placeholders for dumb-Borg*.”

EMPATHY MUST BE ENGAGED, NOT LEGISLATED:

Meaningfulness implicates moral purposefulness, which implicates fairness, which implicates empathy, which implicates choice. A thing or event which is coerced, required, or legislated is not thereafter chosen, but becomes less empathetic, fair, moral, or meaningful. Empathy cannot be legislated by petty minded *Borg’sters; rather, empathy must be inculcated, inspired, and felt.

By Charley Reese, from http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/indoctrination.html:
“… Americans should break the habit of saying, after every tragedy, man-made or nature-produced, "We must do something to see that this never happens again." No, we mustn't, because an entirely safe society is impossible. Human progress is largely an illusion, except in the area of technology, and that's not all good.
…
To be grounded in reality -- the definition of sanity -- is to realize that a human being's influence is pretty much limited to the sound of his voice and the reach of his hands. You can help a child you can see and touch, but you can't do anything for the abstraction "children." Children don't exist as a collective abstraction. They exist as particular individuals in particular places at particular times.”

HOLOGRAPHIC MAL-FOCUS AND DISINTEGRATION:

Relevant moral empathy tends to focus where it has power to effect choice among allowable parameters --- not where its power is limited.

Relevant moral empathy tends to feel its power. Relevant moral empathy tends not to dwell on maladaptive victim-hood, self pity or malaise --- which mainly lead to counterproductive perceptions and strategies, such as: loss of initiative; biasing of perspective; transference of responsibility, and even resentment of God or of those who believe in a spiritual basis for fellow-empathy.

Mal-focus of empathy leads to: not really expecting solutions; redefining the “solution” as transference of victimhood; banning or mocking all who feel otherwise; rewriting system regulations to induce or require others to spread a gospel of victimhood; playing the system to lead others to feel the same malaise; thus validating one’s self and one’s perspective --- even while gaming and gaining from all who are seduced to sell out to whoredom in order to bring down the entire “system.”

“GIVING BY GOVERNMENT”:

Liberty must be respected, not licensed; evil must be occupied, not liberated; empathy must be engaged, not legislated (“giving by government” is oxymoronic). There is no “scientific” substitute, no intrusively regulatory substitute, and no “*Borg” substitute.

COMMON SENSE VS. THE *BORG:

Heretofore, the soul of America, and the genius of American civilization, has consisted not in *Borg submission to ever more detailed legislation and regulation for spreading and enforcing Nancy-Pelosi or Peter-Singer like “fairness,” but in: establishing Constitutional protection for fundamental, individual, human liberties; protecting the Constitution by checks and balances; and protecting all by respecting a broad assimilation of Judeo-Christian ethics for pursuing enlightened empathy.

Thus chartered, America has been so successful, economically, that fresh immigrants --- even when lacking in-country family, friends, or familiarity with language --- have tended to assimilate and succeed in short order.

However, consequent to economic success, a high percentage of America’s students have received funding for proceeding into college --- even many who lack aspirations that necessitate higher learning.

Thus, ever more Americans become exposed to professional students, insular metro-sexuals, and ivory-tower faculty, many of whom are not infrequently brain-infested both by Marxism and Marcuse’ism. Unseasoned, inexperienced, impractical, and immature minds of student Governmentalists and their faculty mentors fall easily under spell-bound influence of such politically-correct groups and “thinkers” as: Code Pink, Noam Chomsky, Reverend Wright, Arianna Huffington, Ward Churchill, Peter Singer, and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga.

Thus, many students become habituated to strange modes and locutions of bait and switch “objective-rationalization” --- un-tethered to logic, empirical testing, fellow empathy, or practicality, and often inflated in grandiose disdain of more practically oriented fellow Americans. Many such students come to believe not in God or fellow-empathy, but in heroically-excused and *Borg-like utopian visions or notions of communism, socialism, rationalized-positivism, or secular humanism.

Such notions infect many atheists (as well as many ever-whining feminists and gay-rights advocates), leading them to ever more strenuous efforts to neuter what has made America successful. Their common purpose is to advocate and substitute governmental intrusion into all manner of human interaction, even leading to rationalization of a form of fascism, i.e., Liberal Fascism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism. The very success of America seems to have fueled incitements that now severely try America’s patience and endurance.

THE *BORG (aka, “Hive Mind”):
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek) :
“The Borg are depicted as an amalgam of cybernetically enhanced humanoid drones of multiple species, organised as an inter-connected collective with a hive mind, inhabiting a vast region of space with many planets and ships, and sophisticated technology. They operate towards one single minded purpose: to add the biological and technological distinctiveness of other species to their own, in pursuit of perfection. This is achieved through forced assimilation, a process which transforms individuals and technology into Borg, enhancing individuals by adding synthetic components.”

