Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

First topic message reminder :

And for the insane, or other wise, we present:

Schroedinger's Cat is not Alone

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.4206v4

Beatriz Gato, Beatriz Gato-Rivera
(Submitted on 23 Apr 2010 (v1), last revised 31 Mar 2011 (this version, v4))
We introduce the `Complete Wave Function' and deduce that all living beings, not just Schroedinger's cat, are actually described by a superposition of `alive' and `dead' quantum states; otherwise they would never die. Therefore this proposal provides a quantum mechanical explanation to the world-wide observation that we all pass away. Next we consider the Measurement problem in the framework of M-theory. For this purpose, together with Schroedinger's cat we also place inside the box Rasputin's cat, which is unaffected by poison. We analyse the system identifying its excitations (catons and catinos) and we discuss its evolution: either to a classical fight or to a quantum entanglement. We also propose the BSVΨ scenario, which implements the Complete Wave Function as well as the Big Bang and the String Landscape in a very (super)natural way. Then we test the gravitational decoherence of the entangled system applying an experimental setting due to Galileo. We also discuss the Information Loss paradox. For this purpose we consider a massless black cat falling inside a massive black hole. After that we outline a method to compute the contribution of black cats to the dark matter of the universe. Finally, in the spirit of Schroedinger, we propose that next generation double-slit experiments should use cats as projectiles. Cat interferometry will inevitably lead to the `Many Cats' interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, allowing to shed new light on old mysteries and paradoxes. For example, according to this interpretation, conservative estimates show that decision making of a single domestic cat will create about 550 billion whole universes every day, with as many replicas of itself.

Ref. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-evil/

Consideration of any present-day introductory textbook of philosophy reveals that the problem of evil in contemporary philosophy is standardly regarded as an argument for atheism. The atheist contends that God and evil are incompatible, and given that evil clearly exists, God cannot exist.

Leibniz argues that God does not underachieve in creating this world because this world is the best of all possible worlds. Many thinkers have supposed that commitment to the claim that this world is the best of all possible worlds follows straightforwardly from monotheism. Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, nothing can prevent him from creating the best world, and his omnibenevolence obliges him to create the best world. So the created world is the best world.

Question: Evil appears to be an emergent rather than a fundamental aspect of reality. So, why get the atoms involved? ;-)

These great philosophers seem, for the most part, to be cafeteria philosophers when it comes to God. Has anyone bothered to follow the money trail tied to each one of them?

In the last three weeks, Colton has made major addtitions to his KWF Academia/philosophy section...... https://sites.google.com/a/kashmirworldfoundation.org/academia/home , particularly wrt to the very substantial philosophy of mind section.

His work on KWF philosophy demonstrates how the philosophy of mind only continues to consolidate its hegemony wrt the rest of philsophy. Furthermore, Colton points to the central role of David Chalmers in this historical process.

It is Colton who brings to my attention David's work in '2D semantics' where he has introduced his 'golden triangle' to disentangle the rationalist vs empricist views of semantics. In doing so, David has established the high ground for rationalism within the tradition of analytic philosophy, which was the last bastion for positivism/empiricism in Western philosophy.




(cont.)

From: Dan
Date: February 14, 2015 at 9:18:25 AM EST
To: Paul,
Cc: Colton, Gary, John, David

Subject: 'Twixt sentience and sapience - a world of difference

Just yesterday, Paul sent a link to Robert Dole, the 'information philosopher'.  Surely, Gary must know of Robert.  

Robert's lengthy, detailed exposition of his information 'cosmology', presented me with an unprecedented challenge.  What did he not get?  

Does he not get that information is normative?  In place of normativity, he substitutes functionality.  Is that legitimate?  

Yes and no.  It depends.  

From an immaterialist perspective, it depends on cognitivity.  What depends?  The world depends.  

Informationalists oft repeat that information cannot exist without atoms.  But aren't they also supposed to believe that atoms cannot exist without information?  Has no one pointed out that this is a regress?  Is Robert able to ignore the regress?  

Yesterday, at Hopkins, I spoke with Patrick O'Donnell, son of Angela.  Yes, he had heard of their departmental seminar on Mind and Cosmos.  It was sponsored by Peter Achinstein, philosophy of science.  Patrick is a graduate student in linguistics.  I asked him if there was a linguistics section in the department.  No, he was working with someone in CogSci.  

I mentioned Quine.  The problem with Quine's holism is the learning problem.  So why not invoke a Chomskian extension to a universal semantics, which, yes, does rather imply a soul.  I asked if he was an atheist.  No, but he referred me to his mom.  Cute.  

Enroute to Mary Stewart at the Folger......


(cont......)

On Feb 14, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Dan wrote:

(cont........)


(BTW, Peter is on sabbatical, mostly in Europe, and his two co-sponsors of M&C are also away.)

Anyway, it occurred to me, last night, that meaning requires more than mere sentience.  This has to do with functionalism v. normativity.  Yes, it has to do with holism.  Holism has to do with sapience.  Is not functionality holistic?  Sure.  Are not functions normative?  Sure.  

And what does this have to do with world making?  

My next point may entail the notion of a minimal world.  Yes, this is a tricky concept, but one that has been bothering me for a long time.  Can a world exist without sapience?  Certainly the notion of such cannot exist without such.  

