Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

From: Dan
Date: March 1, 2014, 9:38:41 AM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Robert, John and David
Subject: The Jack trap


Before we can adequately deal with Charlie, we need to get some other ducks in row....... namely Jack.  

Here's the deal.......  Aether =>> UTH =>> SWH =>> Darwinism is just a side show.  

Or..... A (1)> U (2)> S.  

#2 is the biggie wrt Jack.  

If you think about it..... given any credence to Visitation, then A =>> U.  No biggie.  

It is the next step, #2, that is the problem.... U =>> S.  

But, here's the trick....... step #2 is actually a combination of A+U.  

1.)  In part, it's about the subjectivity of the future horizon.  Every galaxy, and planet, even, has its proprietary horizon.  If the future horizon = VALIS, then we have much too much redundancy in VALIS.  How does the coordination work?  If there need be intergalactic coordination, the UT's are already there, bless their hearts.  They are VALIS incarnate.  Fine.  

2.)  In no small measure, the UTH subsumes the Aether.  But we already knew that.  

3.)  But, now, in effect, we have a super-Aether <<=>> Monopsychism.  Yes?  Still with me?  

And, now, the trick within the trick.......

4.)  We now have a super-duper-Aether, sd-A.......  The sd-A is so 'thick' that it would simply implode, if not for our (Atlas) boots on the ground.  THEREFORE..... there can be no 'empty' space.  It would spontaneously implode.  In point of fact, we are, Earth is, the necessary singular singularity within the super-duper-Aether.  QED.  

Belarmine was right after all.  The SWH necessarily follows from the posit of a super-duper-Aether.  

Any questions or remonstrations?  

Yes, #4 is a mouthful, but, believe you me, it will be our Tar Baby, our Jack Trap, given that I am able to coax the four of you even just half-way on-board with this conspiracy.  This will then be sufficient to catch Jack.  After that, the sky's the limit.  Right Skai?  

But, first, the four of us need to practice on each other........

From: Dan
Date: March 1, 2014, 10:37:20 AM EST
To: "John
Cc: Paul, Robert, David.  
Subject: Re: The Jack Trap

John,

Good point, but you don't quite get the point of the Super-duper Aether.......

With the Retro-causal/FTL SdA already in effect, the Big Bang is just a retarded.... what.... semi-conscious, archetypical side-show, along with darwinism.  

The BB, etc, just 'emerges' out of the SdA 'vacuum', which is what the BB was supposed to have done, anyway.  

All I have do, now, is explain the 'scare'-quotes.  

I am helped, in the regard, by positing that my little SWH is actually eternal, from the PoV of the SdA.  

Is anyone following this?  

Our geocentric cosmos was never other than that.  The SdA was so thick that the Big-Bang just fizzled, from the git-go.  We are, instead of an inflationary bubble, a, really THE singular,  consciousness bubble.  Any better?  

If there were any other such bubbles, they would not be out in space, per impossible, they would be like the other inflationary bubbles, which are unobservable, to us, per impossible, given the UTH.  

The CTC plus the UTH necessarily become the cosmic Monad.  About the only thing that philosophers have ever agreed on is that there can only be one Monad/Absolute.  Am I not right about that, Paul??

Hey, there's no rush, sport fans, we have all the time in the world!



On Mar 1, 2014, at 9:49 AM, "John wrote:

I'm not convinced that everything can implode or explode ... at the same time.

From: Gary
Date: March 1, 2014, 10:12:37 AM EST
To: Dan
Subject: SDA aka Super Duper Aether

Actually, the SDA is replaced by the Platonic phase transition, which is, once projected into our world, the shadow on the wall of the cave -- the transcendental mystery.

Platonic (Ryazanov's communion of angels) <-> Mental (our self-organizing description) <-> Material (physical memory)

Modern man has removed the response from the universe to the Platonic above, thus Platonic -> Mental <-> Material

And thus is born materialism.

This is the symmetry breaking Ryazanov referenced in his obscure text, as I understand it.

From: Dan
Date: March 2, 2014, 1:40:01 PM EST
To: David
Cc: four others
Subject: Re: The New Aether

David,

Yes, Paul has handed us the ether, on a silver platter. We now have license to slay materialism. However, Jack will stop at nothing to deny our access to any metaphysic, other than to the one he happens to be pushing that day. Even with that one, it will be look, but don't touch. And our one look will only be through his custom-filtered glasses.

Now, the next issue before us is the 'shape' of the ether.......

To what extent will the ether be 'selfish'? It must be selfish to a considerable extent, or we wouldn't be here.

The real question, then, is the degree to which the ether is atomic, or strictly egoic. You already suggest that the ether must have a collective uCs, as Jung and Pauli believed. The egos, then, might only have a superficial, illusory existence.

It would be absurd to suppose that the ether itself could be atomic, it being the Mother of the void. Now, yes, the Hindus do speak of Sunyata, which transcends all self-consciousness. This would be our lowest common denominator.

Off to catch the whale..... Is there a whale in the etheric ocean?

From: Dan
Date: March 3, 2014, 11:46:14 AM EST
To: Paul
Cc: four others.....
Subject: Can we and ought we be a SWAT team?

I suggest that if this is to become more than an academic exercise, we need to be a SWAT team........

SWAT = Small World Alert - test

Here are the minimum requirements........

1.)  four or more of us, initially, agree to participate

2.)  Jack and Ron 'agree' to either disagree (politely) or maintain a hands off policy

Here are our talking points.......

1.)  CTC's are all the rage..... our modest proposal is, instead of embedding CTC's in our universe, we embed our 'universe' in a CTC.  The circumferential timeline could be of a human scale.  This universal CTC is the (metaphysical) core of our putative 'small' world.  

2.)  We subscribe to a UTH over the ETH wrt 'Visitation'.  'Disclosure' of such, along with its attendant implication of a 'disturbing (eschatological?) message', would be a significant part of our developing mission.

3.)  The further elaboration of the New Aether, starting with Paul's LCCdC, up to and including a VALIS/Sunyata/Implicate order.  Monopsychism would be an actively considered option.


IOW, we would be a 'spontaneous' back-channel, testing some serious (political) waters.  We then constitute a contingency-testing team - expandable focus group.  


(cont.....)

From: Paul
Date: March 7, 2014 at 7:04:23 PM AST
To: Dan Smith
Cc: David
Subject: My comments on your recent OMF posts

Here are my comments on your recent OMF posts in red.

by dan on Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:52 am


2:40-------

We may also harken to the existentialists, in their struggle with similar concepts........

Being & Nothingness, Presence and Absence, Being & Time, Alterity, Absurdity, etc.  

We also need to follow up on Paul's observation that the Aether is the breath of the angels, i.e. ambrosia, quintessence and the like.  
Is it not also the spirit that God breathed into the clay, in the formation of Adam?  What about the animal spirits, however?  

[PZ] My "observation" was that the Aether was described in Greek literature as the breath of the gods. Something analogous toordinary
air, but not ordinary air. Associated with the divine.

We might call it consciousness, supposing there to be a quantum leap between sentient and sapient consciousness.  This aether is
something that we share with the gods.  To call it a soul is reductionistic, and is to avoid pantheism/panpsychism.  

[PZ] Yes well words like "inspire", "conspire", "aspire", "expire" etc. do suggest that ideas come to us as if from the air, or that our spirits
can leave us as if through the air. This makes sense if "air" is used as a metaphor for something more mysterious as in the ancient
literature on the aether/akasha.

Pure "spirit"? The etymology points in interesting directions.

The panpsychism of the BPWH is, unlike with its normal usage, mainly or entirely a projection from God, through us.  It is We who
breathe life into the physical equations.  The world is our folie-a-deux.  

[PZ] Made in His image?

Leibniz held that all lower monads were reflections of the Supreme Monad, which encompassed all of them within itself as an organic
cosmic unity (held together by pre-established harmony). The "soul" of this cosmic unity (top monad) could be called "God".

Thus there is an Aristotelian aspect to Leibniz's philosophy.


6:25--------

My question to Paul is how might we get from the ether to informationalism, for instance?  

[PZ] Black hole thermodynamics is part of the physics of the New Aether. Black holes are Aethereal structures.

The "holographic" dependence of the thermodynamic entropy of black holes on the area of the enclosing event horizon rather than
on the volume is aether physics.

Think of the controversy and confusion about the nature of black hole event horizons -- are they mere coordinate artifacts, or objective
structures? The modern view is that they constitute object light cne inlfection boundaries that are coordinate independent.

That is a good illustration of the conceptual difference between aether physics and Machian "general relativity".

This question may hinge upon the role of the ether in the quantum vacuum.  

[PZ] The New Aether is the quantum vacuum, with added gravitational properties (described at the classical macroscopic level by the 4D
spacetime metric field g_uv(x) of GR).

Historically, this arose when Dirac discovered, in 1928,  the first ever relativistic massive wave equation, coming after the massless
Klein-Gordon equation.  Dirac's equation had two solutions, for positive and negative masses.  Thus was born the quantum vacuum
of virtual particles.  

[PZ] The vacuum is polarizable, and acts as an optical medium whose optical properties depend on the presence of matter. That is all
settled physics.

Gravitation and the optics of the vacuum are not separable in modern theory.

