That’s pretty much it.
Signal to noise ratio is IT?
Blackboards are IT?
Division?
Acronyms?
Greek alphabet?
Sitting on a cushion?
Tiled floor?
Loose comfortable clothing?
I thought noise was a signal? 
Anyways, please explain a little further.
Let’s represent life on a metric of amplitude over frequency regarding the existentially emotional experience of it and the identity to it thereby.
“Noise” is the part of the signal that exceeds the bounds of “acceptable” ranges of amplitude for “functional” signal transmission and reception for a given recipient.
So a mild noise issue would look something like:
Where the green is within threshold bounds and the red is out of bounds.
An “ideal” signal would look like:
Where all is within the acceptable range, and transmission is accomplished at the lowest possible amplitude needed to require the transmission; essentially, super efficient.
(We’ll call this Buddha-like; or any such figure which has attained some kind of tranquility in a culture’s mythology.)
Signal out of bounds is itself not entirely a problem; however with a high rate of frequency of going out of bounds - then it is a problem.
Where signal is out of bounds, the recipient is incapable of translating that portion of the signal into its relevant channel (the “green” area).
This acceptable range is variable depending on the transmitter and receiver’s capacities; different transmitters and receivers are capable of different thresholds.
When a signal goes out of bounds, there is an after-the-fact (meaning after reception by the recipient) system in place for attempting to regulate the issue: referred to as an Automatic Gain Controller (AGC).
Essentially, when too loud, turn down input (Amplitude). When too soft, turn up input (Amplitude).
An AGC is artificial in the sense that it is not an adjustment of the signal itself, but the reception of it.
As an example of such, In Neuro-psychology, a variety of medications exist which boost or inhibit neuro-transmissions or chemical responses (the most famous self-medicated variation of this is marijuana, which acts as an inhibitor to synaptic relays by piling up fatty tissue around the synapses).
In an ideal world, the signal broadcast itself would be adjusted so that it met within range of the recipient’s channel capacity, but it can be rather difficult to accomplish a societal shift to effectively adjust such existential signal regulation for a mass on a mean; considering subjectivity (though monastic societies are an example of controlling the signal itself).
This leaves either an AGC approach, or a redefinition of the recipient’s channel capacity.
In the former, periodic adjustment modules are needed (for instance, meditation, church services, retreats, etc…) [essentially, respite, buffers, “counter-increasers” {increasing the amplitude of another neuro-transmission to equal capacity of another offending transmission to aid in a sort of balance or cancelling is an example of this in science}], while in the latter an overhaul of the existential identity of the individual and their identity of reality is needed (dogma, theology, “world-view”, or other existential identifications of “how life is”…essentially) to change the perception of the incoming signal which was previously carrying existentially emotional amplitudes beyond their capacity for “channeling” into translatable and tangibly relatable information (essentially, changing perspective so to widen their tolerance or acceptance).
Ergo, my take on religion is essentially: “noise” control.
I think that’s quite a clever take on religion generally: kudos that’s a clever satire. Still I wont believe in your faith, for the time being, for the most part and because of your take. 
Well, lol, to be fair; I don’t have a, “faith”.
I look at religions like exercise regiments.
My closest relative to a, “faith”, would be something like secular-Buddhism…I suppose one could look at it that way.
But equally, I can flip that around and say that I would change my “religion” subjectively dependent on the need; if I had remained in the military and pursued Ranger, or the like, then I would look for increasing my capacity for higher amplitudes and increased frequencies and look to reduce inhibitors…essentially, “warrior religion”, concepts.
I think that each realm and being has its own unique range for things like energy and frequencies.
I really wish my range was better but there’s not too much I can do about that yet.
I’m still lucky though, in some ways.
Jayson you remind me of one of my psi friends.
I have not read many of your posts yet.
I’m not too clear on what “realm” refers to, but with what I was writing; it specifies to emotion; which is a very large sensory system in human beings and runs in rates of amplitude and frequency.
Adrenaline during perceived danger, for example, is a massive emotional response that raps heavily upon the system.
The “stress” upon the system for someone living daily with the possibility of death, such as local families in the rural areas of Afghanistan (some really terrible stories going on there atm; one fellow was burying his 8th child and only had one left who is already getting sick which risks her chances of survival greatly in their situation), is racketing.
On the flip-side, if you are from a society of general accommodation and relative luxury, then your religion may focus on provoking exhilaration, rather than inhibiting it.
Other systems that have been used encourage exhilaration in means of rivaling dystopian impressions of ones society; “providing joy”, as some call it, rather than inhibiting a given set of emotional sensations, or boosting others in their absence.
In America, secular (meaning, regardless of theological roots) adoption of a variety of meditation systems into religious practices is growing as more people continue to take part in these practices outside of their religious settings and find them effective in providing a moment of calm or respite in a society that is currently on overdrive for activity of any given individual within any given day.