But so what?  


(cont.......2)

From: Dan
Date: February 14, 2015 at 1:50:48 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton, Gary, David, John
Subject: Re: 'Twixt sentience and sapience - a world of difference

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


Mary Stewart is by Schiller, a protege(?) of Goethe.  Both of them were very influential in subsequent German philosophy.  Christian pantheists?  Possibly.  

World without sapience?  This is the question.  Here is my little caveat....... No sapience, no universe, because mere sentience cannot define or locate any world.  Leibniz' II entails that sentience cannot locate or localize.    


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

11pm---------

If atoms don't know where they are, then who does? Is this to deny their existence? Non-local existence is mere abstraction. Nothing can exist in isolation. Can a second atom reify the first? Can there be partial reification?

Let's talk about 'now'.......

I'm not sure that anyone has made a federal case out of now.  I would make a cosmic case......

I'm suspecting that now is the key to understanding ontology.  

The basic point is simply to realize the utter mystery of the shared now.  It is very closely related to the problem of consciousness.  I have high praises for the mind folks, but, come on, they miss the whole point of consciousness, which is the nowness of it.  

Tell me I'm crazy, but, once again, the best and brightest are asleep at the switch.  Mind is nothing without its 'now', but let's set that aside for the nonce, and just consider the sharing of the now.  The problems of zombies and solipsism is just about the shared now.  

Hey, I won't hold you suspence......

The crux is that the sharing of the now is, should be, the proof positive of a cosmic mind/monad, and, so, wait for it, the small world.  

Yes, we have sent consciousness to the moon, but I'm suggesting it cannot be sent to Sirius.  The two venues of consciousness would drift apart, never to reconnect.  This is the fallacy of SETI.  If there were to be substantial communication, it would have to be FTL.  It would have to be instantaeous telepathy.  

And this explains how the mind works.  With our braincells, there is only one now.  Sequentiality is an illusion.  

This also explains the centrality of the prophetic tradition.  The whole point of the prophetic tradition is the global sharing of history.  

And history is collapsing into the eternal Presence of the cosmic Monad, the 'gap' between the Omega and the Alpha.  

It just occurred to me why there is no Chinese alphabet.  It the attempt of the Mandarins to suppress linear time and history.  There is nothing like the shared consciousness of history to get the masses riled up.  Vertical ideograms are a clever way to convey the Platonic absolute of time.  Newton almost got away with this.  Well, we have still not recovered from Newton, have we?  

What is prophetic time?  There is no real (shared) beginning to prophetic time, but...... wowser, there is a shared End.  And just now, now that the internet is globally in place, we are ready for D-day, which is just to synchronize our psychic watches to the Omega.  The X-event was the necessary prequel to D-day, which, in turn, is the necessary prequel to the Omega.  

We now experience a specious presence of the monad.  The Omega is the Monad, it is where the eternal rubber meets the historic road.  D-day is the inflection/reflection of our timeline.  


1pm---------

History actually/logically runs backward from the Telos.  The Telos is the monadic Omega, the proximate cause of history.  You've heard of occasionalism, well, the Telos is the Occasion, to end all occasions.  

Time is the illusion the emanates from the Telos.  It is rather like the Kabbalic tzimtzum, but oriented backward in time.  The Alpha is a forward oriented appendage to the Telos/Omega.  Hardly such a big deal, and certainly not the big-bang.

In fact, the big-bang is just a very effective coverup of, or distraction from, the real teleology.




(cont.)

What is the thought behind the idea that the "end" has relationship or dependency on technology or science?

Skai,

Yes, there is the presumption that the two Magisteria, Science and Religion, operate independently.  There is the further presupposition  that we, creatures, do not play a substantive role in the creation process.  We are the caretakers.  We may even exercise dominion, but we do not set the rules, and certainly not the timeline.  

According to the BPWH, however, there is no bright line between the divine and the mundane. This is the basic premiss of panentheism. Are we not just arrogating divine status to ourselves? Are we not just tempting God to smack us down?

This is certainly a prevalent view.



(cont.)

Panentheism has become the received view in theological circles, but not in evangelical ones.  Satan is still running amok, therein.  

And, yes, the theological Catholic view is that the world is fallen.  So, yes, there may be a contradiction between panentheism and original sin.  This borders on the gnostic view of the Demiurge, which many see as the proto-Satan.  

Where does technology best fit into this theological spectrum?  If anywhere, it might best fit into Amillennialism.  This view does encompass, or, at the least, countenance the notion of material/spiritual progress.  

More to the point, amillennialists believe that the 'binding of Satan' is the result of the spread of the gospel amongst the nations.  Although this binding does not eradicate evil, per se, it does curtail the wholesale deception by Satan.  

Ok, so where does the BPWH fit into this assortment?  

I would suggest that you and I are the Demiurge.  The point of Creation is to reconcile the demiurge with the Creator.  That suggests that you and I are also the Katechon.  Yes, we are our own best keepers, in accord with our fear of God.  Fear is our great restrainer.  History is our strong Deception and our great Apostasy.  

How can this 6-12k year habit possibly be overcome?  Disclosure/Revelation was built into this plan of reconciliation from the beginning.  Creation is eternal, from God's perspective.  Creation is essential to the Creator.  You and I are the expression of that essence.  