Putting A Human Face On Borg

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

Putting A Human Face On Borg:

Complex society, especially when complex enough to depend upon computer assisted logarithmic functions, cannot support supervision or assignment of persons to monitor every facet. Rather, complex society will have to turn many routine functions over to machines, programs, default functions, rules, and laws. Some functions will have to be turned over to governmental management and enforcement and some to private corporate enforcement.

Moral choices, however, necessitate empathetic involvement of a consciously moral agent. That is, default programs and determinants that permit of no conscious choice cannot implicate or empower moral involvement except insofar as such determinants are originally chosen and subsequently monitored. To set up any automatic system that allows little or no subsequent monitoring or change by a morally responsible agency is to surrender, to such system, such potential for evil as grows in absence of empathetic engagement.

For setting up routine functions, governmental regulation entails potential for community representation, but also entails dispersion of responsibility and initiative. Private incorporation, on the other hand, entails interested initiative and hierarchical management, but also entails considerable potential for abuse of community shared resources. Thus, limiting government is ideal only insofar as initiative can better be turned over to private management without undue harm to the wider community.

FOR A COMPLEX SOCIETY:
Liberty and dignity will necessitate means for protecting against unnecessarily picayune regulatory intrusions;
Maintenance and efficiency will necessitate means for legitimating global trade that is seen to be both free and fair;
Health, security, and sense of representative fairness will necessitate safeguards for trade, reasoned respect of customs, and less protection of privacy among potentially disaffected or dangerous residents; and
Empathetic morality will necessitate continued involvement and monitoring by potential choice-making moral agents or representatives.

Inculcating skills requisite to assimilating moral judgment and civilizing empathy necessitates more than can be provided merely by: (1) system based on scientific induction; (2) system of micro-ethics based on rationalized deduction; (3) system of micro-regulation based on practical legislation in pursuit of “fairness;” and (4) system of delegation of authority to hierarchies of private corporate management.

Simply put, there is no moral substitute for inculcating common reverence and spiritually based regard for intuitions of enlightened choice and empathy.

“TERROR AND CONSENT”

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

“TERROR AND CONSENT”:

I just read a review of “Terror and Consent,” a recently published book by Phillip Bobbitt. The review says Bobbitt --- in respect of a sort of “neoliberalism,” “European-like globalization,” or “new kind of world order” --- teaches that: “What is needed is a constitutional order that takes its structural cues from multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations, relying “less on law and regulation and more on market incentives” to expand people’s options.”

While I also intuit that “governmentalism” (i.e., picayune-law, or “hive-mind”) is teetering on unsustainable, self-conflicting, infectious, micro-invasive effrontery against human freedom and dignity, yet, I have not appreciated how substituting “market-driven corporate-privatization” necessarily forestalls or saves us from such affronts.

BORG --- aka “Hive Mind” (“resistance is futile”):
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek) :
“The Borg are depicted as an amalgam of cybernetically enhanced humanoid drones of multiple species, organised as an inter-connected collective with a hive mind, inhabiting a vast region of space with many planets and ships, and sophisticated technology. They operate towards one single minded purpose: to add the biological and technological distinctiveness of other species to their own, in pursuit of perfection. This is achieved through forced assimilation, a process which transforms individuals and technology into Borg, enhancing individuals by adding synthetic components.”

BORG PREEMPTION:
Modern technology provides for us a world system which, while marvelous in its capacities, is also so interdependent as to offer numerous points for inviting attack by psychopathic grandees who would will the suicide or annihilation of all, thinking global destruction to constitute a sort of mass mercy maelstrom.

Thus, system-survival instincts lead to strategies for preempting viral cultures, cults, catechisms, countries, and convicts. For system survival, it becomes important to intuit or identify such threats preemptively --- in order to rehabilitate, neuter, divert, quarantine, or kill them. (Thus, the movie, “Minority Report,” begins to foreshadow our system’s preemptive survival requisites.)

EVIL: Even enmity can be empathetic, without necessarily being evil. But, were there no evil, we would be devoid of purpose or meaning --- thus, undefined. Strangely enough, “evil” may be conceptualized as an “affirmative absence” --- that is, an absence of spiritual empathy in respect of surrounding sensations.

RESISTENCE OF EVIL: Evil can be resisted by occupation of empathy --- but not by mere design or micro-regulation. Borg-like micromanagement of "fairness" by governmental, corporate, professorial, or dictatorial regulation --- by inviting or persuading resignation or retreat of empathy --- enables, empowers, and extends evil. Simply put, regulation tends to be counter-productive to empathy.

