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.

Paul pointed to Carlo Rovelli as an anti-substantivalist, which, I believe, is another term for a Machian or anti-ethericist.   Philosophically, this is equivalent to positivism, logical or empirical.  


1:15-------

In the wiki on positivism, I see that Stephen Hawking is touted as an arch positivist.  


I'm reading http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/ , and am not so sure of the compatibility of ethericism and immaterialism.  It is not clear that Leibniz was a substantivalist/etherist.  Paul presents the ether as an immaterial substance.  But a substance is someting that exists independently.  Does idealism comport with substances?  In what sense is mind a substance?  

Is not Leibniz a relationalist?  Am not I?  

It seems that there is another dimension of ontology that I'm missing.  

Historically, it was Leibniz who taunted Clarke's Newtonian substantivism.



(cont.)

Paul and I had another lengthy convo this pm.  There were several significant topics relative to our prospective reengagement with Jack, upon his return from Europe in June......

1.)  Does Leibniz countenance an aether, or was he too much of a relationalist?  

2.)  Paul's argument is Newton also a relationalist, and that his argument with Leibniz has been overblown.  It's mainly just that Newton was being more metaphysically cautious, in public.  He was pretending to be a positivist.  

The scuttlebutt is that Isaac was almost blackballed from the Royal Society because of his known dabblings in fringe areas.  He was walking a fine line.  

3.)  We have no doubt that Tononi is a flaming Leibnizian, although Tegmark may not yet realize this.  Can Mad Max actually be that naive, metaphysically?  An open question.  

4.)  Von Neumann was a flagrant dualist wrt the collapse of the wave function.  Wigner was only slightly less so.  

5.)  Does God play dice?  Was Bohm an etherist?  What about emergence...... teleological?  Can teleology be merely local?  Can information be local?  Must it not be integrated, as Tononi infers?  


Before that, Sam and I did lunch. We, along with Jack Alpert, will be attending the Age of Limits conference next week. Sam has arranged some local meetings for Jack, including with the two authors of the recent NASA study..... http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists . We wondered if John Holdren had facilitated this study.

This weekend is the BGF meeting..... http://www.baltimoregreenforum.org/ .




(cont.)

Paul is continuing to focus on Max Tegmark's theory of Perceptronium, which, in turn, appeals to Tononi's theory of integrated information (TII).  Both of these physicists resist any appeal to specific quantum aspects of information.  

We agree that comparing and contrasting Jack's theory of mind with that of Tegmark's is our most likely initial approach to Jack.  Jack's theory concerns a non-linear addendum to QM, which would engender a back-action.  This feedback loop is a bit like Hofstadter's strange loop, but more mechanistic.  

One could easily question the possibility of getting Jack to engage in a rational discussion of any theory in which he has a vested interest.  We are certainly not above using Jack mainly as an entry point to his many correspondents who would be likely targets for any sort of MoAPS.  Jack has nurtured his entertainment skills almost as much as his skill with physics, thus his relatively wide audience of key players on the fringes of physics.


Even if we can manage to initiate a discussion with Jack and/or his circle, where might we then head off to?  This is the question that I now wish to address.  Here are the obvious possibilities........

1.)  UFOs.....  Jack's circle is distinguished by its openness to anomalous phenomena, in general, with a usual focus on parapsychology and visitation.  However, there is an active minority who concern themselves with speculations concerning ufo propulsion, and one of whom is long-time experimenter in gravi-magnetics, or anti-gravity.  The evident diversity of interests constitutes a considerable challenge.  

2.)  Human destiny.....  Is it not time to consider human destiny?  For instance, might our destiny lie in the stars?  Or is it beyond the stars?  Any such answer will beg the question of human progress.  Where lies our Telos?  

3.)  MoAPS...... After considering the various viewpoints on UFOs, parapsychology and our future, the next logical step would be to consider the various worldviews that might best address these questions.  