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

Redemption is the logical outcome of Creation.  The Alpha and the Omega are joined at the hip.  Apocatastasis is that essence.  We have only to recognize the Katechon.  We have met the Katechon, and it is us.  

The Katechon is just the complete mix of our fear and self-imposed ignorance.  Revelation is just the bonfire of all those vanities.  

Was our 400 year romance with technology something otiose to Creation?  Such thoughts are just an expression of our feeling of alienation from God.  Perhaps we embrace that feeling too closely.  We have fallen in love with the darkness.  Bastille day was no fun for the prisonners.  B-day >> D-day.....


This leaves us with 'now'...............

There are two problems with 'now'..... psychological and social.  TBMK, these two aspects have not been disentangled.  

The psychology of now is the presence of the world to us.  It is our individual consciousness.  It is the 'hard problem'.  The harder problem is the social 'now'.  

How is it that our personal nows seem so naturally conflated in the social now?  Is there no precedence?  IMHO, the predator-prey model more than hints at this precedence.  There is nothing like a (personal) eschaton to awaken the senses.  This is the danse-macabre of lion and wildebeast.  This is the local synchrony of time frames.  

It was the J-man's katechon/eschaton that, quite evidently, synchronized the global time frame.  Before that, there may have been the Thera-event and the breakdown of the bi-cameral mind... a necessary prelude?  Perhaps the internet is the anti-Thera event.... the proximity fuse for the 4M/K/SoT/X2-event.  The global now has never been quite so Present, not since Thera, but let's keep in mind Trinity flats and those green fireballs.  

Can anything exist outside of time, besides the pleroma of eternity?  

Can anything exist in time w/o reference to a 'now'?  Can time exist w/o now?  Eternity must be the ultimate Presence/Now.  

Clearly, the future cannot exist w/o the present.  But can history exist w/o some present/presence?  


noon----------

Can the Quantum exist w/o a Measurement?  Can a measurement exist w/o a record, or can a record exist w/o a reader.  

What is information w/o a Norm?  What is a norm w/o a presence?  

In what sense may an unobservable/unthinkable universe be said to exist?  I ask you.  Show me that definition of existence.  

And what is the difference between existence and being?  Must not all existence be, somehow, open to eternity?  What else to watch the watcher or record the record?  Yes, trees do fall in the woods.  Why else would there be so many stumps?  But can there be unthinkable stumps?  Leibniz...... seen one stump, seen them all!?  

We think of ourselves as independent minds, like particles swerving in the void.  But, I ask you, where, within that Void, is anything that looks like a Now?  What could that now be, were it not intimate with eternity?  


1pm-----------

And what does 'now' have to do with 2-D semantics, or with David C's or Roger P's golden triangles?  

And let's recall that Patrick O' is doing the linguistic philosophy of cognition.  And recall that Ned Block, panpsychic crisis, was also doing the philosophy of cognition.  He was demonstrating the presence of the uCs in certain unusual situations.


2:10--------

No, I misspoke.  Ned's point was that attention and awareness may be disentangled, experimentially...... http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/2014.group.pdf .

And do KIM, that Ned&Co have computation designs/ambitions wrt the mind.  

Have they ever wondered about 'now'?  Consciousness vs. computation.....  Peter A seems a bit worried.  Is Patrick O not?  What about Roger and David?  


Chalmers' golden triangle of philosophy is meaning, reason and modality..... http://consc.net/papers/foundations.html .

Penrose' ontic triangle is math, matter and mind.

Not one of these six vertices is anormative or objective.  Not even matter?  Matter cannot be disentangled from substance, despite Newton's F = M*A, which, btw, is pure abstraction.  

Historically, Chalmers restores the golden triangle of MRM, using 2D semantics, after Kripke attempted to deconstruct it with his 'twater', i.e. non-H2O water.    

Yea, Chalmers.... boo, Kripke.  


3:50----------

My underlying point is that objectification is normative, and so must be objects. If this is true, then there is something suspect about the big-bang, in as much as it implies objectivity, possibly w/o objectifiers. IMHO, this is not possible. So, too, is Darwin suspect. Objectification is normative. Ants are not normalizers. We can at least pretend to be.




(cont.)

From: Dan
Date: February 17, 2015 at 3:59:55 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton and David

Subject: Re: Derry's Book

Paul,

Thank you for this analysis. My initial enthusiasm toward the book was colored by my personal encounter with Greg.

His 'extended' version of complementarity is not coherent. He is simply describing, in considerable detail, the modern tension between the psyche and science. He claims to have achieved a personal solace in the embrace of 'complementarity'. His claim of coherence is, as you point out, greatly overstated. We can only be glad for him that his psyche may be so easily salved.

At present, I see no basis for a substantive followup.

In an earlier email, you pointed to Robert Doyle's site..... http://informationphilosopher.com/ . To which I partially responded, earlier.

I think you'll agree that it's depth is greatly exceeded by its breadth. He does not even explore the possibility of neutral monism, which would have to be the basis of any robust version of informationalism.

Back on 12/1 you sent the following link..... http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/514/1/Cgl.pdf , 'Curve It, Gauge It, or Leave It? Practical Underdetermination in Gravitational Theories.' Wherein the author uses the 'hollow-earth' theory to illustrate underdetermination.

