Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

First topic message reminder :

2:40pm EST

White Smoke 30 min ago.... Watching it live... awaiting the New Pope to walk out on the balcony. Vatican Guards and Italian Naval Soldiers marching on the steps of St.Peters Basilica, to the music of the Marching Band.




--------------------------

edit notice: This thread is the Part Two continuation from the original thread - last post here -

https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t6p990-hello-cy-hello-omf-ii#2215

Cy,

The poeple on the Salmony/CoF population list are mainly concerned about the global issue, whereas you see it as mainly being related to the domestic politics. And, yes, most of them are academic liberals. They would have very little patience with your domestic concerns.

Evidently, you see the US as the last (decaying) bastion for individual rights, and that may be the case. I agree that there is no other country where I would get away with my Chicken Little stunts.

But, now, as a point of clarification, what is your view on the question of women's right to choose?

Consciousness comes in a great variety of states, more or less associated with our individual bodies.  

Altered states generally have much less access to memory, in real time, although they may well become part of our permanent collection, after the fact.  In an altered state, we may have only a vague notion of our own identities, but afterwards, there will be no ambiguity as to the perceiver.

I generally suppose that our memories are direct perceptions of past events, not unlike remote viewing, although usually more vivid.  An argument against this view is that we can also remember our internal states, or ideas, for which our perception would have a very different modality, e.g. remembering stories.  Ideas would also seem to have a very different modality of perception.  Consider the perception of a mathematical theorem.  Are we accessing a collective memory?  

How does the memory of a tree differ from that of a theorem?  Mathematics may be considered to have its own landscape, although it would be more multidimensional.  

Or consider the study of ecology as being closely related to instances of particular ecosystems.  Abstractions and instances can never be fully disentangled.  Universals and particulars are always entangled.  

Consider also the problem of personal identity.  Our personalities may undergo large changes, while the continuity thereof seems never in doubt.  My childhood remains mine, despite upheavals.  Is myself from an hour ago more of a subject or an object?  My childhood identity may take on very different meanings, over time.  Large portions of our memory may be lost or blocked, without loss of identity, up to a point of total amnesia.  

We should not forget hypnotic states, which can be well compartmented, as with multiple personalities.  


All of the above is intended as an excursion into ontology, coming back to the question of materialism vs. immaterialism.  


noon--------

We can probably get considerably more traction out of Leibniz' Id. of Indi. (II).  There can only be one ultimate or supreme monad, in any sort of relational scheme.  Only one mathematical landscape.  

And, I would submit, that the same considerations apply to the ontology of our 'rare' Earth.  Can we rule out the putative objectivity of astronomical science, merely on a logical technicality?  That is what I'm suggesting.  

The UTH vs. the ETH is just another aspect of this logic.  


Photons and atoms are a major bugaboo for any aspiring immaterialist, but neither should they give much comfort to the entrenched materialists.  

W/o memory, mere sentience provides very little support for objectivity.  The II undercuts much of its physical objectivity.  

Then there is the horizon problem, which, in its most gneral form, continues to bedevil AI..... there is no end to meaning.  It is similar to the problem of holism in language, and to vitalism and teleology in biology.


3pm---------

The horizon problem is similar to the context problem....... meaning can depend radically on the context of the utterance or situation, and there is often ambiguity as to how far the relevant context or horizon is meant to be extended.  

Entanglement in quantum theory raises similar issues in physical ontology.  There are strong limits to analysis, within any venue, unless artificial, ad-hoc constraints are imposed.

And we may well wonder what it is that lights up our dreams and memories. Such innocent questions. And then we enter a dark place.

IMHO, photons and atoms emerge out of the logic that defines the cycles of the collective background to our mundane phenomena.


(cont.)

just thought I'd bring you some good news on the omf website its now fully workable and still a few minor things to do like add all the images back , but that will be a walk in the park after all the hard work.  A few other tweaks need to be done but in general its all good to go , of course there maybe some errors , and for this I ask you to let me know if you come across any.

This link i'm giving you is whats left to work on so please ignore it Smile , the main link is still accessible here http://theopenmind.hostingsiteforfree.com/index.htm

pman35,

This is fantastic.  What a lot of work!  

Now is this supposed to replace or suplement the Archives I, II & III that are listed on the forum page, here?
-----------


My point from yesterday is that atoms gain their objectivity only in a contextual/relational manner.  

Keeping in mind that context necessarily has a strongly subjective component, by just that amount are atoms non-objective.  

