Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

dan wrote:MD02,

This is the first I've heard of the HHMI. Is it part of the conspiracy?

And, in regard to your tag line, the name of our progect is now alleged to be Preserve Destiny. A prefer, however, a more proactive moniker: Embrace Destiny.

Apropos of our recent trip to Costa Rica, here is a BBC documentary on the leaf-cutters that figured prominently....... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n0SkIGARuo&feature=youtube_gdata_player .
Near the beginning of the recent roadtrip, I was reminded of my bargain with the devil or the PtB. Should I be surprised? Does the good cop fail to fraternize with the bad cop? Who would benefit thereby?

Supposing the future lightcone extends 50 billion years, and supposing the pixels to have the dimension of a planck length, the voxels would then be on the order of a fermi. Is this supposed to be suggestive of something? That's not clear to me.

Dan wrote:Yes, I believe that was the number of pixels and voxels that Jack came up with. But, wait, that should mean that the size of the voxels is expanding. That they are now of femi size could indicate another large number coincidence, relating to the present. Robert Dicke has pointed to other such, I believe

But Malebranche's response is clear: even if we bracket the worry of whether we could have a sufficiently clear idea of what kind of thing this substance would be, it is unlikely that this substance would be a Cartesian extended substance. For it would possess modes or properties other than relations of distance. And in discussing why the second option is going to fail, we see the explicit statement that, though an active power perhaps could be a mode of some other substance, it is not a mode that belongs to bodies, since forces or powers are not relations of distance.

From: Dan
Date: March 25, 2013, 8:22:20 PM EDT
To: Paul Z, Chris
Cc: David, Jack, Larry, Ron, Jake

Subject: (a)ether = molasses?

Paul,

https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t6p1035-hello-cy-hello-omf-ii#2377

http://changingpower.net/seifer-to-time-magazine-higgs-field-is-ether/

What do you think?

Or is it the Logos/CTMU?

Dan

From: Dan
Date: March 26, 2013, 11:26:40 AM EDT
To: Paul Z
Cc: Jack Sarfatti, Chris, David, Larry, Jake

Subject: Preferred frame?

Paul,

Preferred frame? Need this or should this be something other than a new opening for our perennial hankering after a geocentric and anthropocentric basis for ontology?

IOW, has Copernicanism not run its course? Would it not be timely to explore its alternative(s)?

The history of ideas may be coming full circle, and this could be cause for celebration.

Considering the mounting human crisis, we may need some positive news. We may need a focus for our hope. And we may only need a mustard seed of faith, rather than a smoking gun, or a saucer on the White House lawn.

Ron has volunteered to contact Chris, and I have a call into Larry. The conversation was about moving our communication forward. We don't wish to be overly hasty, but time is wasting.

Preserve/embrace destiny......

Dan

From: Dan
Date: March 26, 2013, 3:25:16 PM EDT
To: David
Cc: seven others

Subject: Re: Preferred frame?

David,

There seem to be plenty of cults to go around. It is much less than crystal clear that the Cult of Materialism is the royal road to Civilization. No?

I don't recall that any of us are fire-breathing atheists.

The question I pose to my science friends is whether there may be more under the Sun than is dreamed of in their theories.

In particular I am concerned about the possible role of sapience in Creation. If there be any such role, then ought we not wonder about its Source? Does it detract from our regard for others, when we suppose that they might have a divine origin? In special historical circumstances it has. Yes. But across the sweep of history, the notion of our being soul mates may be cogently argued to be the well-spring of Civilization. No?

What does this have to do with Frames of reference? Well, the historical passions that have motivated that question would seem to point to the need for a trans-material frame.

On Mar 26, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Dan wrote:

(cont.....)

Paul and Jack agree that possibility of an objective frame of reference is a deep and abiding problem for science.

I merely point out that the framing problem is a deep and abiding issue in every venue of human endeavor.

The person amongst us who has most clearly and technically addressed this question is Chris Langan, with his CTMU......

Thus, the issue that I pose to Jack and Paul may be paraphrased as....... Yes, we can take the science out of cognition, but can we take the cognition out of science?

Given the obvious answer, then perhaps it is time to put that horse back in its harness, not that this will be a ride in the park.


(cont......2)

From: Dan
Date: March 26, 2013, 4:22:39 PM EDT
To: David
Cc: seven others

Subject: Re: Trans-material frames?

(cont.....2)


The framing problem is also the problem of paradigms, as paradigmatically represented by the Copernican revolution.

Many suppose that the materialist/copernican/darwinian paradigm that is tantamount to modernism, is long overdue for an overhaul, with anthropics and mind-body being the foci for any new paradigm.