I'm not aware of anyone who is openly seeking a new worldview.  This is something that is usually only discussed in retrospect, if at all.  Among the developed countries, the US stands out for its large proportion of active religionists, although this number has been in decline for decades, but not yet nearly to the extent of the earlier decline in Europe.  Only a few of those who become inactive will go on to embrace any other tradition.  

IOW, there is no ready market for a MoAPS.  What there is, however, is a growing anxiety about the future.  It is also reasonable to suppose that the level of personal anxiety is considerably greater than what spills over into the public arena.  

Such anxiety was much more focused in the early days of the nuclear age, when schools would frequently conduct civil defense drills.  Now the anxiety is of a more general nature, with a spreading skepticism concerning the future of peace and prosperity.  Such anxiety is confined mainly to the developed world.  Nonetheless, the global economic crisis of 2008, penetrated far into the rest of the world.  Since that crisis, there is a wider awareness of the fragility of the global economic system.  


12:15-----------

The age of Science has been virtually synonymous with the age of Progress.  Now, however, the possible limits to growth are being much more widely appreciated.  The limitations of technology point to the limitations of science.  

Up the the present, Science has been our gift-horse.  But, now, there is more inclination to question the omniscience/omnipotence of science.  Does this automatically lead to a greater interest in metaphysics?  No, but there surely is a correlation.  

Is there any desire or expectation that our scientists should, at this crucial juncture in history, roll over and play dead?  There is still much room for progress in the biological sciences and in AI.  And, yes, there could be a breakthrough toward the production of cheap/abundant energy.  Does this mean that the metaphysicians should roll over and play dead?  I would hope not, either.  

What I am asking for is a forum for us open minded folks.  Hey, no kidding!  Yes, Cy, this is my evangelism for OMF II.  I mean I may not be completely useless around here.  Perhaps we do have a tiger by the tail, after all.  


It should be well noted that Jack Sarfatti has been heralded as the Savior of physics.  Do you detect a note of irony?  That should not be the case.  It was Jack who saved me..... who prepared me for my encounter with Sophia.  IMHO, that was no mean feat.  

Is Jack ready to be my Jack the Baptist?  Just off the top, I'm guessing not!  So, do I roll over?  Probably not, either.  


1pm-------

TBMK, I have no competition wrt a MoAPS.  The BPWH is the only horse in the race.  If there are other horses, which of them is #2?  Don't all speak at once, but don't be shy, either.  

Postmodernism might have been expected to open a Pandora's box of metaphysics, but who is holding their breath?  

Physics still rules the roost in cosmology, and physics does have a death grip on the Big Bang.  But that may be the problem with physics.  It has put all its eggs in that basket.  Did it ever have a choice?  Hardly.  It can only ever be blind-sided.  


Blind-sided by what......?

What other than the mind?  But wait..... isn't the mind just a cosmic afterthought?  It may well be.  Life is an absurdity in a meaningless universe.  Or not........

What if life is not an absurdity, pray tell?  Then we have a new ballgame, do we not?  

Then, yes, we have launched ourselves into a very slippery slope, back into metaphysics.  Among other things, we have to contend with teleology.  IMHO, teleology, once resurrected, is no mean thing.  It is liable to rock everyone's boat.  Teleology is nothing if not cosmic.  


Cosmic.....?  

Teleology is meaningless without a Telos.  Physicists pride themselves for their grip upon the Alpha, i.e. the Big Bang.  But what, I ask you, is an Alpha without an Omega?  

Physicists have never been bashful when it comes to speculating about the End, even if these tend to be idle, purely academic, speculations.  Nonetheless, there has always been a popular audience for such speculations.  

However, should we admit teleology into the cosmic pantheon, such speculations are liable to take on a certain gravitas.  


2:50---------

The likeliest context or pretext for the mind is the anthropic principle.  It could just be a minor appendix to that principle.  The weak anthropic principle merely states that given a plethora of possible universes, it is barely noteworthy that we should happen to find ourselves inhabiting one that comports to our own existence.  No big whoopie.  In a mindless world, anthropics would be a moot point, would it not?!  