Does this mean that Earth atoms are more real than Moon atoms, for instance?  I would have to say, yes, even though this difference would not be objectifiable.  Moon atoms obtain their reality indirectly, by propinquity.  Theirs is a borrowed existence.  

In a relational world, all existence is borrowed.  How do we know that the world is relational?  Well, if it weren't, then how could we know it to exist?  

The mere possibility of UT's is perhaps the strongest argument for the SWH/BPWH.  But how then do we explain the unreasonable effectiveness of astronomy (UEA)?  Mainly by appealing to the UEM (mathematics).  

Practically speaking, the Earth could have done fine, with just the Sun.  So why the rest of it?  Or is it how?  

Is nuclear fusion in the Sun any less real than nuclear fusion on the Earth?  Well, it is rather more generic, I would say.  

Consider pond scum on the planet of a distant star.  We might even be able to pick up the oxygen spectrum in a telescope.  Where is the non-objectivity?  

Here's the deal......  The pond scum does not know where it is.  Do we?  Are we not also lost in space and time?  Blind leading the blind?  

Well, of course, the materialists assure us that we are lost souls!  How can I disprove them?  Only by inference.  There is no smoking ontology gun.  Even God could not disprove materialism, when you come right down to it.  The proof of contextuality lies, necessarily, in the circumstantials, of which there are an infinity.  

Well, ok, the closest thing to a smoking gun might be a UT.  Given any UT, ET's are rendered redundant.  W/o ET's the rest of the universe is relationally redundant.  

Redundancy has everything to do with intentionality.  If intentionality is real then relationality is real.  If intentionality is false, then materialism is true.  

Many folks, over many centuries have attempted to straddle the line between materialism and immaterialism.  But it all comes down to the logical point that a world cannot be partly relational.  It would be like being half-pregnant.  If vitalism gets its foot in the ontological door, it will take over the whole neighborhood.  Like pond scum?  Well, that is not entirely unanalogous.  

If you and I can harbor even a single intention, then case closed.  Mind over matter.  Deep down, the materialists understand this fact of life better than do we, and that explains their posture of bitter-endedness.  They can afford to take no prisoners.  

Over all the protestations of science, I know that I exist, now, and in some non-trivial manner.  If anyone knows that much, then they also know that science is overdue for its Waterloo, its MoAPS.  


12:30--------

Now, it's only a question of timing.......

When is the best possible time for Disclosure/Revelation/MoAPS?  

Right, now, the only thing between us and the 4M/K/SoT/X2 is fracking.  But what about Thorium?  Will Th232 not allow us to muddle through for another thousand years?  

That is possible.  But there would be a great deal more suffering in the process of making that transition, without divine intervention.  This mere fact suggests to me a strong case for the minimalist intervention suggested by the BPWH.  

But this scenario is predicated on the eventual rapture event, which is, quite admittedly, non-minimal!  


2pm--------

According to Wiki, I have misused intentionality, by taking it to refer to intentions.  But, in philosophical parlance, intentionality is the 'peculiar property of minds to be about something'.  I do prefer this wider scope of the term, as in..... I'm thinking about you.  

Even the strong AI folks may concede that no physical state can refer to another physcial state.  It may do so only only via some mental state.  If I recognize a picture of grandma, I am the agent.  But suppose I program my computer to recognize such photos, as is commonly done, nowadays..... How need that differ from my state of recognition?  There is no direct proof that it does.  But I submit that the circumstantial evidence ought to be overwhelming.  

Machine recognition is a step-by-step process.  There is no 'aha' step.  There is no gestalt, there, just a bunch of logical either/or steps.  Each step could be perfectly performed by a zombie.  The only question would be why anyone would suppose otherwise, other than as a point of professional pride.  

Professional pride is a powerful force.  Just ask any scientist.  The MoAPS will simply be the overcoming of that force.  It will be a quantum leap.


Only an existential crisis will offer sufficient motivation, but at what point does a problem become a crisis?  When does denial stop?  Can we recognize a problem without recognizing a solution?  It is much more difficult, in this latter situation.  

But, wait, I did make an earlier statement relating redundancy to intentionality.  I had something in mind that is now gone.......

Hmmm........  This might have to with whether intentions can be cloned, or whether persons can be cloned.  Suppose we attach no-cloning to the II?  There can only be one creator and one creation.  No?  


3:50--------

The above point may go back to the pond scum.......

Cyanobacteria are, indeed, lost in space and time, and there is no self-imposed differentiation.  There can only exist one such, and, yet, all life is derived therefrom, so there can only be one such origin.  But the same could be said of planets, and there does seem to be a plurality thereof.  