SPIRITUAL QUANDRY:
To “survive,” must we surrender all freedom and dignity to secular Borg? Does survival eventually necessitate that every thought and action be pre-monitored and approved by Borg? Shall we make mere cells of ourselves, perhaps, eventually, to breathe “life” into Borg?

SPIRITUAL LEAP:
Alternatively, may we, under some sort of spiritual faith, unite to embody and occupy individually-creative and self-expressive liberty and empathy? May spiritual empathy guide us in what to tolerate and in how best not to tolerate the destruction of our own empathetic liberty?

Do we really have any choice but to “gamble” that a source of spiritual empathy avails to guide empathy --- even across species and forms of moral consciousness?

Does destiny require America, to be America, to be “one nation under God”?

AMERICA:
I sincerely doubt mankind is ready for America to surrender either its borders and internal security or its experiment with government in respect of spiritual empathies of its people.

To our common peril, politically-correct apologists for globalization, both on the political Left and Right, are pushing America towards a cliff. On both the Left and Right, we are drowning in politically-correct progeny of Herbert Marcuse, whose “legacy” must be resisted!

CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND ORIGINAL INTENT:
Pharisees and Sadducees:
From http://www.long-sunday.net/long_sunday/religion/index.html :
If Democrats are Pharisees, does that make Republicans Sadducees?
From http://www.bethanybible.org/askpastor/pharsad.htm :
“A perhaps-overly generalized way to think about the differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the times of Jesus was to see the Pharisees as Scripturally liberal (because they added oral traditions to its commands), but conservative in politics (because they opposed the Romans); and the Sadducees as Scripturally conservative (because they rejected oral tradition), but liberal in politics (because they sought to fit in with the Romans).”

EMPATHY MUST BE ENGAGED, NOT LEGISLATED:
By Charley Reese, from http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/indoctrination.html:
“… Americans should break the habit of saying, after every tragedy, man-made or nature-produced, "We must do something to see that this never happens again." No, we mustn't, because an entirely safe society is impossible. Human progress is largely an illusion, except in the area of technology, and that's not all good.
…
To be grounded in reality -- the definition of sanity -- is to realize that a human being's influence is pretty much limited to the sound of his voice and the reach of his hands. You can help a child you can see and touch, but you can't do anything for the abstraction "children." Children don't exist as a collective abstraction. They exist as particular individuals in particular places at particular times.”

SOUL OF AMERICA:
The soul of America, and the genius of American civilization, has consisted not in Borg-submission to ever more detailed regulations for spreading and enforcing Pelosi/Singer-like “fairness” or Borg-like “security,” but: in establishing constitutional protection for fundamental, individual, human liberties; in protecting the Constitution by checks and balances; and in protecting all by respecting a broad assimilation of Judeo-Christian ethics for pursuing enlightened empathy.

Liberty must be respected, not licensed; evil must be occupied, not liberated; empathy must be engaged, not legislated.

No moral substitute exists to be offered by science, Peter Singer ethics, micro-regulation, or Borg-preemption.

“WHAT IT IS”:
To say that what exists, morally, “is what it is”: Does not really say what IT is; does not really say what IT is not; and does not really say that what is not may not come to be what is. (To quote Dlanorrenrag: “Truth is [empathetic] imagination, and Walt Disney is its prophet.”)

IS GOD MEANINGFULLY CONSCIOUS

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

IS GOD MEANINGFULLY CONSCIOUS?

The holography with which my body and mind operate is contextually inseparable from my identity. I do not have a “brain-in-itself” as sole author or gatekeeper for my prayers, thoughts, or meditations. Rather, my entire holography seems to consist in an indivisible relationship and conversation with all senses of my body.

It being beyond empiricism either way, why, contrary to my intuition, should I presume, as thoughts and insights occur to me, that there is not involved a resonance with Something even greater than my holography? If my sensations, sentience, and consciousness are experienced only in respect of a greater perspective, why should I presume, contrary to my intuition, that a Greater-Something lacks capacity for having a contemporaneously personal, meaningful, sentient, conscious relationship with me?

Granted, the holography that expresses me may have had a different capacity (whether or not as smart or smarter) had my body and brain not come to evolve, morph, or emerge with such holography. But, that is beside the point --- because my body and brain have come to emerge with such holography.

So, why, contrary to my experience, should I imagine that any holography of matter could exist or manifest in some purely dumb, inanimate, and random state, entirely apart from involvement with any greater source of choice, will, sensation, sentience, or consciousness?