Why should any scientist feel compelled to go further?  

Should science have a better excuse than curiosity?  Do we live to eat, or do we eat to live?  'Tis never been an easy question.  

This brings us back to the question of an existential crisis.  Perhaps we are headed into such a crisis, a crisis with which science, per se, seems ill-equipped to cope.

What then is our recourse?  We can pray a lot.  We can cry a lot.  

Is there anything more?  Hmmm........

Anyone for some truth?  

What is the truth, someone famously asked.  

Is not the truth something to be trusted, even embraced?  But it may just be bad news, relative to our continued existence.  Truth is that we are an accident, a cosmic flash in the pan.  It's silly to pray, but, hey, it may not hurt to cry.  

Can I prove otherwise?  No, but I might be able to lend some plausibility to the alternative.  But has science not proven that we are an accident?  Do I, David, wish to take on Goliath?  Well, the real question is whether I have a choice.  For some reason, I know not what, I do feel so compelled.  Must it not be madness?  


But let us get back to good ol' Pontius.... what is truth?  Is it not objective?  Is science not an inquiry into truth?  If we can't trust science, what can we trust?  

Science deals in facts, theories and hypotheses.  A stated fact might be taken as either true or false.

But here is the hitch..... there are two theories of truth..... correspondence and coherence.  

Science leans toward the former, I embrace the latter.  But science does strive for comprehension, and what is comprehension without coherence?  Are not scientific theories judged upon their comprehensiveness, i.e. their scope.  What is Darwinism, if not scopefull.  Or was it Scopesfull?  

Science is also judged upon its objectivity.  What is truth, if not objective?  


5pm-------

But wait......  can there be an object without an objectifier?  I've not actually seen this stated quite so succinctly, but is the objectifier not the Achilles' heel of objecthood?  

Is not the wine glass on the table an object in its own right?  Can it not be measured and tested objectively?  Obviously I'm just playing with semantics.  

What is the business of science, if not objectification?  What is objectivity without objectification?  May I be forgiven, then, if I ask whether this game of objectification has not the aspect of a shell game?  

Such questions have been lurking in the shadows of science, since its inception, but, now, with the quantum and with information coming to the fore, objecthood is demanding attention.  

Is anyone to say that objecthood and objectivity are non-normative?  Need we turn to the dictionary to come to this conclusion?  

What is information without an informer or an informed?  A book on the shelf in the basement of a library may never have been opened, yet, is it not full of information?  Perhaps, but its contents might equally be regarded as potential or conditional information.  

And what is information without reference?  Is information self-referential?  Does it not require a referee?  Idle questions, these.  

Has not Claude Shannon defined information?  He has given it a quantitative definition.  What more could one want?  But how much information is contained in 'one'?  I don't think you want to go there.  

Yes, science has had a long run in placing the object over and above the subject.  Should we be surprised at our diminuitive/minuscule status?  What are we then to do?  Howl at the moon?  


I have another suggestion.  We give teleology a considered look.  We consider whether science is an end in itself.  Is the world an end in itself?  

In the end, we will have to ask for whom the stars shine.  Is this a question that can be avoided?  

We can go back to duck-and-cover...... Someone could have pushed the button, and humanity spiraled into the abyss.  Would the stars have fallen from the sky?  

I suggest not. I suggest that the stars are a piece of eternity, but, then so are we. We don't even have to ask which came first.

So where is the proof?



(cont.)

Trust me when I say that Jack will be singularly unimpressed by the sort of semantic games that were played yesterday.  But am I the only one to notice the irony of a paranormal hippie becoming the stalwart of the Old Guard?  Hey, did Jerry Brown never frequent the Cafe Trieste?  He missed his latte.  