Clearly from the physical standpoint there is a "there" there that is arguably the same for all observers regardless of their states of
motion. Hence the New Aether publicly reintroduced by Einstein in 1920 (although Einstein talked about it in private letters as early
as 1916).

It may be gauge theory where the ether most directly impinges upon the quantum realm.  This we need to sort out.  

[PZ] Yes. If the actual non-tidal gravity field of GR cannot be "gauged away" and is thus not actually a gauge field (as opposed to
a mere fictitious field described by the pure affine part of the LC connection), then this raises serious questions about the
Standard Model ('SM') of elementary particle physics). Hermann Weyl may have simply got the wrong end of the stick, the rest now
being history.

Notwithstanding Einstein's EP, the actual gauge field of GR is a fictitious field. A kinematical artifact.

In the meantime, can the ether take us anywhere short of informationalism? Is there any ontology between those two?

[PZ] Whether the New Aether is pure information, or has physical information encoded in it, is still an open question. However, either
way, it is not a material substance, even if it is a substance.

I suppose that the Big Bang is an indication of the potency/potentiality of the ether. But each possible universe is supposed to have
its own unique vacuum, emerging more or less spontaneously from the 'background', whatever that may be.

[PZ] The unstable Minkowski "false vacuum", according to Jack (and others).

(cont.)


by dan on Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:50 am

I have been struggling with the ether.  I am still not understanding how it applies to the gauge theories or to the lack thereof.  Just
when I seem about to grasp it, the connection vanishes.  I think I need to start over........

[PZ] It applies directly to gauge theories of gravity, but only indirectly to the U(1), SU(2), and SU(3) gauge theories that form the
theoretical foundation of the SM.

Paul points out that the equivalence principle (EP), in its original form, was supposed to have shown that the gravitational field could
be 'gauged away', and, thereby, obviating the need for an ether.  This is the standard, MTW, view of gravity.

[PZ] No this is not correct Dan.

The official modern view of GR is that the tidal field described by the Riemann curvature tensor is the actual  gravity field of GR, and that
the non-tidal field represented by the LC connection is not actual, but is entirely a matter of the observer's frame of reference. From
the "gauge" perspective, this means that the non-tidal field is a "gauge field" that can be "gauged away" by going to an LIF (Riemann
spacetime coordinates).

I say that this is a chimera. I say that the non-tidal field is also fully objective and cannot be gauged away. If there is a gauge field, it
is described by the non-tensor pure affine part of the LC connection, not the LC connection as a whole.

This was apparently not understood by Weyl, who attributed gravity purely to an affine relationship between LIFs. Based on this error,
the idea developed that non-tidal gravity is a gauge field, when in fact it is not.

From the gauge persepctive, the curvature field is understood as being the curvature of the affine connection. Metric compatibility of
the LC connection is not understood to be a non-gauge component of the LC connection. This idea was then transferred to QM by
Weyl in his 1929 attempt to transfer his original 1918 gauge arguement to the relationship between the electron phase and the vector
potential of electrodynamics.

I'm saying that this is all the fruit of a poisoned tree. GIGO.

However, on further examination by Paul and a few other skeptics, the EP was found to be seriously deficient in this regard.  

[PZ] Even Einstein later admitted under severe criticism that his version of the EP was false if taken too literally.

Especially, now, with Paul's newly discovered decomposition of the Levi-Civita connection, one of the compenents is found to contain
(only?) first order derivatives, and so is not 'gaugable'.  

[PZ] Newly discovered unique decomposition of the LC connection.

Alex Poltorak already had a non-unique abstract LC decomposition in 1980, based on the mathematical existence of Weyl's non-
metricity tensor.

I have a unique decomposition of the LC connection with a direct geometric meaning based on Levi-Civita's theory of parallel
transport, and a direct physical meaning within the framework of 1916 GR.

So far, so good.  But does this particular L-CCC thereby constitute, just by itself, a mathematical expression for the long sought Ether?
Or are there significantly more logical steps necessary to flesh out a theory of the Ether?

[PZ] It overcomes the standard objections to "spacetime substantivalism" based on active diffeomorphism invariance (which is the
mathematical basis for gauge gravity). Without active diffeomorphism invarianc interpreted as a gauge symmetry of the vacuum, the
orthodox "anti-substantivalist" dogma collapses.
 
Regardless of the answer to this question, I am skeptical that there can be any such formula for the true Aether.  

[PZ] In my model the mathematical formulas for the true aether are all encoded in the matter dependent metric field g_uv(x) of GR.

The formula for "no aether" is active diffeomorphism invariance in GR.

So the shoe is on the other foot.


This question may
be formulated as follows.........

I suspect there may be two ethers, and that Paul and I are after different game.  His is the physicists' ether, and mine is the
philosophers' aether.  Nay, mine is, perhaps, more akin to the philosophers' stone.  

[PZ] Well my point here is that when Einstein's 1916 gravitational theory is properly understood, the two "aethers" converge, opening a
conceptual pathway to quantum gravity that is blocked in orthodox GR.

IMHO, the crux of this difference lies in the 'substance' of Occasionalism.......

Occasionalism has to do with spooky-action-at-a-distance (SAaD).  It's like Saab, but with less chromium.  

This problem came to the fore, historically, when Newton virtually disowned his own theory, due to its SAaD.  

[PZ] No he did not. He just said he wouldn't speculate about the causes of gravity in the Principia. He said that the answer was anybody's
guess, given the insufficiency at that time of the empirical data, and that in that situation everyone could form his own personal opinion
about it.

But in the Opticks, and in private letters (to Bentley et al) he did speculate about an aether as a necessary supplement to his
corpuscular theory of light, to account for the observed wave-like behavior. He also stated very clearly that he did not believe in
action-at-a-distance, and hence he invoked the aether -- which is exactly what Einstein said in 1920.

So there is more than one Newton. Newton had a split personality. So did Einstein.

However, historically, gravity is not the usual venue for occasionalism.  The usual venue is much more prosaic.  It is the flame and
the cotton ball.......

[PZ] Doesn't theological occasionalism hold that God creates the world anew at every instant of time?

In fact, Hume's famous skepticism concerning the efficacy of causation was copped directly from the arguments of the Islamists,
going back to the 9th century...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism#Hume.27s_arguments.2C_Berkeley_and_Leibniz

[PZ] Interesting.

[...]

11am-------

OMG, I think I must be an Averroist (from wiki).......
1.)  there is one truth, but there are (at least) two ways to reach it: through philosophy and through religion
2.)  the world is eternal
3.)  the soul is divided into two parts: one individual, and one divine
4.)  the individual soul is not eternal
5.)  all humans at the basic level share one and the same intellect (a form of monopsychism)
6.)  resurrection of the dead

With the following caveats.......

#2)  From God's perspective, but not ours.

#4)  From our perspective, but not God's.

And that's all, folks.  That's all she wrote.


Monopsychism is a term that, strangely, had not previously occurred to me.  It should be a key feature of the BPWH.  
That single word defuses much of my struggle with free-will.  Free-will is subsumed within free-Will, if you will.  God's
free-will consists mainly in her ability to reason.  So much for strong AI.  

[PZ] This looks like a can of worms.


noon------

Now, back to ether vs. aether, and how we may endeavor to subsume the former within the latter........  

[PZ] "Ether" = "New Aether"

The pivotal figure, in this regard, is, of course, Newton and his theory of gravity.  From a philosophical point of view, his
theory was a scandal, a sociological fact that we find hard to comprehend, retrospectively.  This has to do with SA@D.  

[PZ] Yes that is how his Cartesian critics (including Leibniz) interpreted Newton's theory of gravity. Newton however did not
advocate action at a distance. He even called it "absurd" in a letter to Bentley.

He tentatively formulated an aether theory of gravity to avoid action at a distance. But not openly, since this would be
too much of a concession to the continental Cartesians.

Those early moderns were very comfortable with Aristotle's four causes...... material, formal, efficient and final.  The
culprit here is #3, efficient cause.  Efficacy, here, is usually understood in the context of propinquity, in the mechanical sense.  

Clearly, gravity was not that.  Gravity was SA@D.  

[PZ] Not for Newton, only according to his critics, who tried to discredit his theory of gravity by associating it with "SA@D"
over his objections.

All of theoretical physics since Newton may be understood as an attempt to make make gravity less SA@D.  This is where
Paul and his LCCdC come into the picture.  

[PZ] Including Newton himself.

First, we must take a slight detour with Maxwell's demon.......

His demon should properly be seen as anticipating the quantum measurement problem (QMP), at the crux of our struggle
with the continuities vs. discontinuities of nature.  

[PZ] OK...

Maxwell's wave equation had to be reconciled with Einstein's photoelectric effect.  

[PZ] Which at the time was the most advanced version of the wave theory of light.

But then we get into the problem of quantum gravity and gauge theory.  And even before that, we may need to take a look
at advanced and retarded potentials, or, more specifically, with the Wheeler-Feynman absorber solution of Maxwell's
equations.  

[PZ] Gauge theory does not tell you to quantize the vector potential. It only allows you to quantize it. Quantization is a separate
issue.

[PZ] Like Noether's theorems, gauge theory is 100% classical -- except that the electron phase is a feature of wave mechanics.