The authors speak, at the least, to the prematurity of realism in the cosmological domain, given the large number of models and theories to explain the gravitational observations.

While examining the substantive nature of time, in relation to problem of 'now', I revisited Einstein's 'hole argument' that nearly derailed the publication of his GR paper. As nearly as I can tell, this problem remains unresolved.

I'm speculating that the hole argument provides additional insight into the gauge problem, of which it may just be a subset. And, in some sense, the Aharanov-Bohm effect and the hollow-earth model exemplify the broad range of ontological concerns having to do with just one aspect of space-time realism and the problem of the aether. And all of the above issues may easily be subsumed into the breadth and depth of the 'now' problem, wherein mind meets the world.

Dan



On Feb 16, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Paul wrote:

Hi Dan,

OK I've read Derry's book -- cover to cover -- and while I think that what he is trying to do is interesting,
I just don't think his generalized "complementarity" concept with its claims of mutual exclusivity hangs
together.

Some points:

=> Bohr's concept of complementarity was based squarely on the epistemological implications of the
quantum of action and wave-particle duality (specifically E = hv) in physics;

=> As far as I can see, Derry's version of "complementarity" in fact has no cogent analog for the
quantum of action, which means that Bohr's main epistemological argument simply doesn't apply,
including the argument for the mutual exclusivity of complementary descriptions;

=> Hoffding, Bohr's philosophy teacher, was a Kantian philosopher;

=> Almost all of the philosophical content of Derry's version of complementarity are already
fully present in Kant and Duhem, which leads me to think that the focus on Bohr is an artifact of
Derry's education (or mis-education) as a physicist;

=> Thus a fairly straightforward application of Kant's and Duhem's (and later, Kuhn's) insights already
delivers the viable content of Derry's thesis, such as it is -- there is simply no need for Bohr-the-
philosopher once the quantum of action is out of the picture;

=> Derry dismisses natural theology in general, and the design argument specifically, arguing for
mutual exclusivity of the "mundane" and "sacred" world views, based on the (merely asserted) mutual
exclusivity of "complementary" concepts;

=> Derry argues that theism is similar to Jung's concept of synchronicity, whereby the religious meaning
attached to objective events is purely psychological and emotional in character, and is 100% accidental
to the laws of nature;

=> Derry grossly misrepresents Galileo as a "disinterested Catholic", ignoring the entire theological
debate with the Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmine, in which Galileo argued for a new natural theology
having authority over the interpretation of scripture (which is precisely what got him in trouble);

=> Derry confuses the issue of telos (Aristotle's "final causes") with the question of the existence
of God, arguing that the argument for design attempts to "erode the mundane world" in favor of the
sacred by arguing in its own terms -- whereas telos and final causes are an integral part of Aristotle's
concept of physis (nature), and are in this respect no more theological in and of themselves than
efficient causes;

=> Thus Derry (the physicist) is artificially restricting his "mundane" world to matter whose behavior
is governed purely by efficient causality, wrongly discarding teleological explanations a priori as
somehow inherently "supernatural", although they are actually part of the classical concept of nature
as physis.

So I see a lot of serious weakness in Derry's argument, and I strongly disagree with his rejection of
the inclusion of teleological explanation in the scientific study of nature as somehow being inherently
"supernatural".

Let's talk about this over the phone.

Regards,
Paul

10:30--------

This article details ISIS' romance with the Eschaton......

What ISIS Really Wants....
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/  

IMHO, it is part of the general cosmic strategy to turn the Apocalypse toward a spiritual, rather than physical, Armageddon. ISIS does everything to provoke the EU/US to send in an army, in accord with the Islamic eschatology, which closely resembles the Christian and Jewish versions. We send drones.


Back to 'now'.......

Paul, responding to the above email........

>>>Many argue that "now" is merely a psychological construct that has no direct referent in physical reality. Others disagree.<<<

And this is how almost everyone couches the problem of 'now', but it misses the critical point that I am now emphasizing.....

There is all the difference in the world between a subjective now and an intersubjective now.



(cont.)

Dan, any idea what this might be?

http://wgntv.com/2015/02/18/possible-photo-of-an-alien-life-form/

http://slideboxmedia.com/

Gary,

Your guess is probably better than mine.  My interest would focus more on any possible orchestration of such 'discoveries'.  
-----------

If the problem of 'now' were merely a psychological, or intrasubjective, issue, it would still be a perplexing problem.

BUT, the fact that it is an intersubjective issue raises it to the level of a cosmological issue.  

I did not previously focus on this crucial distinction.  I suggest that few have.  

When two particles collide, that is an event.  Does it constitute any sort of a 'now'?  If you and I interact, is that any different?  Physically?  

To explore this question, we need to distinguish between two versions of time: cyclical and linear.  Prehistoric time was cyclical.  In modern times, the linear version predominates.  The prophetic tradition marked the transition, historically.  In a cyclical regime, the problem of 'now' is much less fraught.  Everything had its season.  The past easily blended in with the future. Particles colliding would have just been part of the rythmic dance of nature.

But then the music died.......

I can't remember if I cried
When I read about his widowed bride
Something touched me deep inside
The day the music died

(cont.)