But here is the point......  the plurality of anything is only an artifact of mind, which, in my quasi-scientific scenario, can have only have a singular origin, biologically/ontologically.  

We could apply the same logic to Adam&Eve.  No?  Or to the birth of intentionality.  Do dogs have intentions?  Possibly not, not w/o a robust self-reference.

I'm looking at creation ex potentia.  There can only be one potential intention, which is ramified through creation, but only via agency.  There cannot be intentional compartments within a regime of pure potency.  

Hey, I admit that this line of thought is more than a bit abstruse, and the logic of it is fuzzy at best, but this is what we get when intentionality gets its foot in the door of ontology.  Sorry 'bout that!  

This then is the question I pose to philosophers...... does ontology make a lick of sense w/o epistemology?  How could we suppose them to be independent fields, w/o begging the question of materialism?

Does not the observer problem of qm point to the same issue?  Where does the ontological buck stop, if not with Wigner's friend?  I just need to make plausible the logical necessity of qm, but isn't that virtually a given?  


6pm----------

Once epitemology gets its foot in the door, the sky will fall.  

The ET story makes sense only from a Darwinian perspective.  If there is the slightest bit ot teleology, it makes no sense.  I spent five years trying to make sense of convergent evolution.  It doesn't compute.  Can I prove this?  

Well, if the tail wags the dog, there can only be one dog.  If there are two dogs, they cannot both chase the same tail.  That would a most awkward redundancy.  Intentionality cannot be compartmented.  It cannot be circumscribed, without rendering it a mere artifice.  Intentionality is necessarily transcendental.  If I can think about one thing, I can think about everything.  Nothing can exist that is not a microcosm.  There must then be a cosmic self.  Such a self, however, must be an end in itself.  There can be none other.  Whatever it might create must be self-complete, complementing its creator, in that fashion.  

Hey, this is only a restatement of the ontological argument of self-sufficiency.  It is the only logical resolution of the observer problem...... the buck stops nowhere short of eternity.  


Does omnipotence follow from omniscience? Well, in an immaterial world, to be conceived is to be. The totality must be harmonious. It cannot contain self-contradictions. Everything in its place. All being must exemplify eternity, including, especially, mortal beings, exemplifying the circle of life.




(cont.)

@Dan the web archive in the 1st link is the same i'll add a new second link soon

Pman,

Excellent work.  I am looking forward to the update.  

From: Dan
Date: November 3, 2013, 8:47:53 AM EST
To: Ron
Subject: Retirement and mission statement.

Ron,

I know that I am well past retirement age, but still I keep blogging.  As I get older, I am less able to efficiently compartment my time.  

My personal mission does seem to continue, nonetheless.  At one point, I was able to labor under the impression that there was a modicum of overlap between your professional mission and my personal mission.  

If, at any point, you are given to understand that this overlap has been reinstated, please let me know.  

Or, if you would like to take this opportunity to finally disabuse me of my above stated impression, please feel free.

Dan

------------



Yes, it has never been quite so clear to me, the exigencies of teleology.  Even the slightest indication of such can, logically, result in nothing less than a total inversion of modern cosmology.  

In the past I have ascribed this privilege mainly to the mind..... give mind an inch, and it will take a mile.  Well, it now seems that the telos, pedagogically at least, has precedence over the mind, in this regard.

From a purely ontological PoV, mind would come before the telos, or perhaps be 'contemporaneous' with it.  And, in another sense, the two concepts are virtually synonymous.  This is also the implication of the idea of intentionality, which has been cogently argued (Brentano) to be synonymous with being a mental state

Next to the telos comes the concept of the soul, which I suppose to be our link to eternity.  In some strong sense, I would identify the Telos with the cosmic Soul.  And, again, I'm stating this for the first time.  

If I've learned anything in life, it is the amazing degree to which all of us are blinded to the simplest and most obvious of truths, such as Telos = Soul/spirit/vital force.  The question is not how to learn the truth, but rather how to stop being so ensnared by mere habit of unthinking.  Yes, it does entail becoming more childlike, once again.  Most people find that to be either rediculous, or simply beyond comprehension.  

The entire educational system seems predicated upon relieving us of our curious innocence.  But, of course...... what else could it be?!

The modern mindset of, basically, just being lost in time and space, is way overdue for a reevaluation.  It will not stand up to any but the most superficial scrutiny, which is all that it has every received from we who have been so seduced.  And who amongst us has not?