Jack very cogently argues that mind can be embedded within a modified Bohmian perspective. And Jack ought to know, already being the acknowledged savior of physics. It was only on the recent road-trip that I was apprised of the deeper cogency of Jack's argument, when it was pointed out to me that David Bohm was very far from being a mere quantum mechanic.

David B should be considered the coauthor of modern holism. What then is the Frame of holism? Must it not be cognizant of mind?

(cont......3)

From: Dan
Date: March 26, 2013, 5:33:36 PM EDT
To: David
Cc: -----
Subject: Re: Trans-material frames?

(cont....3)


Scientific materialism is still a bubble that is waiting to be burst. There has only been a great deal of nibbling around its edges. Jack is one of the best known of the nibblers.

But we do need to be careful...... There is a sense in which Jack is our Trojan horse. This is our gift horse, so folks may hesitate to look it in the mouth. What will they find in the belly of this beast?

Lorenz invariance is a mite too rich for most of us. How about Galilean invariance? Even the average driver can understand that.

Will Chris and Dan take sides with Robert Bellarmine? Well, as Paul pointed out, Bob was rather more informed in philosophy and phenomenology than was Galileo.

Kit Green, in his deployment of crash dummies at GM, was certainly informed by Galileo. But does the story of civilization end with crash dummies? Some of us hope not.

Can we not appeal to a higher authority than Aristotle, in our critique of Galileo?

I appeal to the Final cause. If there is a Telos, it must be deeply embedded in our cognition. Galilean invariance is abstracted from experience, but is it a substitute for experience?

Galilean invariance is an ideal, and so is the Telos. Which has precedence within history?

We have a simple choice...... is history a tale told by an idiot, or is there a Telos? Are we a cancer or are we a chrysalis?

Do I have a smoking gun? No. Am I the smoking gun? Well, that might require a mustard seed of faith.

(cont......4)

Considering the mounting human crisis, we may need some positive news. We may need a focus for our hope. And we may only need a mustard seed of faith, rather than a smoking gun, or a saucer on the White House lawn.

From: Dan
Date: March 27, 2013, 12:15:50 PM EDT
To: Jack Sarfatti
Cc: Paul Z, Chris, David G, Larry, Rick/Jake, Saul-Paul, Kim, David K

Subject: Re: Moving 'forward'.....?

(cont.....2)


So, what is the way forward?

Well, I can only think of two ways forward...... more physics or some new 'metaphysics' that is more compatible with present physics, than has been the case in the past.

Jack and Paul are as well placed as any physicists to discern these choices. No? One of their non-trivial qualifications, in this regard, is the 'mere' fact that they have afforded me more opportunity to bend their ears than have any 'others', and that select group includes....... everyone!

So, given the Aether bridge, then what......?

For one thing, it tells us that the Ancients may not have been as stupid as we moderns are prone to suppose. It has been a predilection of us moderns to burn our bridges with the past...... damn those antique torpedoes..... full steam ahead!



(cont......3)



On Mar 27, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Dan wrote:

(cont......)


Why should any physicist have any 'professional' concern for the future? Well, there is the historical fact that physics, along with many other science and engineering disciplines, has had an enormous influence in bringing us to the cusp of our present crisis.

But I am saying more than this....... I am saying that physics remains the conceptual pace-setter amongst the sciences, and so, if there is to be a paradigm shift, then the physics community must be given the right of first refusal, and, furthermore, if any putative new paradigm does pass muster with this community, it is likely to encounter 'only' political resistance elsewhere.

Am I placing too big of a burden upon just two 'random' physicists, Jack and Paul? Well, if so, just cry 'uncle', and I will tone it down a few notches......


(cont.......2)



On Mar 27, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Dan wrote:

Jack, Paul, et al.,

Would it be acceptable, if I were to attempt to summarize the discussion up to this point, and then try to move 'us' 'forward'.....? The 'forward' direction being defined as the direction toward a brighter future, considering that humanity faces an unprecedented historical crisis, which may or may not have a silver lining.

In a nutshell, it appears that we have established the existence of an Aether, despite Einstein's and Mach's best attempts to eliminate it from physics.

So what, we might ask......?

Well, the Aether represents the closest approximation we have to an immaterial but physical object. As such, the Aether represents a possible conceptual/ontological bridge from physics into metaphysics, should any of us have a hankering for such a link.

Does anyone here not have such a hankering? I suspect that Jack might be the first and most vociferous of the deniers.

(cont......)

dan wrote:And I thank you, dear!

Don't we love the spruce up?

And, Cy, there has been a suggestion from one of my very loyal fans who has experienced vertigo in the presence of my twisting star of fate. Can we do anything to lessen her vertigo?

From: Dan
Date: March 27, 2013, 1:33:05 PM EDT
To: Jack Sarfatti
Cc: and eight others......