Why should I not instead intuit that every holography is experienced in respect of some focus of sensation, regardless how seemingly imperceptible, quiet, or faint? Why should I not intuit that every possible perspective of holography entails at least one perspective of choice against a background of random parameter-potentials? Why should I not intuit that all that emerges and manifests --- whether or not various perspectives of its components, aspects, or properties may be preset, random, or contemporaneously chosen or willed --- dances in respect of a Synchronizing Source for availing meaningfully conscious interrelation (i.e., God)?

SENSIBILITY IMPLICATES SENSOR

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

A PROPERTY OF SENSIBILITY IMPLICATES ONE OF A SENSOR:

Absent a background, neither a pattern nor a quanta would emerge into manifested Being’ness.
Absent perspective, a background would not be.
Quanta cannot be coaxed by causation, chance, or choice to emerge from potential --- absent a resonating source of participation (or perspective of sensation).

There is no sense absent sensation.

From its point of view, a sensing perspective’s path of participation will not be entirely predictable.
Rather, one’s path of participation will be experienced in association with a sense of “choosing,” rather than in a pure sense of randomness.
Deeply resonating participation of a “chooser,” at some level of sensation or intuition, however faint, is requisite to Being’ness.

Discussing quanta-potentials conveys sense only in respect that perspectives exist for determinism, randomness, and will (or choreography, chance, and choice) — all resonating together.

But, which is which depends arbitrarily upon the system of holography with which one’s perspective of I-ness happens to be assigned or identified.

For experiencing choice, I exist in respect of my holography.
But, my holography exists in respect of “choice of God.”

QUANTIFIER OF THE QUANTA

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

QUANTIFIER OF THE QUANTA:

For conserving the availing of particular experiences and systems of holography, God (or “System of Elohim”), as Quantifier, mathematically expresses and quantifies all measurably physical relations.

SYSTEM FUNDAMENTALS: For example: The holography of my experience is necessarily coordinated in quantifiable respect for: (1) direction of CHRONOLOGY (entropy); (2) means for storing, releasing, and expressing ENERGY (conservation); (3) commonly relative constant for referencing and communicating speed of INFORMATION and sensation (speed of light and gravitational relativity); and (4) strict involvement of CONSCIOUSNESS with an indivisible holography of potential experiences among CONTEXTUAL PARAMETERS of chance and choice (quantum mechanics).

MATHEMATICAL FUNCTIONS: Such system of holography expresses me --- as my context of experience is presented --- and may be definable in mathematically formulaic and quantifiable terms.

PHYSICAL REALITY: In derivative relation and respect of the system of conservation requisite to expressing me, the math is real. In derivative respect of God, the “quanta” (qubits?) that comprise and contextualize “things” that emerge out of such mathematical conservation and which express to my measurable sensation are real.

INEFFABLE “THERE-NESS”: However, for mortal explication of such quanta --- or such Source of quanta, ultimate Quantum, or “God” --- there is no complete, coherent, or consistent accounting. Rather, “God” avails systems for conserving empirical experiences, but is beyond being accounted for or ruled by such systems.

INTERDEPENDENCE OF REALITY: Regardless, the particular holographic and empirical reality that resonates and emerges --- to me and to all who touch and concern me --- is conserved only so long as we are availed to experience our varying perspectives in respect of the common, underlying I-ness (God).

PARAMETER SYNCHRONIZER: Our empirical experiences, while not being predetermined, seem subject to being influenced by God’s Synchronizing Will --- of which each of us constitutes an indivisible, holographic perspective or interpretation of experience.

BEYOND RULES: God is not limited, but the system I am availed for my present perspective and experience of holography is limited --- in respect of God.
The Ultimate Quantum --- or Quantifier of the Quanta --- may be conceptualized as “God.”

PERSONAL GOD: A deeper concern may relate to whether God is “conscious” or “sentient” in any way that is meaningful or representative to our understandings of such words.
Is God “all knowing” and “all powerful” only in constituting the Source of all conserving rules and parameters?
Or, is God all knowing and/or all powerful in any way that has personal meaning for us?

CIVILIZING EMPATHY: I suspect it is helpful, based on intuition or insight, TO BELIEVE there are bases for: God’s existence; our reincarnation; spiritually connective empathy and will; and civilizing good will. I suspect it may not be necessary or helpful to try to understand or know in what way or how God may be conscious or sentient (although a Synchronizing Will often does seem intuitable).

For religious, spiritual, civilizing, and moral purposes, it seems worthy to appreciate or inculcate that the consciousness of each of us may be holographic, presently-indivisible, morally connected, and recurrent.