3:30-------

At the SfA, today, Bill S presented a video, Darwin's Dilemma, which focuses on the Cambrian explosion.  The principal guest is Simon Conway Morris, a theistic evolutionist.  His position contrasts with the IDers.  Both of these views are criticized by RtB for leaving the bible out of the picture.  Bill follows the RtB path, which divides evolution into six 'days' of creation, with the CE comprising the fifth day, all under the rubric of an OEH, going back to the big-bang.  

Bill has tentatively allowed me to make a presentation.  It was to be about the A/O.  I think I break it into more than one session, with the first session on the different religious views on evolution.  That should be a relatively innocuous starting point.  

I'm already having second thoughts about teleology as being too much focused on scientific cosmology.  I need to better adapt it to the SWH.  

FWI, re SCM, do see http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/simon-conway-morris-becomes-a-creationist/

You know, it is noteworthy that no academics have ever directly attacked the four-horsemen..... Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet & Harris. They've only been countered by theologians.




(cont.)

A weakness of the BPWH is the two-step approach to it that starts with modern cosmology and the theory of evolution that point to the functioning of teleology.  The reality of teleology points to a mind-like telos or omega point.  

Once posited, the Telos then renders the process of evolution otiose.  We use evolution as the logical stepladder to the telos, but then kick the stepladder aside, and thereby adopting the SWH.  Is this fair?  It is doubtful that fairness is integral to any questions of ontology.  

Some form of teleology must be adopted in order to explain the present as being anything more than an accident.  And once you allow the telos a place in reality, many other possibilities must be reconsidered.  In particular, the Copernican revolution must be reexamined.  

Teleology is, at the least, a species of pantheism. But pantheism makes precious little sense in a Copernican world, wherein we are lost in space an time.  

In this regard, it is noteworthy that the lead story in the latest issue of the New Scientist is 'Does Now Exist?'  I remember when I first came across this problem, it may have been after grad school.  It is difficult to explain this problem to someone who is not well versed in physical science, but it lies at the heart of most of metaphysics.  

The problem of 'now' has been emphasized in phenomenology, particularly in the notions of presence and absence, being and non-being.  I would point out that being has no meaning, absent intentionality.  Attention and intention are conjoined, although the former seems the more primative.  It may be that animals are attentive without attending to a particular being.  Attention simply precedes reaction.  

For animals there can be no hiatus between stimulus and response.  For us, though, that hiatus is the nexus of all thought.  That hiatus is an aspect of philosophical difference, another basis of phenomenology, that exists in the shadow of Leibniz' II.  Then there is alterity, otherness, non-self, being and ground, sacred and profane, etc.  

Now is hardly an issue in a cyclical system, each now just being a mostly sublimated cog in the wheel, as with each ego.  These ontological problems are tightly intertwined.  They are the cosmic knot.  


2:30--------

Modern cosmology is simply atomism writ large.  It is misplaced concreteness, on a cosmic scale.  

Science is the reification of the other, carried to its logical absurdity.  But can we live without that absurdity?  It seems barely possible.  

The only hope lies in the technology of communication, but I'm supposing that this technology will have to be supplemented and then sublimated by the SWH.  Then the only other will be the Apeiron.  This would be the status quo ante, wherein the omega and the alpha may be identified.  This is the rapture.  It is like a reset, when viewed temporally, but it is just completing the self-realization.  

Our slumber of materialism becomes, indeed, a slumber.  Our attention turns elsewhere...... nowhere.  How is it to become unlost?  How can we imagine?   Ask our neighborhood mystic.  Or is this the night of the living dead?!  I think not, but there may be elements.  Zombies do strike a primeval chord, bless their hearts.  


Or is 'now' a biological invention, in the scheme of predator-prey?  There is a big disadvantage if the two parties are not equally present.  Out of that chaotic, strange attractor comes the presence.  Everything else is just going with the flow.  This is where the metabolic rubber meets the road.  Rene Thom would have something to say about this..... the danse macabre.


One could simply say that science ultimately is a grand tautology for the ground of intentional being. Not to be too grand about it. The intentionality, from within time, is projected into the eternal Telos, through the bottleneck of the rapture. How else could it be?





(cont.)

Dan, how does this fit into the best possible world scenario?

Two billion planets in our galaxy may be suitable for life
Data from Kepler space observatory suggests planets capable of supporting life are far more common than previously thought

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/04/planets-galaxy-life-kepler

Re: drones, I'm hardly an expert, but here's one young Iranian's point of view:

http://www.starpod.us/2011/12/18/could-secret-miniature-drone-technologies-take-down-rogue-governments/

The potential for remote controlled covert assassinations was first brought to our attention by an Iranian scientist.