Japan cites the same, and is now strongly investigating employing secular (same meaning as previous use) meditation facilities on mass more than is currently present as their own university research has shown to them that their people respond by lowering suicide rates (a pretty substantial issue currently) in districts where such are established and individuals quickly draw to these locations regularly after the work day before heading home to “reset”, as it were.
I read you wrong.
Hopefully no harm done.
Thanks for showing me those details.
No worries at all. 
Wow, a kindred spirit…
Well neat indeed.
You seem to be adding a layer of poetics on top of the metric as well.
Now you not only have A religion, but The Religion of all religions.
The God (the actual/real Creator of all entities) is in the equation.
Can someone explain the variables here? And why is there a differential in the range of + and -1? Or am I reading it wrong?
Po = Initial Perception
Ps = Signal Perception
The Bar | = limit from -1 to +1
The signal to noise ratio is a function of the initial perception, Po.
A feedback effect takes place exponentially enhancing the SNR as a function of the perception (raised to the power of P).
But nothing is possible until something is impossible;
There is a maximum positive or negative SNR, +1,-1
An entity begins sorting the noise.
Depending upon the sum effect of the noise, its own perception chooses; positive, negative, or neutral biases.
The entity is stable once the maximum has been reached and prejudiced to remain as it formed (hysteresis).
Thus Catholic will always be Catholic, Judist will always be Judist, Muslim will always be Muslim, and so on (the entities, not the people).
A person who has reached the maximized perception of their religion cannot change because they cannot see anything any other way.
If you meant that as a function, shouldn’t the Po be in the form of SNR(Po), considering a standard function is f(x)=z, for the function f of x input produces z output?
And if I understand your wording,
Shouldn’t that Ps be SNR^Ps(Po), so that Ps is an exponent enhancing SNR and not Po?
If I was merely saying that the SNR is a function of Po, then SNR{Po} = … would be standard.
But I spelled out what the function was, not merely that there is a function there.
The initial perception, Po, is a biasing scalier, thus “+ Po”.
The power of Ps is parenthetically enhancing the entire SNR, not merely the Po nor merely the ratio.
“SNR^Ps(Po)” would indicate that the perception is raised to a constant, Po. That isn’t the situation.
The situation is that the varying function called SNR is the mean signal level divided by the standard deviation, but it always begins with a bias which is an determined by the initial condition of its perception, Po (its initial ability to detect signal).
But the perception changes as signals and noise filter in and thus there is a Ps, perceived signal.
Once a signal is perceived, the ability to perceive alters in the same direction as the signal, enhancing the perception of the signal and reducing the potential of the noise (listening to only what you already decided was worth hearing). That effect, a type of positive feedback control causes a hysteresis that amplifies agreeable signals compared to all else, “the noise”. That amplification is expressed as a raising to the power of the Ps.
This also sounds very much like the Egyptian notion of ma’at, or balance. The idea is to keep from extremes and also to keep order, the pharaoh’s job was a top down hierarchy to this end [which only worked if pharaoh himself had achieved ma’at]. You’ll notice that many indeed most Egyptian statues have a facial expression that’s neither happy nor sad but straight faced. Happy/sad in extremes are dualistic in a sine wave fashion, one creates the other cyclically [where each waves -/+ folds into a cycle].
The noise analogy is a good one, rather than attempting to arrive at a straight line which would be stifling imho, one just cuts the noise or extremes out. I think this is also within the concept of ma’at, but this contemporary language makes it clearer.
Well yes its far better to self regulate as like those monastic societies, as any manner of signal control would be unethical [mind control] on a societal scale. Its probably better taught. Monastic societies aren’t necessarily run how we’d want the whole of society to be run, it would be too slow and inefficient, not to mention it kinda stifles life ~ the ‘living’ of.
What does that mean in real terms? What frequencies are being changed ~ those in the mind of a given individual who would otherwise need medical treatment? So that would be a replacement for drugs.
Or are you thinking of having emitters everywhere keeping everyone’s minds on a noise free level?
Again I wonder about the ethics, and the possible radiation/health concerns of the latter. Do brains simply act according to a set of frequencies inputted? …especially over long periods of time. I would think that the consciousness and its network would attempt to overcome this, especially as one would expect recipients to be primarily willing in experimental conditions?
perhaps DNA would chemically overwrite electrical input?
Oh and as a former punk I rather like noise 
Interesting stuff!
Madre de dios! Thanks.
Does this though take account of someone who abandons faith. I can’t see anyone with bias having any other way than to go into a “positive”. The feedback must be somewhat variable no? SNR suggests only that the individual filters out the noise according to his bias, it does not take account of people who either are atheists suddenly converting, or religionists suddenly de-converting? Are we destined by bias to eventually filter out all that we find irrelevant because of our bias? Or do some people actually change their minds? A somewhat difficulty thing to predict given a non neutral bias.
James, thanks for the clarification; now I see why you arranged it as you did.
Quentz…I’ll get back…gotta get some programming done at work (slaaaacking )