"=> Derry grossly misrepresents Galileo as a "disinterested Catholic", ignoring the entire theological
debate with the Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmine, in which Galileo argued for a new natural theology
having authority over the interpretation of scripture (which is precisely what got him in trouble);"

Maybe the only way Galileo could gain Bellarmine's ear was to couch his argument as a challenge to church authority.

It seems likely to me that the 400 year old consensus in science that human beings are insignificant in the fundamental scheme of things in the universe has to break down. It is not that we know what the true role of humans is. It is that the arguments that humans don’t have a fundamental role in the scheme of things, which used to seem so self evidently true, have all fallen away. I mean, it is no longer true that human beings are necessarily destined to have a negligible effect on physical events, because there is the possibility that humans will spread and colonize the galaxy. If they do, they will necessarily have to affect its physical constitution in some ways. It is no longer true that the fundamental quantities of nature – forces, energies, pressures – are independent of anything that humans do, because the creation of knowledge (or ‘adaptation’ or ‘evolution’ and so on) now has to be understood as one of the fundamental processes in nature; that is, they are fundamental in the sense that one needs to understand them in order to understand the universe in a funda-mental way. So, in this and other ways, ‘human’ quantities – human considerations, human affairs and so on – are fundamental after all. But we do not yet understand the details of how they fit in with the more familiar fundamental processes that we know about from physics.

-- David Deutsch, https://philosophynow.org/issues/30/David_Deutsch

Gary,

Thanks for this quote from David Deutsch.  I would suggest that David is taking his cue from Thomas Nagel's Mind&Cosmos.  

How many more years before physicalism finally succumbs to informationalism/immaterialism?  Teleology is increasingly unavoidable.  Dogmatists on both sides of the religion v. science divide are simply losing their wind.  

The only practical question is whether the inevitable paradigm shift can unfold gradually, or whether there will be an intellectual and spiritual drama that will capture a global audience.  

I strongly suspect the latter eventuality, largely because of the eshcatological implications of this shift away from big-bang literalism.  

Habits die hard.  Our materialist habit is going to die especially hard, tied in as it is with capitalism and protestantism, not to mention our own proclivities toward egoism.  There has been an overshoot of excesses on all these fronts.  Fear of falling is what keeps us from looking down, or thinking clearly about our situation, and how and why we got into it.  

Also, has anyone ever been ready to meet their Maker?  

But I see no reason why VALIS or whomever should want to expedite or preempt our cosmic timeline.  The closer we come to the precipice, the better the drama.... the more bang for our buck.  Is God not playing with fire?  Hey, God owns fire..... God is fire.  


And so we come back to the cosmic 'now'.  Is that not the beginning and end of all drama?  


4:15-----------

The self begins in the subjective now.  The world begins in the intersubjective now.  In cyclical time, it's impossible to get lost.  In linear time, it's impossible to be found.  Can we ever recapture the pre-Copernican world?  The New Age was an attempt to do that.  Science and religion resist that impulse.  One for the future, the other for the past.  

The now cannot resist eternity.  Eternity erodes the boundaries of the present.  A presence looms, it is our own shadow.  The internet is its most obvious harbinger.  It is the foot in the door.  

Atoms and egos can scarcely withstand this onslaught.  We can only be that rough beast.  The atoms will dissolve back into the cycles, from whence they emerged, so prompted by our own emergent egos.  

Will not tribalism derail our rendezvous with destiny?  If it does not facilitate.  

Atoms will be seen for the abstractions they are.  They will be subsumed into the telos.  Space and time..... likewise.  

The void gives up its ghost to the pleroma/sensorium.

2-D semantics gives way to an infinite dimensional semantics, a veritable Hilbert space, if you will. Meaning is everything.



(cont.)

Dan, I assume you have seen this:

http://www.voanews.com/content/islamic-state-urges-jihadist-attacks-on-rome/2650348.html

In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur, & Judex tremêdus judicabit populum suum. Finis.
(In extreme persecution, the seat of the Holy Roman Church will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed the sheep through many tribulations, at the term of which the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge his people. The End.)

http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.asp

Gary,

No, I've not seen it. The alleged Malachy list is widely regarded as a forgery. Is there something else we need to know?


Presentism aligns closely with the BPWH/SWH........

I should have focused on this alignment early on.  I have spoken often of Presence and the presence of Absence.  

The philosophy of mind is nothing without a philosophy of time.  Not nearly enough is being made of this correlation.  

I am perusing the various Oxford hanbooks of philosophy, all of which are viewable online.  



(cont.)

Time is an allusion :-) I suggest you begin with a look at the rate of conscious experiences and the correlation to physical measurable events in the human brain.

This just in from a 'concerned' observer:

Have Grace Fellowship Church and/or the cops who busted Dan Smith dropped the charges or otherwise proffered a resolution of his case? Inquiring minds, distracted by Valentine's Day, want to know!

Has all been forgiven, with rounds of Kumbayah and Will the Circle Be Unbroken sung around the campfire?

Allahu... (Gesundheit!)

If they had to call "Ron" and his "Princess" to testify, would his (their?) employer(s) raise a "state secrets" issue in moving for dismissal, exempting the Pandolfis from having to testify in any resulting proceedings?