The source, who was familiar with the cyborg bugs, (and cannot be identified for reasons of personal security), suggested using the robotic insects as lethal delivery systems, to bypass conventional methods of protection afforded to high-level individuals at the command and control level of an adversary’s government.

The idea is to equip the insects to deliver a stinging blow, while under the remote control of an operator at a distance (perhaps even on the other side of the world, similar to the deadly strikes now conducted by Predator drones).

From: Dan
Date: November 5, 2013, 7:33:14 AM EST
To: Ron
Cc: Princess Aliyah
Subject: a reiteration....

Ron,

Allow me, please, to reiterate my concerns........

There was a time when our liaison had a semi-official sanction.  

I have reluctantly, and perhaps much too slowly, come to the conclusion that this is no longer the case.  

If, at some point in the future, there is specific cause for this sanction to be reinstated, please let me know. Until such time, I think it best that we discontinue said liaison.  

Dan

------------



Cy,

Thank you for alerting me to the Fabian society.  I had not previously looked it up.  Yes, it is an exercize in utopianism.  

Historically, all such exercises have emanated from the prophetic tradition, and then been politically coopted by socialists of one persuasion or another, after, of course, being shorn of any and all divine sanction.  

This is why there continues to be, amongst Christians, a considerable ambivalence concerning any dealings with the State.  States are naturally disposed to take upon themselves a godlike authority.  

So, yes, we should always be suspicious of governmental abrogations of authority.  

And, in these endtimes of looming crisis, there will be enormous opportunity for facists to coopt any and all conceivable authority.  This is just what the bible predicts, partticularly under the rubric of the Antichrist.  

What can the god-fearing do in such godforsaken circumstances?  What can we do, other that hide in our bomb-shelters or go stand on the nearest hill?  

There is only one other thing that we can do..........

We can and must take up the cause of the Kingdom come.  

Do you have a better suggestion, pray tell, Cy?  
---------------


10:45-------

Gary,

Exo-planets.........?  

According to the BPWH/SWH exo-planets and exo-suns are less objectifiable than is the Earth-Sun system.  Objectification can only proceed via intentionality, of which only God and sapient creatures are capable.  This goes back to the issue of the ETH vs the UTH, which I would be glad to review with you, at your leisure.  


Cyborg bugs........?  

I may have been the first to bring this to the public's attention, some months ago, on OM.  
-------------  



Objectifiable........?  

Yes, this is a bit grabbag.  Most modern folks suppose that the Sun and other stars shine by fusion energy.  I'm rather less certain of this scientific fact.  

Where then does illumination come from?  I suggest that it is a product of sapience.  But what about sentience?  What would sentience be, without illumination?  Don't dogs dream, and are their dreams not illumined?  What is sentience without illumination?  It was Descartes who equated sentience with sapience.  I do not go there.  Dumb animals can an do feel pain, although perhaps not to the psychological degree that we do.  Nonetheless, cruelty to animals is an abomination.

What I am suggesting is that the visual aspect of human consciousness is unique to us.  Without the intentionality of sapience, the visual sense would be a vastly different experience.  Seeing a tree, for instance, is an act of sapience.  Dogs do not see trees.  

Don't infants see trees?  I would suggest, somewhat off the top, that babies and dogs experience a kind of synaesthesia.  It is a conglomeration of sound, sight, smell, touch and taste.  We have to learn to differentiate these modalities.  And that has a lot to do with language and its concommittant long-term memory, both of which are unique to sapience.  


noon--------

Did the Sun exist before there were humans?  Or, more to the point, could the Sun have existed prior to humanity?  Nay, could the Sun have existed without humanity?  There is the crux of the matter.  

Unlike all of my dualistic christian brothers and sisters, I am a rationalist, which is to suppose that everything has a ratio or reason.  This is a statement of monism and panentheism, God being omniscient and omnipotent, within reason, that is!  

Is God not allowed to play?  Pretend?  We are not God's playthings.  If God wants to play, he has to do it through us.  We are God's conduit to the irrational, the Apeiron.  

The Sun exists as our primary source of energy.  Stars exist as the source of much of our mythology, including science-fiction, of course.  

But, wait, what about our fossil fuels?  How did they get here?  

>>> (BTW, here is my next talk...... http://www.baltimoregreenforum.org/ ) <<<


My humble suggestion is that the fossil fuels are primordial.  Same goes for the dinosaurs and all the other prehistoric comings and goings.  