At the same time, we will need to KIM the two Feynman pictures of QM, point interactions vs sum over histories, with the
latter leading to Jakir's theory of weak measurements.  And surely we will not forget the EPR problem.  

[PZ] I thought the EPR problem was solved by various no-signaling theorems, together with the realization (and admission by
Bohr) that the collapse of the wave function is not due to a physical interaction in any case?

[PZ] Without EPR signalling or even physical interaction between separated QM subsystems associated with measurements
there is no "SA@D".

In all of these cases, we are seeing a recurrence of the problem of efficient causation vs. SA@D.  This is showing us why
we may have to reconsider occasionalism, or why efficient cause is a convenient fiction.  

[PZ] Gravitational "SA@D" is solved by finite propagation speeds and the New Aether. EPR "SA@D" doesn't exist unless you
believe that measurements performed on a local QM subsystem physically affect the states of remote QM subsystems,
instantaneously -- which according to the no-signalling theorems they don't.

IMHO, the only way out of these time paradoxes is to invoke a CTC based cosmology, which is tantamount to a robust/
rationalized (weak-measurement based) occasionalism, which also helps to explain Averroes temporal confusion wrt his
#2 and #4 theses, above.  


[PZ] Ah. OK not a bad try, but see above.


2pm---------

What I don't yet see with sufficient clarity is how Paul's LCCdC may or may not contribute to a CTC cosmology (CTCC).  

Off the top, the CTCC solves the IR problem, by rationalizing a long-wave cutoff of longitudinal photons.  Hey, it's a start!  

[PZ] CTCs are objective structures in the New Aether as physically real as light cone inflection boundaries. They have nothing
to do with observer reference frames. They ae not artifacts. That is the picture offered by fully covariant GR under the
"LCCdC".


So far, the eucharist is nowhere in sight..... or is it?  Nor is any form of substantiation anywhere in sight.  

[PZ] Of course it is. The LCCCdC demolishes the orthodox objections to "substantiation" that are based on active diffeomorphism
invariance! It overcomes the dogmatic pseudo-mathematical obstructions of GR orthodoxy.


4:30---------

Here are some things I do not understand.......

1.)  We used to suppose we could gauge-away gravity, in accord with the EP, yet.....

2.)  .... with QED, we, in effect, gauge-in the vector potential, by using it to offset the effects of a local symmetry
breaking of the quantum phases, i.e. the U(1) symmetry, a-la Emmy Noether.  

[PZ] Because you need an Ehresmann connection to correct for artifacts in partial derivatives arising from localization
of the electron phase.

[PZ] That is a classic Weyl-type "gauge" argument of the kind that was actually ridiculed by Einstein in 1918, and also by
Wigner later on in the context of the SM.

I would like to have a better intuitive grasp of the connection between #1 and #2.  Might Paul's LCCdC shed any
light on this?  

[PZ] It sheds light on Weyl's misconceptions about the role of connections in physics, based on his misunderstanding of
the LC connection of 1916 GR as an independent "affine structure". It exposes the fallacies of the gauge model, and
shows how such misconceptions arose from a historical standpoint.

[PZ] Weyl's gauge field is actually the non-tensor pure affine part of the LC connection. It is not a physical gravity field.
The actual non-tidal field is represented by the metricity tensor. Taking his cues from Einstein's Alice-in-Wonderland
EP model for LIFs, Weyl systematically confused the covariant metricity of the LC connection with the non-tensor
part. Apples and oranges.

This shows very clearly how Weyl went off the rails, and how this led historically to the illusory gauge models of the
modern SM based on the so-called "gauge argument".

6:40-------

Paul quotes the Newtonians as agreeing that gravity could not propagate through a vacuum.  What then was it
propagating through, if not a very insubstantial ether?  

[PZ] That was what Newton discussed in the Opticks, and privately with Bentley and others. Newton entertained aether
models for the propagation of light and for the propagation of gravity. It's a historical fact. There is no question
about this.

[PZ] The fact of the matter is that Newton despised action-at-a-distance as much as the Cartesians.

But, now, with EPR, we have a more severe problem, where quantum entanglement 'propagates' instantaneously, and
very selectively.  It is more accurate to suggest the EPR simply does away with space.  It collapses space.  This is
much more radical that simply postulating a space-filling ether.  

[PZ] Only if you believe that measurements performed on a QM subsystem HERE have a physical effect on the state of
a remote QM subsystem THERE.  Modern theory says no. According to this view the EPR effect does not represent
physical action at a distance. Even Bohr acknowledged this, significantly modifying his "Copenhagen" position on
QM in response to Einstein et al.'s arguments.

With EPR, physics becomes radically non-local.

[PZ] Not according to the no-signalling theorems. See above.

The solution is that the QM state is partly physical, and partly about our state of knowledge about the physical. It is the
"knowledge about the physics" part that changes in the EPR gedanken experiment, not the actual physics.

What is peculair about QM is that the subjective informational component is mixed up with the objective physical
component and no one (other than Bohm perhaps) has found a satisfactory way of disentangling them.

Our best acquaintance with such non-locality may be found wrt our own thoughts. EPR, then, is the closest thing to a
bridge between the ether and the aether.

[PZ] OK, maybe it is the closest thing to action-at-a-distance, but it still doesn't follow that it actually is action-at-a-distance.

(cont.)


by dan on Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:02 am

Not conclusive........

I'm not sure what I was trying to conclude.  I'm trying to make sense of the insensible..... the nothingness of space.  

One could also argue about the substantiality of time.  

[PZ] Or about the substantiality of spacetime. Block universe?

Space is our most precious commodity, it would seem.  So how can it be nothing?  

[PZ] Not nothing, but not exactly something either.

By the same token, the flow of time is the most irresistible force in the world.  How can it be nothing?  

[PZ] Ask Parmenides.

In relativity theory,
the two are combined in the most intricate fashion, enabling us to convert pure matter into pure energy, in the most awesome
manner conceivable.  Where is the nothingness, we might wonder?  

[PZ] You can't polarize nothing.

How can we add nothing + nothing + nothing and get BOOM?  I ask you.  

[PZ] Space is not nothing. Time is not nothing either. Things happen in both. Things emerge from both.

[PZ] Space aka "the New Aether" carries energy and information. Information doesn't flow through nothing. Gravity doesn't
propagate though nothing.

So there is a "there" there (Einstein 1916, 1920).

If our physicists have demonstrated anything, they have demonstrated that our naive concepts of space, time and matter
are interdependent in the most sublime manner imaginable.  We had no idea.  

[PZ] Since Kant we did. At least some idea.

Only in the most abstract and rarified of circumstances might we ever suppose that these qualities could ever be disentangled
and quantified, and so be made to seem empty or vacuous.  

But, in the end, we cannot even conceive of empty space.  The only way we can conceive of it is to posit that it could be
habitable, per impossible(?), in its extremities.  Out of such speculations come the strangest of metaphysics.  With the
BPWH, I hope only to somewhat tame these wildest of speculations.  Wish me luck.  

[PZ] Good luck with that.

To the mix of space, time and matter, we are urged to posit gravity.  Gravity is so mundane, until we stop to think about it.  

[PZ] And then all hell breaks loose.

And, to make a long story short, the more we think about it, the more do we twist ourselves into logical knots.  It is true that
the professional gravitationists do not enjoy bragging about their conundrums.  It seems uncharitable for a rank amateur to
look askance.  We pay scientists to explain things to us.  

[PZ] We also pay con-men to pick our pockets and sell us bridges.

By evincing skepticism we seem to subvert their livelihoods, to  take food from the mouths of their children.  How could one be so cruel?  

[PZ] Con-men have children too.

(cont......)


by dan on Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:46 pm

Paul and I had an hour-long convo this pm, prepping for Tuesday's radio show.  I have a call into the Princess to discuss the last
minute details.  

Paul and I, with Aliyah's mediation, will be discussing the history and prospects for the ether.  

We will hopefully cover Paul's personal history wrt the ether, and then the history of the ether itself.  But, before that, I wish to
present a preview of the putative coming attractions.......

In modern times, when physicists speak the 'physical' vacuum, they are actually referring to the metaphysical ether/aether, even
if they are not personally aware of that historical connection.  The point is that there is more than a little embarrassment within the
scientific community wrt to the subject/ontology of the ether.  This embarrassment perhaps should be the primary topic of
Tuesday's show.  

My speculation is that the ether may be a 'can of worms' wrt scientific materialism.  Or, as Paul suggests, 'there be serpents!'  

[PZ] Although the irony here is that so-called "scientific materialism" is not actually scientific. Authentic positivist materialism is anti-
metaphysical.

Very succinctly, Paul further suggests that there is almost certainly a link from the 'physical' vacuum to the holographic/
informationalist cosmologies that are rapidly gaining traction within the physics community.  The latest manifestation of said
'traction' is Stephen Hawking's very recently expressed doubts concerning the ontology of black holes.  This is not just a
tempest in a teapot.  

[PZ] Watch out. Hawking is a self-proclaimed positivist.

I then point out, with Paul's tacit approval, that it is a relatively small step from informationalism to panpsychism, if not to
monopsychism or panentheism.  

[PZ] OK.

At some point, in just a few steps, the theoretical physicists will be confronting the possibility of turning their collars around,
bless their hearts.  

So much for the future, now back to history.......