Dan's recollection that he had the Pandolfi's on the phone while engaged in his stand-off with the GFC folks, reportedly leading to the police being summoned, begs the question: "Why would Smith call 'the CIA'?

Gary,

The previous night was spent with the royal family.  A detailed scenario was worked out for my engagement with GFC/SfA.  There was also considerable communication with the church, before, during and after.  CF has been advising for a civil suit.  That is mostly on a back burner.  There are a range of issues relative to civil rights in church setting.  


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

Just got off the phone with Johnnie Cochran, a brief, free consultation via CF.  Do we want to take my case to the Hague?  I ask you.  Maybe a bit more on the front burner, now.  


5pm----------

Fact checking......... It has been pointed out to me that Johnnie C was deceased in '05.  This is at least the third time that Ron has had me talking to a dead person, but, in the past, I've managed to refrain from blogging it.  The anachronicity was more obvious, even to someone who does not read people magazine.  Ron did this once, with both Aliyah and me involved.  I've asked her to check with him about this latest incident.  I thought that we had closed down the weird desk.  I would like to see the budget item for legal consultation with dead people.  There ought to be a law against that..... something about church and state...... but then where do we send the check?  Or what is the quid pro quo?  

One would be justified in wondering if this was supposed to reflect upon 4M/K........ up or down......


8pm-------------

Ron returns my call, totally unapologetic.  I should have known that there has never been a third party present in the conversation, unless that party was dead.  

Dang me, how stupid can I be?  


Two retreats are coming up, and I'm getting different stories on each one. Mamas don't let your babies grow up........ Does CF enjoy this?



(cont.)

Al Stewart weighed in on this dead attorney problem some time ago:

http://lyrics.wikia.com/Al_Stewart:License_To_Steal
We've got seven hundred thousand attorneys at law
Nobody can tell me what we need them all for
We should throw them in chains
Chastise them and rebuke them
If it doesn't work
We ought to take 'em out and nuke 'em

Blow a lawyer to pieces
It's the obvious way
Don't wait for a thesis
Do it today
Take him to the court of no final appeal
When you're fresh out of lawyers
You don't know how good it's gonna feel

Gary,

Al Stewart may have to modify his advice concerning lawyers.  If we nuke one, today, ten more will come back from the dead, tomorrow.  It's not a winning proposition.  

I wonder if you recall, Gary, my contact with the harvard psychologist who was channeling Bill Casey (1913-87), I believe it was.  I had lunch with him in DC, at Ron's behest.  I don't recall discussing the channel.  We mostly just discussed Ron.  I believe there may have been some security issues involved. Don't get me started on Colby or Woolsey. There were alleged to have been security issues involved when one of the joint chiefs reported having abduction experiences.  There was a person at NSA who specialized in such cases, or so I was told.  

Such is life at the weird desk.  I just have to be a bit more discerning to know which side of that desk we are on, at any given point.  Yes?  
In this case, as Ron pointed out, there was a clear rule of thumb, besides even the timeline..... my bad.  In other cases, however, it is likely to be above my paygrade, which, needless to say, is all too modest.  



(cont.)

I have to run up the hill to the BGF meeting, in a few minutes.

I'm still following through on Colton's philosophy/academia section on KWH, namely this part.... https://sites.google.com/a/kashmirworldfoundation.org/academia/philosophy-of-the-mind/problems-with-physicalism . But it may still not be available to public view, for reasons that remain unclear to me.

This has taken me in some new directions, such as into the semantics of ontology........

I recommend the following article........

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/23/outing-a-i-beyond-the-turing-test/ , and not because I agree with it.  

Once again, I come across a fairly obvious thought, but in a new context.  What would a non-human intelligence look like?  What would VALIS look like?  What would God look like?  Well, folks, this is why I'm a trinitarian.  

This article only underscores my educated guess that anyone who takes AI seriously is boderline autistic.  I wonder, though, about the NYT editorial board.  They struggle to uphold the twin magisteria, and it is a struggle, in these latter days.  I wonder if there is anyone on the board who is seriously non-atheistic.   I suspect not.  They are just seriously professional, without professing anything beyond secular humanism.  How serious is secular humanism?  Is it more serious than the next paycheck?  I seriously doubt it.  

Professionalism is the only thing that can hold a secular society in check, but when push comes to shove, what are you gonna profess?  


Back to now..... now that Jack and CF appear to have taken themselves out of the picture.  Are P and/or C prepared to take the leap?  I doubt it, and would not wish to be responsible if they were.  


What would a non-human intelligence look like?  I suspect it would have no substance.  It would have no coherence.  That substance and coherence must relate to biology.  That is why VALIS must be trinitatian.  That is why biology must be a crucial aspect of destiny.  That is why our micro-cosmology is robust, and why atoms are important, but not our source..... not by a mile....

.....our life's Star,
       Hath had elsewhere its setting,
         And cometh from afar:
       Not in entire forgetfulness,
       And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come  

No, atoms are not just important, they are a logical necessity for a robust/grounded intelligence, because they are necessary for biology.  

How did God work this out?  Not with a pencil, I would venture.  Well, we are God's pencil.  We are God's retrocausality, as we awaken from our slumber of materialism.  

And, yes, we have the semantics of ontology and the ontology of semantics.