E.g., photosynthesis is also a product of sapience.  Or, to cut to the chase, Nature is simply the veil of God that is 'intended' to facilitate the temporary partitioning of cosmic and homo-sapience.  This is what makes Creation discernibly distinct from the Creator.  Toward the end of the Millennial Kingdom we experience rapture/apocatastasis, wherein we pierce the veil in a singular fashion.  

And therein do we achieve Leibniz' monadic identity of indiscernibles.



(cont.)

Dan, your prior musing reminds me of this, and only half in jest ...

Dan, I do believe you still need to address the reason why we find more Earth-like worlds in our galaxy than their are humans alive today on this planet. Perhaps there is one, custom made, for each of the ten billion? ;-)

And according to some reports:

Andrew Howard, one of the study's co-authors, enthused at a recent news conference that their 22 percent figure means that "with about 100 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy, that's about 20 billion such planets. ... That's a few Earth-sized planets for every human being on the planet Earth."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/11/04/243062655/scientists-estimate-20-billion-earth-like-planets-in-our-galaxy

And that is just our local galaxy, imagine how many throughout the visible universe and then beyond, into the landscape of Max Tegark's Level One multiverse (and those worlds are isomorphic to Level Three Quantum Many Worlds sharing our local laws of physics).

Many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory, mesoscopic anthropic principle and biological evolution

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.5545v1.pdf

A.Yu. Kamenshchik, O.V. Teryaev

(Submitted on 22 Feb 2013)

We suggest to combine the Anthropic Principle with the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory. Realizing the multiplicity of worlds it provides an opportunity of explanation of some important events which are assumed to be extremely improbable. The Mesoscopic Anthropic Principle suggested here is aimed to explain appearance of such events which are necessary for emergence of Life and Mind. It is complementary to the Cosmological Anthropic Principle explaining the fine tuning of fundamental constants. We briefly discuss various possible applications of the Mesoscopic Anthropic Principle including the Solar Eclipses and assembling of complex molecules. Besides, we address the problem of Time's Arrow in the framework of the Many-Worlds Interpretation. We suggest the recipe for disentangling of quantities defined by fundamental physical laws and by an anthropic selection. The main emphasis is made on the problem of the biological evolution.

Gary,  

Tree falling in the forest.......?  

Ok, as a first approximation, I can quote Ronald Reagan, 'If we've seen one tree, we've seen them all.'  If we've seen one forest or jungle, we've seen them all.  It is humans who individuate particulars.  

Yes, birds fly home to their nests, in particualar trees.  But, then, if we care about logic, we need to invoke the identity of indiscernibles.  Birds don't have identities.  It is we who identify birds.  They do not have social security numbers or addresses.  But can a bird distinguish itself from a dolphin, say?  Does the dolphin swim around thinking that it is not a bird or a shark?  

It is only we who bring on the game of ontology, and we only do it in a social context.  

I have to ask you if there exist unobservable universes.  I'm sure that you are inclined to agree, just as you suppose there exist unobserved planets.

But, as a quantum physicist, does it make sense to say that Wigner exists without his proverbial friend?  You may choose to believe that he does, but that is a choice that you bring to the ontology table.  You cannot appeal to science, in making that choice.  It is your personal preference.  

And what if humanity were to self-destruct?  Where would that leave the solar system or the universe, if we were the last ones?  That depends entirely on your belief in a higher intelligence.  Does it not?  

And what if God blinks?  The fact you and I exist is proof that he doesn't.  You may not like the logic, Gary, but it is self-consistent.  If you demand more of your logic than that, you are making up stories.  

To be is to relate, and there is only one logical place for the relational buck to stop.  


But, hey, I like that last article you quote...... mesocosmic anthropics!  Now why didn't I think of that?  If you think about it, Gary, you may see that it is simply reiterating what I have said above.  It leads right down the path to the BPWH/SWH, or I'll just have to eat my hat!  


And here is another way to look at this.......

Our basic ontological fallacy is to project our sensibility onto God.  But, if, rather, we are God's eyes, then God need not know anything more about all those superfluous and hypothetical planets than do we, and he could probably care a lot less.  

See, we think of God as a super-astronomer.  But maybe God is lazy, and is quite content to let us do the astronomy.  Why else create all those astronomers.  Just like Tom Sawyer, God is quite happy to let the astronomers paint the sky, by delayed choice, or what have you.  Hey, it keeps them from worrying about the BPWH, until the time is fully ripe...... say, three years from now!  