The crux of this history may lie in the LCCdC that was first broached by Paul, ~8y ago, TBMK.  By means of his LCCdC,
he shows that gravity cannot be gauged away, and it is, therefore, an immaterial objectivity.  This may be as close as we
can get to a mathematical formula for the ether/aether.  

[PZ] In general agreement with Einstein > 1916. I just add the missing puzzle pieces.

by dan on Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:43 am

Allow me then to back up a few steps to obtain a wider perspective.....

It does seem that Paul and I may just be egging each other on, in our attempt to make a metaphysical mountain out of a
mathematical molehill.  One might well wonder how it can be that seemingly pure mathematics can be used to a metaphysical
end.  

[PZ] Because pure mathematics has already been used against Einstein's New Aether. I provide the antidote.

In this regard, I am tempted to compare Paul's LCCdC with Godel's (incompleteness) theorem, while recognizing that this
would, indeed, be a considerable stretch.  

Bear with me, for the nonce.......

It may be that Paul is picking up where Godel left off.  

What Paul is combatting, here, almost single handedly, are the residual effects of a century of philosophical positivism that
continue to permeate theoretical physics, this residuum, despite the widely recognized philosophical bankruptcy of said
positivism.  

This latter-day positivism parades under the more auspicious banner of Pythagoreanism.  As such, I was lending to it more
than it may be due.  It seemed to me that, under the rubric of Wigner's 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics' (UEM),
Pythagoreanism was allowing us to transcend the coarser aspects of scientific materialism.  

[PZ] Pseudo-positivism.

What I, evidently, did not appreciate was Paul's critique of Pythagoreanism as a cover for the underlying positivism resulting
in a particularly pernicious/tenacious form of anti-metaphysical posturing.  

[PZ] Which privileges certain metaphysical models as "positive" while condemning others as "metaphysics".

Forgive me, then, if I am tempted to see this metaphysical foot in the door as possibly being the leading edge of the long
overdue MoAPS.  I'm quite content to give it the old college try.  We shall see.  

When Stephen Hawking wonders what it is that breathes fire into the equations of mathematical physics, his question can only
have a metaphysical answer.  The reluctance of the physics community, in this regard, manifests an underlying and
understandable caution wrt opening Pandora's metaphysical box.  Given the opening to substantiation, can transubstantiation
be all that far behind, one might well wonder.  Do I get ahead of myself?  Do I count my chickens?  What should we expect of
a Chicken Little?  

[PZ] Pandora's box indeed.

For the pseudo-positivists, Einstein's New Aether is a can of worms. Since it doesn't present itself to us directly in sense experience,
it is no better than a spirit.

But in fact, that may be what it is: "inspiration" for the gods.

10am-----------

What, intuitively, is happening wrt Paul's LCCdC?  

I am told that it, very conveniently, separates the mathematical artifacts from the underlying physics.  

[PZ] In the coordinate frame kinematics of Einstein GR, the mathematical artifacts are related to fictitious fields, which Einstein famously
confused with real non-tidal gravity fields based on the EP.

Thus does it, uniquely, lay bare the non-geometrical aspect of the gravitational field.  I trust that I have not mischaracterized the LCCdC.  

[PZ] No, this is not correct. It shows that the geometric part of the LC connection represents the actual non-tidal gravity field, while the
non-geometric part represents a fictitious field of purely kinematical origin.

With the aid of special relativity and the EP, GR was thought to be an exercise in pure Riemannian geometry.  For a few years,
Einstein, heimself, was caught up in the hyperbole.  When, in 1920, he attempted to sound a note of metaphysical caution, the
nascent positivists were quick to drown out his misgivings.  

[PZ] This is when Einstein parted ways with the logical positivists/logical empiricists and repudiated Mach's philosophy of science.

It is true that positivism, per se, may be viewed as a species of idealism, in that it discounts any sort of physical substrate.  

[PZ] Empiricism.

But the situation might also be compared with behaviorism, wherein the mind is treated as just a black-box.  Nay, a black-hole,
if you will.  

We, metaphsicians, take it as our personal challenge to pry open these black-boxes.  We are just incorrigible treasure-hunters,
with all the arrested adolescence implicit therein.  

Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?  Well, by the time anyone manages to thoroughly look this gift-horse in the mouth,
the larger MoAPS implicit herein, may already have been let out of the barn.  I have often said..... by hook or by crook, crass
opportunist that I am.  

It's not always about what you know.  It's also about who you know, and what is the context.  When the context is..... man bites
dog, well, who knows where the story may lead?  I'm just the kid with a new toy.  

Or am I playing with matches...... naughty, naughty!  

[PZ] Yes.


11am-----------

Molehill => mountain??

With Paul's LCCdC, the ether is laid bare, in an historically and strategically unprecedented manner.  Sure, the positivists will soon
gather their remaining forces, and attempt a counter-attack, but it may be too little and too late, one might hope.  Time is not on
their side.  

[PZ] Right.


**Ether => holographic informationalism?  Sure, on a wing and a prayer!  Or, felix culpa, said the oyster to the grain of sand.


But that is just a teaser......... guess what happens when a seed of coherentism (Logos) is added to the supercooled sea of
informationalism?  We get Ice 9!  If that is not a MoAPS, I'll just have to eat my hat.  


Ice 9 => VALIS..... QED!  

Yes, Jacques Vallee calls it the Invisible College.  


12:45---------

It may be (**) that is our biggest hurdle.  Paul and I have not discussed this one in any detail.  That there must be a link seems
a logically forgone conclusion, but to specify the nature of this link is another matter.  I note that informationalism does not even
warrant a wiki entry, and, yet, it is widely touted in diverse speculations on the nature of reality.  

Our initial stance wrt (**) might simply be that any lending of (scientific) support to the ether is bound to reflect positively upon
other metaphysical devices, and that ain't nuthin'.  

[PZ] Right.

It is a wide net that we are being encouraged to cast.  Who knows what may become caught up in it?  To turn a blind eye to
the most obvious possibilities would seem downright neglectful.  


2:40--------

One might easily argue that the foregoing is much too heavily weighted toward thinly motivated, radical speculations about
possible future developments in the philosophy of physics.  

In my second attempt at an advanced degree, this time at the University of Maryland, in 1977, combing physics and philosophy,
I was sharply criticized for allowing my philosophical speculations to overrun the established results of science.  It was simply
stated that the frontiers of physics should be left to the physicists, and that philosophers should, rather, serve as the historians
of science, and not pretend to be pioneers.  

[PZ] You were a troublemaker.

Yes, times have changed, but not enough to satisfy my impatient, irrepressible curiosity, my predilection for the 'what if?'.

[PZ] At least we can hope for well-grounded speculation.

But, no, my main motivation now comes from a sense of urgency concerning the crying need for a MoAPS that can bridge the
intellectual chasm between science and religion, and allow us to transcend the dire possibilities for the future of civilization that
have now become the staples our postmodern outlook on the future.

[PZ] OK.

Yes, I am suggesting that to avoid a negative apocalypse, we will need to embrace a positive, best possible eschatology, rather
than settle for a cringing retreat from all our human aspirations. In the end, we will have no choice but to embrace our destiny.
Let us get on with it.

(cont.)


by dan on Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:23 am

I'm contemplating a modified approach to Jack, one that would put mind first........

I am attempting to equate the ether to mind.  Jack, OTOH, equates the future horizon to the cosmic mind.  I'm not sure if Jack
is the only one making this identification.  

[PZ] Cosmic intelligence.

However, what Jack was doing, before latching onto the future horizon, was equating individual mind to his non-linear extension
of qm.  

[PZ] Right.

I see no reason to suppose this later idea has supplanted his earlier idea.  There is, though, a greater distinction, now,
between the individual minds and the cosmic mind.  

[PZ] I don't see a conflict here. Do you?

In the former case the cosmic mind could simply be seen as the non-local extension of the individual mind.  This model would
have been more susceptible to my SdA, super-duper aether, idea.  

[PZ] OK.

I suspect that his precipitous latching onto the future horizon was mainly meant to avoid this more intimate immersion of our
minds into the cosmic mind.  


3:15--------

I have a call into Paul to discuss the reframing of the prospective convo with Jack. I need to get a better perspective on the
relation between Jack's two 'theories' of mind, i.e. near-field and far-field. Also I need to know how his ideas may overlap with
those of others.

[PZ] As we discussed, Jack has an observer dependent cosmological horizon that he took from Tamara Davies' PhD thesis, and
applies a Hawking radiation-type argument to get a membrane with finite thickness.

Of course Hawking's arguments are applied to a real objective black hole event horizon that is observer independent, while Jack
applies similar argument to a cosmological horizon that depends on the position of the observer.

This is a bit like treating a Rindler horizon in Minkowski spacetime as a real physical structure, and then arguing that when QM
is taken into account, the Rindler horizon has finite thickness.

Jack will say that the photon population of the vacuum is in any case dependent on the acceleration of an observers' frame of
reference in mainstream physics (which is true), and that he is not doing anything particularly radical by supposing that an
observer dependent horizon membrane can be treated as a real physical object.

So Jack's VALIS membrane is there for one observer, and not there for another. But to be fair this is no stranger than Einstein's
now-you-see-it-now-you-don't gravity field, which is also intrinsically dependent on the observer's frame of reference, which is
also mainstream physics.

by dan Today at 8:22 am

I suspect that, amongst modernists, besides a very understandable desire for a continuing (perpetual?) material progress, there is
an equally strong desire to tame the spirit.  