11:30---------

Is deontology a necessary part of ontology?  How could it be otherwise, considering that there can be no ontos w/o logos, nor logos w/o telos.  And this robust coherence has everything to do with our microcosmic now.  Atoms are swallowed therein.  

And we are swallowed thereupon.  God is having us for dinner, didn't we know?  It's called the hieros-gammos.  We don't want our atoms to get swallowed, because we know that we are the next in line.  Atoms are our ego-proxies.  This explains a lot about the history of materialism, now, don't it?  

Hey, it will all work out, in the End.  

Now is about occasions and occasionalism.  How do atoms figure into occasionalism, is the question.  Are they not rendered otiose?  Cannot atoms have their own occasions?  Or do occasions have atoms?  What happens to atoms is what happens to sense data.  It gets swallowed in the now.  

Yes, if we go looking for sense data, we will find it, but we have to look hard.  And, yes, we do have trouble seeing without our rods and cones....... but, what do we see in our dreams/memories.  Is it sense data?  Yes, the now data does seem a bit more robust, more open to  scrutiny.  Is it just by degree of by kind?  I suggest the former.  

This is what the presentationalists are trying to tell us.  They don't buy the sense data story.  But then what good are our eyes?  What is the point of telephones?  Why don't the materialists ask them this obvious question?  KIM, these academic debates very seldom stray from the pro-forma.  It is all a performance.  

Our eyes and ears have the same ontology as atoms?  This sounds like a good game, until we get down to the nitty, to the birds and the bees.  Then stuff waxes a bit serious.  Eyes and such, are all about the coherence.  Imagine babies without eyes.  It does happen, just to prove the point.  We are not shmoos, nor s'mores.  There could hardly be deontology w/o atoms.  Can there be atoms w/o deontology?  There cannot be atoms w/o a telos, i.e. w/o a (final?) measurement.  Hey, I didn't get two (2) ma's in physics for nothing.  


1:20---------

I guess I'm saying that measurements are a trickle-down economy.  There is the Alpha measurement and the Omega measurement, and it is a mutual relationship.  Even God does not get to sit on his butt, as we may be about to find out.  

But this still doesn't explain atoms.  Justification and explanation are not usually the same, although, in a dreamtime they may become more closely aligned.  

I would rather subsume evaporation under the phenomenology of cycles, rather than to statistical mechanics.  Should this be an onerous transposition?  


7pm---------

I have been talking to Paul and David, and I think we can move forward, even w/o the full cooperation of Jack and CF, as long as they don't put on the kybosh.

IMHO, what is the biggest logical gap? It is from the now to the telos. The understanding is that the now is just a proto/premature telos. It proves that we are all on the same page, contra the spirit of special relativity, which tries to atomize the now. It only manages to highlight the need for global/cosmic synchrony, which is about the same as symphony, warming up, via the internet, for the conductor, who is just us, on steroids.




(cont.)

From: Dan
Date: February 24, 2015 at 10:29:19 AM EST
To: Paul
Cc: David
Subject: What would VALIS do?

Paul and David,

I'm thinking that, for any sort of BPW initiative, we will need to start at the top, i.e. with VALIS.  But how do we introduce VALIS?  

Paul has suggested that we can get to VALIS via informationalism.  Ok, but how so?  

He and I have spoken of the aether and the logos.  Paul emphasizes that the aether is a metaphysical entity, it being neither physical nor strictly unphysical.  It cannot be ignored, if one wishes to have anything more than a positivist grasp of the physical world, and positivism seems very unlikely to make a comeback.  

The next part of Paul's argument hinges on the suspect ontological status of gauge theory, which is, nonetheless, usually seen as the cornerstone of modern physics, both for general relativity and  for quantum field theory.  Recent work suggests that gauge theory is little more than a heuristic, pointing instead to a deeper ontology for physics.  It has been pointed out that gauge principles can best be understood as supervenient upon more fundamental considerations, namely unitarity and renormalization.  

Last, but not least, for Paul are the holographic implications and connections that the aether and the gauge 'theory' are pointing to.  


(cont.......)  

cc: OMF  

From: Dan
Date: February 24, 2015 at 10:53:34 AM EST
To: Paul
Cc: David
Subject: Re: What would VALIS do?

(cont.......)


But we are still left with a cognitive gap in getting from a holographic aether to VALIS.  And Paul's technical arguments will stretch the intuitions of even the most skilled of physicists.  If we start off with the people on Jack's list, this approach might suffice to get a conversation started, but then the BPWH/SWH would be left with a difficult segue.  It would still be dangling, way out there.  

Is there any more direct approach, wherein the strictly physics portion would play a more supportive role?  

Even given that much of our initial audience will be oriented toward physics, I'm suggesting a more general philosophical/historical/phenomenological approach that would be 'complementary' to the physics path.  


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

From: Dan
Date: February 24, 2015 at 11:31:08 AM EST
To: Paul
Cc: David
Subject: Where lies coherence?

(cont.......2)


Ultimately, we must appeal to a coherence theory of truth (CohTT).  

The obvious segue from physics to coherence is via Pythagoras, Einstein, Wigner, Penrose, etc.  Yes, we are asking our audience of (speculative!) physicists to go for the gold standard, the most basic idea behind all of theoretical physics, the idea that God does not play dice with the Universe.  