This is how the ontological cookie crumbles, Gary.  This is how the sky falls.  Do they call me Chicken Little for nothing?  This is where the buck stops.  


Yesterday, I was talking to my physics buddy, Paul Z.......

I was trying to ascertain if the resurrection of the Aether might have any bearing on the BPWH/SWH.  

On first blush, the aether does seem to be a reversion to the Newtonian system of absolute space and time.  Relativity was supposed to have rendered the aether otiose.  It was the quantum that brought it back.  But, even without the quantum, Einstein was having second thoughts about its banishment.  

This had to do with the reality of gravity......

You may recall the Einstein equivalence principle, which seems to suggest that gravity is an illusion. It is frame dependent. In the falling elevator, it just dematerializes. But Einstein, starting in 1920, had qualms about this facile interpretation of the EP. He tried to disown it, but it was too late. Wheeler & Co, enshrined this simplified version of the EP in the physics textbooks.



(cont.)

Yes, birds fly home to their nests, in particular trees.  But, then, if we care about logic, we need to invoke the identity of indiscernibles.  Birds don't have identities.  It is we who identify birds.  They do not have social security numbers or addresses.

"29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010&version=NIV

Yes, don't we love it when agnostics quote the bible!

And, yes, that is a good one! If a sparrow falls in the woods.......? Am I suggesting that God doesn't care?

Or what of the homeless person, freezing in the night? What you do unto the least of you........

Yes, there is a safety net that does surround all life. We are the flesh of God. This is where pantheism comes into its own. But God does not stop with the flesh..... IOW, is there anything more natural than prayer? Do you know anyone who has never prayed? Only a fool or a masochist.

Do sparrows pray? They don't need to, now, do they? They live entirely within that net. It is only we, who venture outside..... for better, and for worse.

That the hairs on your head are numbered does seem an aspiration of the National Security Agency?

Seems that they were already beaten at their own game, before the game started. Unless you are an ET and/or UT believer, wherein lies a more "disturbing" interpretation. What do you think, Dan?

"When God blinks" do we cease to exist?

Traversable Achronal Retrograde Domains In Spacetime

Benjamin K. Tippett, David Tsang

(Submitted on 29 Oct 2013 (v1), last revised 4 Nov 2013 (this version, v2))

There are many spacetime geometries in general relativity which contain closed timelike curves. A layperson might say that retrograde time travel is possible in such spacetimes. To date no one has discovered a spacetime geometry which emulates what a layperson would describe as a time machine.

The purpose of this paper is to propose such a space-time geometry. In our geometry, a bubble of curvature travels along a closed trajectory. The inside of the bubble is Rindler spacetime, and the exterior is Minkowski spacetime. Accelerating observers inside of the bubble travel along closed timelike curves. The walls of the bubble are generated with matter which violates the classical energy conditions. We refer to such a bubble as a Traversable Achronal Retrograde Domain In Spacetime.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.7985v2

And for those less technically inclined:

The Blue Box White Paper

Benjamin K Tippett, David Tsang

(Submitted on 29 Oct 2013)

This white paper is an explanation of Ben and Dave's TARDIS time machine, written for laypeople who are interested in time travel, but have no technical knowledge of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

The first part of this paper is an introduction to the pertinent ideas from Einstein's theory of curved spacetime, followed by a review of other popular time machine spacetimes. We begin with an introduction to curvature and lightcones. We then explain the Alcubierre Warp Drive, the Morris-Thorne wormhole, and the Tipler cylinder.

We then describe the Traversable Achronal Retrograde Domain in Spacetime (TARDIS), and explain some of its general properties. Our TARDIS is a bubble of spacetime curvature which travels along a closed loop in space and time. A person travelling within the bubble will feel a constant acceleration. A person outside of the TARDIS will see two bubbles: one which is evolving forwards in time, and one which is evolving backwards in time. We then discuss the physical limitations which may prevent us from ever constructing a TARDIS.

Finally, we discuss the method through which a TARDIS can be used to travel between arbitrary points in space and time, and the possible dangers involved with exiting a TARDIS from the wrong side.

Before we begin, would you like a Jelly Baby?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.7983v1

Gary,

Are our hairs numbered? Grains of sand? Atoms?

No, even God cannot number the atoms. God created atoms specifically to be indistinguishable. They are not individuals. There is the II, the identity of indiscernibles. If not, the world would collapse in a trice, recalling the necessity of the Pauli exclusion principle, which is strictly the result of relativistic quantum field theory, RQFT.

But what about our hairs or our souls.....?