In point of historical fact, the purpose of science was to exorcise nature, and human nature(!), of spirits, i.e. to denature nature.

[PZ] That was 17th century parsimony. Occam's razor and all that. The most output from the least number of posited entities.

However, the same "parsimonious" types don't seem to have a problem with ~10^23 invisible "atoms" or even 10^500 invisible
universes of they will allow them to deny that purpose and intelligence are at work in nature.

Despite all the sound and fury of 'science vs. religion', at bottom the two Magisteria share the primary goal of taming the Spirit.  
The 'ligio' in religion refers quite explicitly to the binding of the spirit.  The Apocalypse refers to the unbinding, to the unleashing
of the Spirit.  

[PZ] OK.

The Sixties were a mini-apocalypse, for many, from which there was a reaction, which sent many a flower-child back into the
embrace of science and/or religion.  

In intercourse with the spirits, one is playing with fire.  Science and religion, each in their own way, are a routinization of that
Charism.  Without such routines, our lives would be chaotic.  Spirits can and do run rampant.  Religious wars may testify to that
fact.  Alchemy and astrology were simply our early attempts at such routinization.  

[PZ] If the phenomenal existence of material objects is "positive" because they are given in sense experience, why are not minds also
"positive", since they are also given in experience? Why are inner phenomena derogated in favor of external phenomena?

Isn't the inner/outer distinction itself given in our experience?

The role of millennarian/messianic furvor in history is considerable.  Witness the Mideast, today.  

I am suggesting that the historical standoff between science and religion is a very deliberate or effective posturing, even if very
few of the participants are directly aware of the underlying mutuality.  

[PZ] Right. Science and religion are actually competing for the same turf -- a theocratic form of authorit. White Coats vs. the Black Coats.

Let us say that the PtB, or the sociological hidden hand, is very comfortable with this divide and conquer strategem.  This is the
status quo that is sorely threatened by the overdue but imminent MoAPS.

[PZ] OK. The Illuminati understand this.


Jack and Gary are the outriders or the rear guard for the status quo. They occupy a particularly strategic hill, on the outskirts of
the established tradition. This particular hill is an outpost on the paranormal fringe, a very vulnerable underbelly, if you will. Their's
is not to reason why. Desperation rules.

Who am I to contest this Hamburger hill, as a forward scout in the culture war to come? I'm just another chicken-little. Don't mind
me.

[PZ] Ha ha.

(cont.)

From: Dan
Date: March 14, 2014, 6:59:17 AM EDT
To: Robert
Cc: Paul, John and David
Subject: Small world or bust - the initiation of Robert......

Robert,

I notice that, in my absence, Paul has managed to keep you reasonably entertained, but, now, task master that I am, it is back to work..... maybe saving the (small) world.  

The other three on this list have pretty well been initiated..... to my insanity.  For the sake of argument let us assume that you are a total naif, when it comes to Danianity, this being one of Jack's many bon-mots.  

Right up front, I continue to labor under the impression that I could be God, not that I actually am God, but that I might need to play 'one' on TV.  

To wit: Paul, John and I recently returned from an earlier trip to the Caribbean, via Carnival out of Baltimore to Nassau and back.  We were in the company of the 'royal' family of Kashmir, namely Aliyah, Kashmir and Ron.  

Ron has been my BBQ buddy for 20+ years, and he used to staff the weird desk at the Agency.  He still works there, but in a somewhat unknown capacity.  Anyway, he does still aid and abet my insanity, to a degree that may not be easily measured.  As a small, very impromptu exercise in taking charge, I did attempt to take command of the Pride, on the return trip, while rounding Cape Hatteras, in a gale.  Let's say that the exercise was a partial success, but not everyone was as amused as I.  It was not bad, anyway, for a 70 year old, IMHO.  


(cont......)  

From: Dan
Date: March 14, 2014, 8:02:59 AM EDT
To: Robert
Cc: three others......
Subject: Re: Small world or bust - the initiation of Robert......

(cont......)


Allowing me to continue to assume that you are a total stranger, you are perfectly free to walk away, from whatever, at your earliest discretion.  

Even, however, in you absence, I would likely continue with this train of thought for the rest of our last day on Culebra.  I am very used to soliloquizing, as I usually do on OM, which, BTW, is copied on most of my outgoing emails, with only occasional references to you first names.  I generally do not post responses, unless you specifically request.  In which case, I would be glad to carry this entire convo over to OMF II.  However, that might take a bit of arranging, as there does seem to be some filtering of participants, thereto, IMHO.  For the time being, Robert, you are the new kid on this block, so you get first dibs......

(There's no more Joy, as of 6:30, last evening.)  

The (satellite?) internet starts getting very slow, about now, and until midnight.  

So, Robert, for the nonce, you are the guinea pig's guinea pig, wrt one fairly far out national security contingency, which, TBMK, may no longer exist, but probably did, at one point.  If you would like to discuss any of these details, we should get Gary back on the line, as he, in conjunction with two others, Dick and Bill, is the long time chronicler of this little side show.  

And, for this nonce, please, pretty please, bear with this insanity, for at least a few more hours, as you could be a critical link to whatever may or may not come next........


(cont.......2)

cc: OM

From: Dan
Date: March 14, 2014, 8:46:13 AM EDT
To: Robert
Cc: three others......
Subject: Re: Small world or bust - the initiation of Robert......

(cont.........2)


The first priority, wrt Robert's hopefully continuing participation, would be to explain the Jack connection......

Paul and David have known Jack since the three of them moved, independently, to North Beach, in the early 80's, from England, New England and Santa Barbara, respectively, TBMK.  

I came onto this scene ~'95, introduced to Jack's list via Ed Komarek, a ufologist from the south-east.  I started visiting the Trieste crowd, while also visiting my mom, in Atherton, soon thereafter.  However, my first intro to Jack was back in '75, via his ST&B book, which was also my intro to the Anthropic principle.  

I first spoke to Ron ~9/91, and have been in frequent communication, since, with the notable exception of from early '99 to early '04, with the even more notable exception of daily comm's from ~9/1/01 thru ~9/15/01.  You should not have to be a rocket scientist to read btw the national security lines.  But, again, there are many more such details to this extended 'soap-opera'.  


(cont.........3)

From: Dan
Date: March 14, 2014, 9:35:43 AM EDT
To: Robert
Cc: three others.......
Subject: Re: Small world or bust - the initiation of Robert......

(cont.........3)

The internet has slowed to a crawl. I'll try to keep using the cottage wifi, but may have to switch to the 4G cell phone, at some point. The cell phone is ATT, which is usually less non-functional. My mini-ipad is on Verizon, which is non-extant on the island. I have no way to xfer text btw the two.

Anyway, life goes on...... Joy was Deb's mom.

So, Robert, TBMK, Jack and I pretty well cover the waterfront wrt the future of humanity. He with the physics, me with the metaphysics, and both of us with our significant variety of connections. It may be a small world, in more ways than one.

The possible reason why you and Paul are here would then be to facilitate some crucial communication with Jack, and then through Jack to a significant fringe of the physics community.

TBMK, this could be the straw that would break the camel's back wrt an SWH wake-up call. Right here and now could be the biggest bottle-neck. This is an unusual game that may still be, being played out. No one could know for sure, unless there actually is a VALIS.


(cont........4)

From: Dan
Date: March 14, 2014, 10:11:10 AM EDT
To: Robert
Cc: three others.......
Subject: Re: Small world or bust - the initiation of Robert......

(cont.........4)


(still trying the wifi -> DirectTV..... so I'll be using short (concise?) segments.)

The continuing first priority is to keep Robert involved in this conversation.  To wit: Ron would likely be the first option.  The deal would be to get Ron to communicate with Robert concerning this continuation.  And this could be the stickiest wicket within this biggest bottleneck....... and, again, I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out why.  

But, hey, Robert, if you would like additional background on this prospective protocol, we have a small team, hereabouts, to help fill you in.  Isn't that right, team members?  But don't all speak at once........!  


(cont.........5)  

From: Dan
Date: March 14, 2014, 1:49:15 PM EDT
To: Robert
Cc: three others.......
Subject: Re: Small world or bust - the initiation of Robert......

(cont........5)


(I have gotten the logitech keyboard to work with the iphone, if that becomes necessary.)

So basically what we have here is a not insignificant communications test. I did get a brief, positive response from one of the other three. Nothing from OM.

As it stands now, the continuing effort to engage Robert may, more significantly, be a test of the link with CK. But, if there is no response from Robert, there will be no test of the other link.

Robert and/or CK may not wish to communicate directly with each other, in which case there are several likely intermediaries who might be acceptable to both parties.

I would also recommend to Robert that we exchange phone numbers, to further facilitate matters.

Otherwise, it would probably be best to get back to the regular blogging and/or back to the beach.

Yes.......?

From: Dan
Date: March 15, 2014, 6:37:26 AM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: Paul, Robert, John and David
Subject: Dear Jack, If I were VALIS.........

Dear Jack,

If I were VALIS, and I wanted to save the world, wouldn't you be just about the first person that I should call?  