Subject: Re: Moving 'forward'.....?

Jack,

What is the link to your talk?


(cont......3)

There is the adage that, when we moderns finally reach the summit of the mountain of knowledge, we will be greeted by the Ancient ones, wondering what took us so long. This is basically the view of the BPWH.

Have we just been running in a circle, chasing our tail, deceived by the trickster god behind the curtain? A circle? Well, it is not unlike the circular waterfall illusion in the Escher drawing, with mainly just one waterfall between the Omega >> Alpha. That illustrates the finite nature of Creation, which is also our eternal present, embedded within Eternity, where we are the living water, traveling as immortals under the 'illusion' of our temporal mortality. And that is not all......

We are actually 'just' the multiple personality 'disorder' of the cosmic Monad, who is, with Disclosure/Revelation, experiencing 'her' reveille/resurrection.

So, how is this the best possible world? Should we not feel aggrieved and otherwise put upon by this grand Deception?


(cont......4)

From: Dan
Date: March 27, 2013, 2:13:57 PM EDT
To: Jack Sarfatti
Cc: eight others

Subject: Re: Moving 'forward'.....?

(cont......4)


Aggrieved.......? How so.....?

Most of us moderns are enthralled by the infinite spaces and times of the infinity of multiverses. We like to wander in those wide open spaces......

>>> Oh, give me a home where the Buffalo roam
Where the Deer and the Antelope play;
Where never is heard a discouraging word,
And the sky is not clouded all day. <<<

Don't pen me in! When we can hear the neighbor's dog barking, it's time to break camp, and move Westward!

But according to Chicken Little, we are fated to end up as worker bees in the cosmic Hive! Yuck!

Well, sports fans, allow me to point out that you and I happen to be the beneficiaries of the swarming instincts of those earliest of cellular creatures. Yikes, there is a fungus among us! It is also known as your brain, a Mediterranean condo for our semi-annuated neurons. It may be that we have been fated to be the braincells of God, living in interesting times. Now there is a double curse!

(cont......5)

From: Dan
Date: March 27, 2013, 2:58:11 PM EDT
To: Jack Sarfatti
Cc: ......

Subject: Re: Moving 'forward'.....?

(cont......5)


Double curse........?

It has been stated by someone better informed...... Many mansions has my Father's house.

Well, that still sounds like a condo, to me. Will there be wine on tap? Will we all have beach/ocean-side views?

I humbly submit that this condo in the sky is also our Telos/Omega.

Now, Jack, David and I recently spent several hours roaming the streets of SF, with Kim transporting the camera, and me transporting the whiteboard. There was much videotaped vituperation concerning my egregiously outdated young earth hypothesis. But, Lord, they know not what they are vituperating! And they don't call me Chicken Little for nothing.

Yes, the very first thing to know about every one of our fellow mortals is that we are all 'just' beads on Indra's necklace. We all share the same, time-circulating, soul, the cosmic Monad. That is one reason why the season for killing may be bygone..... as in bye-bye! I wonder if Ron has gotten the memo, yet. And, yes, he also scoffs at my native-American princess, Anna. He saying that regression can only apply to blood relatives/ancestors. Ron, have you got the memo yet?? Ask Aliyah. Water may be thicker than blood. Ask Jesus.


(cont......6)

From: Dan
Date: March 27, 2013, 4:32:10 PM EDT
To: David
Cc: .....

Subject: Re: Moving 'forward'.....?

David,

Good questions........

As the eschatology gopher for the CIA, do I look like someone who is easily distracted from my appointed rounds?

Yes, Virginia, there is a choreographer wrt our History, or so we've been told. Does Ron have a need to know? Do you or I?

Well, I'm inclined to suppose that God does not make mistakes, and that is why I am an apologist. And that may be why you and I have a need to know that God is with us, in the valley of the shadow of death. Yes, my handler may be the bad cop. Why else would I hold him so close?

Larry and I are scheduled to travel to DC, after Easter. That was arranged by both cops.

And then what....? Any suggestions?



On Mar 27, 2013, at 4:15 PM, David wrote:

Why were you reassured and by whom? 9/11 doesn't require a Sherlock Holmes to question the government's conspiracy theory of Saudi terrorists when there are so many questions and answers provided by the documentary evidence itself. Brought to you by the people who brought us the Maine, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor etc. This is no time to accept platitudes that sound good or easy.
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 27, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Dan wrote:

David,

Yes, we are in a pickle. There is an urgency, if not an emergency.

I am here only because my call to 911 in '91 was answered by someone who seemed to understand our pickle.

And then came 9/11. The call then was most reassuring, IMHO.

Brains..... time....? We have all the time in the best possible world, which may be just about due for Disclosure/Revelation.

Brains...? Is your brain not functioning? Have you not been granted access?