Well, God is omniscient, but only in the qualitative sense, and besides, according to the BPWH, there is only one soul. Am I contradicting Jesus? Am I a heretic? Was Jesus a heretic? Of course he was, that's why he was crucified, and for good reason, more reasons than even God can count.




(cont.)

Well Dan, it seems our national agency responsible for keeping the count (on all of us, recently revealed) may have a disturbing problem.

Extraterrestrial alien interference? ‘Spooky’ spy agency haunted by ‘Tricks ‘n’ Treats’

http://www.starpod.us/2007/10/28/extraterrestrial-alien-interference-spooky-spy-agency-haunted-by-tricks-n-treats/

As for keeping the count on all those atoms?  http://www.universetoday.com/36302/

I believe the (legal) term is FUNGIBLE

And sets of various configurations (of atoms) may be fungible where emergent properties are involved ... Am I not coorect?

Yes, Gary, I like the idea of fungibility.  In the greater scheme of things, you and I are fungible, God is rather less so, IMHO.

IOW, quantity emerges from quality.  Pythagoras understood this ontological fact better then anyone.  The mathematical physicists have forgotten this simple fact, and so they take his name in vain!  It is a shame, that is about to be corrected.  

You and I are fungible and 'liquid' aspects of God's love, which is entirely unfungible, but entirely liquid.  

Stars are fungible, the Sun is not.  Same goes for planets.  When birds navigate by the stars, they do not see individual stars.  Rather, the gestalt of the starry sky is just one synaesthesic aspect of their navigational gestalt that can include a non-denumerable number of cues and clues.

This is actually what the world is composed of, just overlapping gestalts.  Our minds filter and abstract individual objects from the meta-gestalt that composes our stubbornly persistent, intersubjective illusion that we call the physical world.  It ain't, and neither are we, physical, that is.


2pm---------

@Gary..... (cont.)

You refer to 'emergent' properties, supposing, no doubt, that these properties emerge from the atoms.

According to the BPWH/SWH, it is, rather, the atoms that emerge from the stubbornly persistent phenomena of our mundane existence.

IOW, the great-chain-of-being starts from the top, cosmic agape, and works down, mainly through us and our collective Cs&uCs.

Thus, the long prophesied MoAPS/Revelation, will simply take the scientific cosmology, and stand it on its head. It's just that simple. This is not rocket science.




(cont.)

Dan, I know this belongs separate thread, but I wanted to be sure to get your attention.

And I won't take offense if you or admin moves this.

Once you wrote about Burisch and Majestic. If you still have an interest, would you have a look at this.

Yes, a lot of politics and machinations. But Burisch and McDowell are seated where they're seated because their "circle of friends" BELIEVE they "saved" humanity from a most unpleasant outcome (Timeline variant). So, if you've reason to believe any of this, I'd love to hear from you. So you see, this DOES have to do with the reality of us.

Thank you,

Rose

“Canopy” Chief Echelon E1, Consistory of the Majestic, United States of America to Burisch Crain MJ1 and McDowell Crain MJ8.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/182387761/%E2%80%9CCanopy%E2%80%9D-Chief-Echelon-E1-Consistory-of-the-Majestic-United-States-of-America-to-Burisch-Crain-MJ1-and-McDowell-Crain-MJ8-pdf

Snipped from link:


"I see that too. Many of the Echelon does. His apparent good standing with the Lord helps me sleep. Am I seeing a lamb or just counting sheep as a husband and wife decided to just survive and then go relax at Niagara Falls? With Deepest Majestic Respect, “Canopy”/Chief Echelon E1, Consistory of the Majestic, United States of America (opportunity for corrections reserved) +++ Honorable First Seat, we are happy to be of some service to your plans and take a degree of personal gratitude in knowing that you will be very aware of our presence during the Supreme Council’s debating process. Do you have a minute for live chat this evening? With Deepest Majestic Respect, “Canopy”/Chief Echelon E1, Consistory of the Majestic, United States of America End"

What a way to end a communica!  A word flower.

One must fall - in order to rise, Dan?
If you need a wing-man, I'll watch your back in chat.
I seem to fond of Roses as of late.

Rose,

Only once did I have a brief communication with Dan B, at the request of Ron P.  Dan, as requested, submitted a written statement wrt the confirmation of his former mentor John McConnell, to be the second DNI, in 2/07.  

As to the article that you link, I had difficulty deciphering it.  If you provide us with a more intelligible summary, I would be grateful.


MD02,

TBMK, that article only makes reference to Dan B.  What do you make of it?  To what 'chat' are you or the article referring?