And I'm asking you, quite seriously, to think if there is someone else that I should talk to about this little matter, before checking in with you, that is.  Perhaps I should first have gotten Ron's blessing, for instance.  But, no, I've not done that.  IOW, I continue to operate, pretty much, on my own recognizance, FBOW.  

It is fair to say, is it not, that both you and I have been cooling our heels for quite some time, in regard to getting 'this little show' on the road.  And both of us are living on borrowed time, are we not?  

So, whose show is this, anyway?  I mean like who is in charge?  

All that I'm asking of you, Jack, is to try to be just a little more patient with me, than you have in the past.  Is this asking too much?  I surely hope not.  And we shall see, won't we?  


(cont......)

From: Dan
Date: March 15, 2014, 6:59:55 AM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: Paul, Robert, John, David and Gary
Subject: Re: Dear Jack, If I were VALIS.........

(cont.......)


So why do I come back to you, despite the radical differences in our worldviews?  Why don't I preach my little sermon to the good folks at the home for the terminally, evangelically insane, for instance?  

Yes, Jack, in point of fact, I have tried that, too.  So, is it only out of desperation that I come crawling back to you, my last hope?  Hmmm....... perhaps, so.  

So what chance is there, and what excuse can I give for this particular entreaty, after all those other failures?  

Surely, VALIS ought to be able to do a lot better!  VALIS should have gotten it right, the first time.  Yes?  We shall see, won't we?  


(cont.......2)

cc: OMF

From: Dan
Date: March 15, 2014, 7:24:46 AM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: five others......
Subject: Re: Dear Jack, If I were VALIS.........

(cont.......2)


I am very well aware, Jack, that it is my small world hypothesis (SWH) that sets everyone's teeth on edge, as well it should.  This is especially true at Grace Fellowship Church, some might be surprised to know!  

But I am sorry, there just is no logical way around it, is there?  How do I mean.......?  

This is where we do have to channel VALIS, in a most serious fashion, as if that were possible!  

Every last scientist believes the BWH, B as in very BIG.  Anything else would be certifiably insane.  You and I can probably agree on that.  The only caveat is that I have a special license to commit cosmic insanity, whatever that may turn out to be......


(cont.......3)

cc: OMF, unless otherwise specified

From: Dan
Date: March 15, 2014, 7:47:54 AM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: five others.......
Subject: Re: Dear Jack, If I were VALIS.........

(cont......3)


But here's the problem with the BWH, Jack.......  

The problem is to specify just how big is BIG.  If you were VALIS, how big would you want to make the world?  In your mind, there are probably only two possibilities.......

1.)  a countable infinity of galaxies, or

2.)  an uncountable infinity of galaxies.  

Yes?

But, then, Jack, my next question to you is....... how big is too big?  

And, here, I appeal to Einstein, if I may.........

Should VALIS play dice with the universes?  Or, is it possible to not play dice with an uncountable infinity of galaxies/universes?  Hey, I mean could VALIS even count an uncountable number, I ask you.  Is this not a serious question??  


(cont.......4)

From: Dan
Date: March 15, 2014, 8:11:59 AM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: five others.......
Subject: Re: Dear Jack, If I were VALIS.........

(cont.......4)


I don't want to get too long-winded, here, Jack, so allow me to cut to the chase........

Let's face it, you scientists are idiot-savants, and I mean that in a loving and even, shall we say, speaking on behalf of VALIS, in a maternal/paternal sort of way.

You all are just my prodigal sons and daughters, bless you!

But come on, folks, this truly should not be rocket science or brain surgery....... hint, hint.

If I actually wanted to make an uncountable infinity of universes, now where would I put them?

There is a very simple answer to this question. Put on your thinking caps, sports fans.......


(cont......5)

From: Dan
Date: March 15, 2014, 8:46:06 AM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: five others........
Subject: Re: Dear Jack, If I were VALIS.........

(cont.......5)


Give up?  

I would put my uncountable infinity of universes right inside your little head, Jack!  And trust me, that is exactly what I have done with my infinite Creation, is put it inside your head.

Ouch!, you say.  

At this point, you would probably like some proof, if I can correctly read your mind.  

The only question is what sort of proof do you want?  Ok, you want....what.... tangible, irrefutable, mathematical proof.  Hmmm........ How about logical proof?  

Here's my logic.......

You are created in the image of VALIS.  No??

Ok, let's turn that around.....  If you were not created in the image of VALIS, then in what image were you created, I ask you.  Or were you created?  


(cont.......6)

From: Dan
Date: March 15, 2014, 9:13:07 AM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: five others.........
Subject: Re: Dear Jack, If I were VALIS.........

(cont.....6)


Why should I have to be explaining this to you, anyway?  There is nothing I'm telling you, here, that you and your colleagues don't already know or strongly suspect.  

All I need to do is give you permission to think inside the box....... inside our holographic box, that is.  

I can, we can, put everything in anything, and we have already done that.  IOW, the world has already been saved, an uncountable infinity of times, shall we say.  But there is only one small fly in this ointment, and that is deciding when and how to announce this fact to the world.  

I'm thinking that here and now is probably as good a time and place as any.  Has anybody got any better suggestions.  

But maybe I haven't quite persuaded you of this logic.  How logical do I need to make it?  How many steps should this be broken into?  Do I need to make it iron clad?  How about simply being plausible, or not being implausible?  

Is this strong version of the holographic/anthropic principle implausible?  If so, can you tell us anything that is less implausible?  Is this not a fair question?  


(cont.....7)

From: Dan
Date: March 16, 2014, 9:17:18 AM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: Jack, Gary and three others....
Subject: Why Jack........

Paul et al.......

If any of us are here for a reason, then Jack is also here for a reason that clearly has something to do with our putative VALIS.  And the next related deduction is that Ron is, or was, somehow connected with something like MJ12 that would likely serve as a prime conduit(?) for VALIS.  

Let's try to keep focused on this one little assumption.  

The next logical questions concern the nature of VALIS........

1.)  Is it One or many?  

The mere fact that there exists a common, waking reality, strongly suggests that there is one VALIS.  The anthropic principle suggests that this same VALIS is 'valid' throughout the visible universe.  

If, OTOH, there were a plethora of VALIS's, one would need an explanation for their separateness.  IOW, if VALIS can communicate with us, why would it not also be communicating with it-selves??  

2.)  Is it more productive for us to think of VALIS as a cosmic horizon or as a cosmic simulation?  

Is there a difference?  If there were a difference, it might only be academic or philosophical.  Until further notice, I see no great need to force such distinction.  


(cont.......)

From: Dan
Date: March 16, 2014, 10:13:05 AM EDT
To: Gary
Cc: five others........
Subject: Re: Why Jack........

Gary,

A perceptive question......

However, you forget or discount that three of us 'happen' to be Xians, and, as such, we are inclined to discount the extreme cosmic extravagance to which you and Max so frequently refer, or even cling!  I've always just supposed that Max's Meinongian ontology was never actually intended as more than a reductio ad absurdum of modern, Copernican proclivities.  

So, when you raise such questions, I'm inclined to write it off as 'philosofawzy'.  If you deem it, however, to be a question of practical significance, then you are invited to state your case, succinctly.  

The only serious aspect of your question may simply be to wonder how many of your fellow humans are inclined to seriously entertain such extravagance?  Could you give us a 'horseback' estimate?

As to your specific example of Jack, I'm simply assuming that he is the one Jack Sarfatti with whom I have been personally communicating, for the past twenty years, with the further, anti-solipsist, assumption that the continuity of his individual persona is similar to what most humans claim to experience.
----------------

(cont.......)


Of the many who may be associated with this putative VALIS, Jack (my Jack!) remains the central PoI.  In effect, Jack is and has been the de-facto, default 'PR' person for VALIS, if we may discount PK Dick, for the nonce.  

If, and when, you stop to think about this fact, you might come to understand why I consider this belated attempt at communication to, quite possibly, be a matter of no small urgence.  

No?  


(cont.......2)

cc: OMF


On Mar 16, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Gary S Bekkum wrote:

Which Jack? Since modern cosmology predicts an infinity of identical Jacks at vast distances from each other in our Level I cosmos, with identical states of perceptronium, how is it possible to predict in principle which one of them is the Jack you refer to here? If perceptronium results from a phase transition, is there another phase transition to something else beyond ordinary states of consciousness?

From: Dan
Date: March 17, 2014, 12:18:25 PM EDT
To: Robert
Cc: Jack, Paul, Gary, John and David  
Subject: God is a circle.......

And speaking of horizons, let us not forget Empedocles and Voltaire......  God is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is 'nowhere'.  

Into the metaphor of the cosmic circle we should certainly be factoring in the notion of a cosmic CTC, or a cosmic bootstrap between creator and creation.  This whole shebang is a maximal, self-organizing system, embedded in the eternal ether of potentiality.  

This is not meant to be rocket science.  I'm just connecting the most obvious dots of our ancient wisdom and (post-?)modern knowledge, into a system that is not merely reductive or mechanistic.  

Is this tiny, toy model of the cosmos not hopelessly outclassed by the Big Bang brigade of established Science?  Yes and no.  

We merely have to seriously confront the question of which came first..... mind or matter?  What is the overriding organizing principle of existence/being?  


(cont......)