Maybe, just maybe, this is a participatory eschaton, and you and I are supposed to work it out, together. Just maybe.


On Mar 27, 2013, at 3:54 PM, David wrote:

I think our short term survival (15-20 years) is in question and the fact that there is an actual plot compared to which 9/11 is but a Sunday school prank by comparison, that we should be thinking about defense- against ourselves and outsiders and yet we haven't the brains or the time. We are in a pickle.

From: Dan
Date: March 28, 2013, 11:46:03 AM EDT
To: JACK SARFATTI
Cc: eight others
Subject: Anyone for London...?

Last evening I spoke with David, Paul and [Jake] about the possibility of our tacking onto Jack's London excursion, at some point, likely the third week in April, if at all. Otherwise we might next meet in SF in June, when Jack returns from Europe.

Although Rick and I could pay our own way, the possibility of the others would depend on the generosity of Larry, most likely. I did speak briefly with Larry, also yesterday, and he and I are invited to meet with R&A next week.

My thinking is simply to keep this project moving forward..... adding an international flavor to it would be most helpful.

At this point, the outcome depends on Jack, Ron and Larry.......

From: Dan
Date: March 28, 2013, 12:44:15 PM EDT
To: Jack Sarfatti
Cc: eight others.....
Subject: Package deal?

And, by the way, Larry will be away for the next couple of days......

Anyway, I feel obliged to continue to put myself out and on the line with regard to an eschaton. That's what I've been doing for the past thirty years. The internet, alone, is not enough. Synergy comes from also getting out and pressing the flesh!

The BPWH is not merely an abstraction. Even the Copernican revolution was an abstraction. The BPWH is a singular and positive revisioning of our place in the world, with immediate historical consequences.

The claim is that the BPWH falls squarely within the prophetic tradition, and so we expect there to be a prophet attached to this prophecy, a visionary along with the vision. Up until two weeks ago, there had been no competition. It was almost with a sense of relief when it became clear that Chris also had his eye on the 'prize'. Competition between the two of us will only afford all of us more choices. Can we, should we, not collaborate to the utmost? I certainly hope so. I do understand that Chris will be constrained, in this regard, until his book goes to the printers in September. I am hopeful that Jack, Larry and Ron can continue their mediation, in this regard.


(cont........)

From: Dan
Date: March 28, 2013, 1:29:51 PM EDT
To: Jack Sarfatti
Cc: ........

Subject: Re: Package deal?

(cont.......)


I further understand that Jack has a definite role as my loyal opposition. It has been very helpful, with the additional proviso that this role should be expected to be an evolving one.

Yes, Jack has been most adept at displaying an over the top incredulity, which I am sure will gain much empathy on the part of a general audience. It does bring out the very important human element in all of this. There is much room for (comic) irony in the BPWH, have no doubt!

What can come after total incredulity? Anything else would afford less opportunity for comic relief. So I don't know. We'll just have to put our faith in Jack's imagination and acting skills!

The question naturally arises as to my scientific sympathies, or lack thereof. I am the nerdy, scientific reject, out to get his revenge, or so it could easily be cast. But it should not take much further reflection to see that I am totally dependent upon a rather sophisticated fringe of the scientific community. Well, I have, admittedly, hung my shingle in other venues, but I do keep coming back, don't I?! My scientific background informs the heart of the BPWH. I am a cosmologist first, and a prophet, second, almost reluctantly, with just a soupçon of relish! This is conceptualism on steroids. Would-be cultists will be sorely disappointed with danianity.


(cont.......2)

From: Dan
Date: March 28, 2013, 2:01:33 PM EDT
To: JACK SARFATTI
Cc: and fourteen others
Subject: Re: Package deal? Who is Rick Davis?

Jack,

You are the boss wrt anything in London. I'm just keeping my options open. It's just a question of practicality and a possible urgency. We never know when another alarm might sound, or where.

Never go viral.......? Certainly not based on recent history, but I am, rather, the opposite of an historian.

Messy antics.......? Are we sure that we can take the prophet out of the prophecy? Doing so would be rather less than candid, IMHO.

For the last twenty-two years I have labored under the distinct impression that the Visitors brought us a 'disturbing' message. Nothing that has happened since has done anything to lessen that sense of urgency. Show me something that has!

And what about June? Would I come without the hope of stealing the show? Comic relief? I'll take it as it comes.

Dan


On Mar 28, 2013, at 1:35 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Dan this is your religion not science.
It's therefore only a personal obsession of yours of no appeal to the masses of the people.
Just be aware of that.
That's why you have only one stubbornly persistent reader of your blog.
You cannot market this the way you personalize it.
It will never go viral in the web.
It's not a killer app.

dan wrote: Who is Rick Davis?