But somehow, with our eyes on the prize of the Grand Unified Theory (GUT), we found ourselves bogged down in the 'swamp-scape' of string theory.  How do we extract ourselves from that swamp?  

Yes, we might get lucky with the mathematics, as some fledgeling, Witten, Jr., picks up the lost trail to the GUT.  

Or, we might have to try something rather more audacious.  We might have to try to pick ourselves up by our own bootstraps........


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

From: Dan
Date: February 24, 2015 at 12:24:53 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: David
Subject: Bootstraps, anyone?

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


IMHO, there is but one bootstrap, which suffices to extract us from the stringy quagmire, or from Mad-Max Tegmark's Meinongian jungle of every mathematically possible world.  

This is the bootstrap of coherence.  This is the bootstrap wherein God does not play dice.  

Yes, the bootstrap constitutes a 'virtuous' circle, or, to be more specific, the golden triangles of Penrose and Chalmers, to wit...... mind-matter-math (MMM) and meaning-reason-modality (MRM), respectively.

And, yes, the physics lying behind these two triangles is the (meta-) physics of the closed timelike curve (CTC).  

(And Paul needs to help me here........ Is not string theory the progeny of Geoffrey Chew's bootstrap (S-matrix) model of particle physics?)

I think I'm suggesting that the CTC might be viewed as a seine net, wherein you and I are the little fishies that didn't quite get away.  Am I making this up?  Of course, I am.  


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

From: Dan
Date: February 24, 2015 at 3:53:08 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: David
Subject: Self-consistency, anyone?

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


Self-consistency is the bridge from coherency to the eternal golden braid of Doug's strange loops and then to our Ouroboric cosmic manifold.  

And what is self-consistency, if it is not normative?  Self-consistency is a form of proto-coherency.  

Somewhere along this chain of reasoning, we must make reference to information.  And is not biological information perfectly natural?  What else might it be?  One might as well ask if life is natural.  

I am saying that sapience is unnatural, and most philosophers agree on this point.  Sentience?  Many suppose that machine sentience is not possible.  

It is at this point that we must consider the question of emergence.  Is emergence not natural?  

I suggest that biological emergence is necessarily teleological, and teleology is, according to science, unnatural.  In fact, teleology is verboten in the annals of science.  Teleology and vital forces are not allowed, period.  We might also speak, more neutrally, of holism.  

It could be that biological holism is just a concomitant of quantum mechanics.  

It seems I've reached an impasse.......  

The sub-conclusion I'm reaching for is that of panpsychism, or for the panpsychic catastrophe, as Ned Block once averred.  Then, finally, we would be within striking distance of immaterialism and panentheism.  


(cont.........5)  

Here is Paul responding to my second email........

From: Paul
Date: February 24, 2015 at 4:04:07 PM EST
To: Dan
Cc: David
Subject: Re: What would VALIS do?

I think we should talk about selected relevant topics in physics from a philosophical POV.

It will take more to get to your Leibnizian BPW. You will have to argue for monads as the fundamental
constituents of the universe (ontology). This will require going outside of physics per se.

However, the non-material ether and the non-substantial (non-individual) "quantum atom" will get you most of the
way.

As for the SWH, I still think Bohr-Wheeler is the best route. Concave earth theories, while philosophically interesting,
will seriously alienate scientists.

I suggest we start by discussing the selected relevant topics without any explicit mention of BPW or SWH, to prepare
the groundwork -- and to minimize Jack's hostility/suspicion.

Again, Jack's back-from-the-future computational horizon model is still the best candidate for a "VALIS"-type teleology
IMHO. And that will rope him into the discussion

And in two other responses.........

Paul points out, in response to my first email, that I neglected to mention Jack's (Sarfatti-Davis) future holographic horizon, as providing an ontological basis for VALIS.

In response to my third email, he suggests that Chalmers' triangle of meaning-reason-modality (MRM), deriving from his 2-D scheme of semantics, provides a more sophisticated model for the CohTT.

From: Dan
Date: February 25, 2015 at 11:04:42 AM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton, David
Subject: How 'bout them monads....?

Paul,

(BTW, Colton are you still planning to visit GW? There is an upcoming KWF event.)

Ok, you suggest that I stick with my (and Willie's) little monads.........

Then, off the top, as usual........

The monads are mini-blackhole-horizons, except, of course, for the MoAM, mother of all monads.

We should think of them, collectively, as constituting our 5th Dimension/Aquarium......

Each of these monads/atoms is also an aperture unto the Logos/VALIS/Akasha, but only the sapient monads are truly self-individuating. Only the rational monads can apply meaning and modality to the world, and, thereby, perform the Cartesian dichotomy, locating themselves, collectively and individually, in the holographic space-time (CTC) manifold..... a folie-a-10^10.

This is the problem, Paul, once I've seen Paris, how are you, or the Princess, or anyone going to keep me down on the Farm?


(cont........)

cc: OMF


On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Paul wrote:

We'll see.

Before we get started on that, I'd like to take care of 2D semantics and Chalmers' argument against materialism
with Colton. It's not an easy topic.

On 2/24/2015 2:42 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
Paul,

Very good. I hope that there is still a chance to get Jack involved.