From: Dan Smith
Date: March 17, 2014, 1:48:12 PM EDT
Cc: Robert, Jack, Paul, Gary and three others......
Subject: Mind and/or matter

(cont........)


Jack, Robert et al,

I thank you very much for your continuing patience, in cutting me some slack and humoring me along, once in a while.  Please bear with me for some additional critical points.......


The entire scientific enterprise has hitched its wagon to the notion of mind emerging spontaneously from matter, this is ever since the then nascent science took up the challenge posed by the Cartesian dichotomy between matter and mind.  

Even in Jack's model of non-linear QM, it is not entirely clear that this emergence can be totally spontaneous.  IOW, non-linear QM may be necessary for the emergence of mind, but not totally sufficient, thereto.  No?  

With the notion of the ether and the cosmic horizon, which are being supported and advanced, respectively, by Jack, we do see the glimmer of intelligence being seeded into the universe.  


(cont.......2)

From: Dan
Date: March 17, 2014, 3:27:13 PM EDT
To: Robert
Cc: six others.......
Subject: The universal Seed.....

(cont........2)


The scientists may be right, that mind arises everywhere, spontaneously and independently.  It is then just a question of the small increments of complexity being preserved genetically, and then gradually being augmented over millions and billions of years.  

But wait one minute........  what about the ether?

Hey, it may not even exist.  If anything like an ether does exist, we have only the most circumstantial of evidence for it.  But wait, again....... what about the Big Bang.  Ok, it spontaneously emerged from nothing.  What the heck else could it be?  

We have the nicely intuitive picture of a primordial 'cauldron', 'boiling' with an uncountable infinity of inflationary bubbles of space-time.... somehow separated, somehow connected.  Sure, why not.

Or, wait, what if, in the infinite, eternal potency of the ether, there emerged a spark of 'light', of mind or a primordial 'self'?  

Hey, this need not be nearly as elaborate as one of Nick Bostrom's Boltzman Brains!  We're just talking a little seed of Eros...... of love, name it what we like.  The primordial ether would be the oyster of this incipient cosmic pearl.  


(cont......3)

From: Dan
Date: March 17, 2014, 4:55:31 PM EDT
To: Robert
Cc: ...........
Subject: Cauldron or oyster?

(cont.......3)


Do we have a real choice here? The cauldron model of contemporary cosmogenesis..... it may not strictly adhere to Occam's Razor, but it does boil things down to an absolute bare-bones of minimal initial conditions.

A cosmic Oyster? How extravagant is that?!

My point, Jack and Robert, is to suggest, with a great deal of encouragement from Paul, that, with the ether, we may already have our Oyster. Am I stretching things too far, Paul? Dang me!

I am appealing to a primordial Potency/ether, and to a relational view of Being. That is all, sports fans! Vouchsafe me those two items, and are we not home free, with what can only be our best possible 'self-contained' (little?) world?

Ok, so we have a not totally implausible explanation for our Oyster. Let's take a look at the Pearl.......

Yes, what else could it be, other than a bootstrapping CTC? Anything totally implausible about that? You and I, with our shared perceptions, imaginations and unconscious, we are the Bootstrap of VALIS. We are the self-reflections of VALIS. Through us, VALIS comes to know itself for the first time.

And, no, we need not be like one of those vacuum bubbles. We need not be a shot in the dark. We are not talking about a temporal evolution. Time is a partially illusory, self-containment mechanism. Beyond the CTC is Potentiality. Why, then, not an infinity of CTC's?

Our imaginations, our dreams are like those 'dream' catching nets of the ocean fishing trawlers. We have already scoured the sea, way 'beyond' space and time. This is our Indra's Net. We are the deep-sea pearl divers. We are the Bower birds, and Earth is our bower's nest. We are the DEW-line for VALIS. We sense the incoming marauders/serpents and tame their furies. We turn them into occasional headlines, for our edification. The etheric ocean is the measure of man. We hunt the great whale...... we plumb the ocean depths, in our ecstasies and depravities.

We are about to have our inevitable encounter with our destiny Matrix. We will have met VALIS, and VALIS will be us. You need not call us, VALIS..... we are calling you.

From: Dan
Date: March 18, 2014, 9:34:46 AM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: four others......
Subject: Map, map, who's got a map?

Paul,

I'm considerably less than confident that Jack actually does have a map.  TBMK, he is a lost soul, but keeping a stiff upper lip.  

My working hypothesis is that I have the closest thing to a road map that presently exists, but I am always on the lookout for someone who might have a better one.  IOW, it takes one, to find a better one.  

Now, may we, please, get back to our little mapping operation....?

For the sake of argument, may we further suppose, for the nonce, that, wrt the SWH, 'small' = 'simulated'?  

But here is the crucial aspect of danianity........

Our simulated world is actually self-simulating and/or self-stimulating.  And it may come as a bit of shock to realize, or simply recall, that this is exactly what most of us humans have always believed, certainly up until the relatively recent ascendancy of Monotheism.  


(cont.....)

From: Dan
Date: March 18, 2014, 10:00:28 AM EDT
To: "John
Cc: four others......
Subject: Re: Map, map, who's got a map?

John,

Yes, actually so, IMHO.......

What we presently regard as Monotheism was just a drop in the bucket, until Mohammed won his camel spurs!  Tell me I'm wrong.

Until that time, Monotheism was the proprietary PoV of a small tribe of sheep herders, and of a few bishops within spitting distance of the Vatican, TBMK.

And, furthermore, John, allow me to remind you that the primary agenda of Monotheism has been to deprive humanity of our own spiritual power, by relegating that power to a Deus abscondus.  Yes, John, this fictional deity has absconded with virtually all of our spiritual power.

It was a pretty good trick while it lasted....... huh, John?  


(cont......2)



On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:37 AM, "John wrote:

"relatively recent ascendancy of Monotheism":  hmn.

From: Dan
Date: March 18, 2014, 10:16:32 AM EDT
To: "John
Cc: ........
Subject: Re: Map, map, who's got a map?

(cont.......2)


Allow me, please, to keep spelling out the BPWH/SWH.......

Ether ->  panpsychism -> Monopsychism.  It's just that simple, sports fans.  

IOW, we, spaients are just the multiple personality disorder (MPD) of God.  It is at about this time that God is scheduled to cure herself of this Disorder that we call civilization, with a little help from us.

God did not actually abscond, she just fell asleep at the switch.

Ergo, we can now see that the Internet is just VALIS's built-in alarm clock.  Are you beginning to see where you, me and Ron might fit into this toy-model??


(cont.......3)  

From: Dan
Date: March 18, 2014, 10:40:28 AM EDT
To: "John
Cc: ..........
Subject: Re: Map, map, who's got a map?

(cont......3)


And there is just one more critical aspect of the BPWH/SWH......  this is simply the CTC.  

And this I all that She wrote, on my numb little brain, late one night about forty years ago.  

It has taken me most of those forty years to just be able to spit it back out, in a semi-coherent fashion.  

The CTC is our Rainbow at the end of the universe.  It is our holographic event horizon, which, also, we are breathing, with every last etheric breath of ours.  Yes, how many times does it have to be said....... God is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.  

And now we have learned, maybe, just one new thing...... Nowhere = the cosmic CTC.  That CTC is the true VALIS, self-organizing 'event horizon', computing itself into existence, we being its little transistors, and this whole shebang is embedded in the Eternal Ether/Amber.  

Are we already embalmed??  No.  We are just in the process of becoming unembalmed!


(cont.....4)

From: Dan
Date: March 18, 2014, 11:09:26 AM EDT
To: "John
Cc: ........
Subject: Re: Map, map, who's got a map?

(cont.......4)


All we have to do now is hold Jack's hand while he let's us take this message to his larger circle, with his very provisional praise, by means of faint damnation.  

Ron told me last night that he would see if he could get Jack to budge a bit.  We shall see.  But mainly, this is up to the five of you.  If we can circle our wagons, within VALIS's CTC, we will be the only ones with a plan or a map.  Alone, Jack need not listen to any one of us.  Together is another matter.  

As I tried to explain to Ron last night, Jack is very cleverly and strategically placed wrt the MoAPS.  He is the defacto, but quite deliberately placed, gatekeeper, between sanity and insanity.  In times of change, that is the Catbird seat.  

From: Dan
Date: March 18, 2014, 11:51:00 AM EDT
To: "John
Cc: ..........
Subject: Re: Map, map, who's got a map?

(cont......5)


Ok, let's take roll-call.......

Is there anyone who finds the BPWH/SWH/CTC toy-model to be implausible? IOW, is there anything that is less implausible?

Do any of you feel that there is something of greater priority, beyond personal survival, than to take this best possible shot at cosmic coherence?

Is there anyone who thinks that Jack is still not 'fungible' wrt the BPWH?

Do you understand that with both Jack and Ron on the side of the best possible angels, that nothing further need stand between us and this truth...... if she be true?

From: Dan
Date: March 18, 2014, 12:18:50 PM EDT
To: "John
Cc: .........
Subject: Re: Map, map, who's got a map?

(cont.......6)


Hey, guys, don't all speak at once.....!  

Let's see how good a mind reader I am.......

Robert does not grasp the crucial importance of the UTH v. the ETH wrt the BPWH.

Paul does not totally grasp how or why we filter-out all the runner-up CTC's.

Gary does not grasp how we get from informationalism to panpsychism.

John does not grasp the difference between monopsychism and Monotheism.  

David does not grasp why some of us still consider ourselves to be Christian.  

See, am I not also a mind-reader??

From: Dan
Date: March 18, 2014, 1:33:26 PM EDT
To: Robert
Cc: ........
Subject: Re: Map, map, who's got a map?

(cont........7)


Just for the record (JfR), there was a bit of friction(?) between me and the Princess, yesterday.....

BTW, she is my boots on the ground, I am her wings in the air, relative to saving the world, via the Kashmir World Foundation (KWF), which site is not yet published.  

I do, occasionally, get hung up on the finances, and don't tell me that I have not come honestly by this hangup.  

You see, there are two events coming up in a little more than two weeks.  The first is for the KWF, and the second will be for Joy.  I am hoping that my sister, Deborah, will be able to attend both.  This would be important for several reasons, as you might well imagine.  

I was just on the phone with Aliyah, working out the details.  If you were a PI, you might notice a connection with Autodesk, FWIW.  

Ok, now, back to Jack.......

From: Dan
Date: March 18, 2014, 4:08:22 PM EDT
To: Robert
Cc: .........
Subject: Back to Jack, via Prana and Akasha

(cont.......8 )


Getting back to Jack......

Paul and I believe that the best way to get to Jack is via the Eastern metaphysics, e.g. the Vedanta, etc.  

We also believe that this will be the best way to get Gary and David onboard.  There are many very good reason why folks are gun-shy wrt Allah.  TBMK, Allah has a lot more reason to fear us, than we do her.  

Paul points out that when it comes to the Ether, we are rather close to talking about Prana and the Akasha.  This is where the rubber of informationalism meets the 'road' of ....... spirit?  

I should turn this back over to Paul, as Aliyah and I to prepare for the next episode of LotP/WolfSpirit, coming up in an hour.  We will be discussing what comes next, after saving the Rhinos in South Africa.

You might want to check out Maasai Village, which is to be the focus of the poaching crisis in East Africa.  Several public TV programs are in the works.  

From: Dan
Date: March 19, 2014, 10:07:08 AM EDT
To: Robert
Cc: Paul, Gary, David and John
Subject: recap..... A cosmic Right to Life!

Robert et al.......,

There are well over 400 emails in two  main threads, according to the gmail server, so it is a bit daunting to attempt a summary.  

As far as my stray-sheep reconnaissance goes, I would be most concerned about Gary, and his continuing fascination with Max Tegmark.  I am trying to construct a big tent, and Gary is still beyond that stretched-out pale.  So let me address the following to Gary, and maybe the rest of you can help out.......

It is the case that the vast majority of the Tegmarkian worlds are unobservable.  On any sort of empirical or Occam-like criterion, those worlds constitute an inordinate extravagance.  However unobservable these worlds may be, still they are thinkable/imaginable.  That is a definite sort of existence.  And many philosophers do argue very cogently for an actual ontology of 'fictions', such as Unicorns.  

And I'm supposing that Gary's heart bleeds for the reality of Unicorns, beautiful that they are.  With all the seemingly ugly things that make up creation, why, oh why, could God not have given us a Unicorn??!  

This PoV is rather like the Right-to-Life PoV, IMHO.  And let's, please, take a closer look at (cosmic?) RtL, both from a psychological and philosophical PoV.....


(cont.....)  

From: Dan
Date: March 19, 2014, 10:50:44 AM EDT
To: Gary
Cc: four others....
Subject: Re: A cosmic Right to Life!

(cont......)


Gary, John et al........,

Yes, I do have twinges of guilt about the BPWH/SWH.  Who am I to apply a 'prophylactic' to God's omnipotent power of Creation.  Who the f*ck do I think I am?!

If my dad had his way, I wouldn't be here.  It was my mom who insisted on a third child, bless her heart.  But, yes, there are those days when I believe that dad should have stuck to his guns!  

But here's the deal, IMHO........

The whole point of Creation is to create co-Creators, and that is you and me.  

God is self-restraining just so that we can 'flesh-out' his Omnipotence.  You and I are the completion of God's incomplete, imperfect(!) Creation.  And, now, with our Etheric MoAPS, it is time for us to step up to the cosmic Plate.  

God holds back, just so that we can Shine!  Yes, we do have big shoes to fill, but fear not, said the Angel.  


(cont.......2)

From: Dan
Date: March 19, 2014, 11:29:47 AM EDT
To: Gary
Cc: ...........
Subject: Re: A cosmic Right to Life!

(cont......2)


Gary,

Yes!  You do raise the crucial question wrt the BPWH.......

Why would God put all her eggs in one basket?!

Well, let us recall the admonition..... if you are stupid enough to put all your eggs in one basket, then you had darn well better watch that basket with a hawk's-eye!  

But God does the Hawk one better, he watches our Gaian basket with his God's-eye.  

Could we, should we ask for more?  But what does this mean?  Should I advise the President to defund the asteroid search effort?  Hmmm........

Nah!  I would suggest that we continue to be paranoid about our survival until we come together to agree and acknowledge that we are in good hands with our own inevitable, teleological, singular, best possible destiny.  And that ['realization'] might still be a few years hence, or at least when we have convinced Gary, that his friend, Max, is actually being just a bit tongue-in-cheek!  

Is this ok, Gary?  


(cont.......3)

From: Dan
Date: March 19, 2014, 12:15:11 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: ............
Subject: Re: A cosmic Right to Life!

(cont......3)


Is this ok, Gary, for the nonce?  Is this enough explanation to keep you onboard with this little exercise in......cosmology?

Who has the next issue?  I have tried to explain why God would not finish Creation with the reification of every last possibility.  Yes, but was wondering how, if God really wanted to, would she prevent the spontaneous emergence of other CTC's, besides our own little CTC?

It has been said the God is jealous.  She brooks no competition.  But wait, according to the BPWH, we are demi-Gods.  

Here is about where Xianity comes into the picture, for those who find the Xian message more than a tad confusing.  We killed our God, you see.  Yes, some fools amongst us like to blame it on the Jews, but that is seriously passing the buck, now isn't it?!  

The point is that God gets tired of baby-sitting for us, century after century.  Graciously and thankfully, she takes her exit cue.  Even if the exit strategy involves a crucifixion, that is only eight hours of pain, to put an end to eight millennia of anguish over our stupidities.

As soon as she exists the stage, we are free to begin realizing the most horrible holocausts imaginable.  Hey, when the Cat's away, we mice will play, rough!  

Now, finally, the Cat is back and she's p*ssed?  No, the Princess is just making up for lost time with her Maker Spaces, live now on go-to-meeting...... to participate, just go to.....https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/335399781900431361 and do the free registration.

This webinar is titled Team Collaboration in Maker Spaces.  


(cont......4)  

From: Dan
Date: March 19, 2014, 2:31:51 PM EDT
To: David
Cc: ..........
Subject: Re: A cosmic Right to Life!

(cont......4)


I have just talked to David, and I have a call into John. The two of them seem to be able to converse in a friendly manner about related stuff.

Oh, dear, I'm trying to remember.......

Well, David did estimate that Jack is becoming a bit more fungible, within the last six weeks, and David appreciates the possible significance of that.

But, yes, David also has a big problem with any limitation on Creation, spontaneous or otherwise.

Yes, everyone seems to agree that we could be living in a simulation. But, again, why would there be any limitation on the number of simulations?

This is the question that everyone is asking.


(cont.......5)

From: Dan
Date: March 19, 2014, 2:59:01 PM EDT
To: David
Cc: ........
Subject: Re: A cosmic Right to Life!

(cont.......5)


How many simulations?  

We do have billions of simulations going on in our individual minds, 24/7.  

But what about the toti-potent ether?  Should there not be an infinity of simulations, therein.  

I am suggesting that our 'collective' uCs is nearly equivalent to the toti-potent ether.

Oh, yes, now I remember David's objection...... How can I suppose that our individual minds can tap into the cosmic mind?  

This may be the crux of the BPWH.  What is it that is presently obstructing our minds from accessing the cosmic mind?  

Yes, why is this not an...... http://www.amazon.com/Unobstructed-Universe-Stewart-Edward-White/dp/089804152X ?  


(cont.....6)

From: Dan
Date: March 19, 2014, 3:21:46 PM EDT
To: David
Cc: .........
Subject: Re: A cosmic Right to Life!

(cont.......6)


IMHO, the last obstruction is the MoAPS. And, yes, we are waiting upon the PtB to allow for the removal of this obstruction.

The Princess is demanding that we save the Rhinos and Kashmir, before we 'penetrate' the MoAPS. Should we go along with this? Should I abdicate to her?

The Princess is not quite ready for Atlas to Shrug. The MoAPS is the last pillar of heaven. We want to be ready before we remove it. How many Maker Spaces will we need for that to happen?

Do we get the picture, here? What does the BPWH have to do with the WCUAVC??

I don't actually know, but I do know that Aliyah did show up, on Ron's doorstep, about four years ago, and she is not exactly a pushover, TBMK.

But how may other Princesses are out there, waiting to obstruct our cosmic access?

It is not always easy to distinguish a window from a door. I have walked into a window in the middle of the night. It can be shocking.