These games were more for my own clarification.  Yes, I have no formulas.  Paul has some of those.  I have words.  And I have words behind the words.  That was yesterday.  Some cards can never be played.  Once played they loose their magic.  The jack of diamonds remains up my sleeve.  

Then there is Saul Kripke.  He may have been our all-time wordsmith, with his Naming and Necessity.  As far as semantics could be pushed, he pushed it.  

Yes, there is necessity in the word game.  He put his finger upon it.  Saul has Jack's number.  Jack doesn't know Saul.  I'm not about to edify him on that score.  What Jack don't know won't hurt him.  

Physicists do not speak to philosophers.  But trust me when I point to a trickle-down effect.  IMHO, we are about to witness another trickle.  

Jack is a pragmatist/operationalist, up to a point.  Finding that point is the trick.  That point is the fulcrum by which we may move Jack's world.  But Jack is no dummy when it comes to CYA.  Before Jack had smarts, he had street smarts.  Do not play poker with Jack, especially not in a dark alley.  His teeth they shine pearly white, dear.  

Jack and I do have something in common, and that is my not so secret weapon.  It's the messy-antics.  Talk about sharp knives!  

Jack has a long knife.... the Big Bang.  I have a short knife..... the Telos.  If this were a sword fight, I'd have no chance.  But, no, this fight is going to be up close and personal.  


11am--------

Mad Max, seemingly unwittingly, has swallowed the Gottfried hook, via Tononi.  However, I do not fully grasp the connex btw the TII and the PII/PSR.  Maybe Paul can help.  

Anyway, Jack has taken the Laughlin bait, and is trying to reinvent physics from the 'bottom-down'.  Just like Robert, Jack is very wary of the top, of the Telos.  Bohm was way ahead of both of them, and look where he ended up..... the New Age guru of the Implicate Order.

Yes, the philosophers and physicists are finally back together, on top of the mountain...... Little Bighorn.  And all they have to worry about is chicken little.  Hey, guys, there's no one home but us chickens!  

Then along came the Aether.  Can we make a mountain of that molehill......?  Paul has one nail in the Aether, the splitting of the LC connection.  We just need another nail.  I'm reminded of the sick joke..... Mommy, mommy, why do I keep going around in circles?  Shut up, kid, or I'll nail your other foot to the floor!  My kingdom for that other nail.  

We have the new aether and the old aether.  We are missing a solid connection.  Does it not have something to do with the TII?  

Can we bait Jack with Mad Max?  Jack is all in favor of It from Bit.  Jack supposes that his back-action will do the trick.  But where is the integration?  Jack is also wary of entanglement, along with Bohm.  That is where the Aether must come in.  Is this not what QG attempts to deal with?  Do we quantize the aether, or do we aetherize the quantum?  See Lee Smolin's Three Roads to QG.  


noon-------

What is entanglement good for, if it's not good for biology?

Can we get it from bit w/o biological entanglement?  I'm skeptical.  How can that question be put to Jack?  That is where we need the 2nd nail.  


Ok, here is the second nail.... http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/holytech.html quoting JAW.....

What we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes/no questions.

Who, then, poses the questions, if it is not Wigner's friend?  Am I not Eugene's copilot in the skies of Trenton?  

From this perspective, computation seems almost a theological process. It takes as its fodder the primeval choice between yes or no, the fundamental state of 1 or 0. After stripping away all externalities, all material embellishments, what remains is the purest state of existence: here/not here. Am/not am. In the Old Testament, when Moses asks the Creator, "Who are you?" the being says, in effect, "Am." One bit. One almighty bit. Yes. One. Exist. It is the simplest statement possible.

 So, yes, we are after the almighty bit.  IMHO, the almighty bit is an essential aspect of the Aether.  

Bits can be seen as a digital version of the "atoms" of classical Greece: the tiniest constituent of existence. But these new digital atoms are the basis not only of matter, as the Greeks thought, but of energy, motion, mind, and life.

1:15-----------

The aether and entanglement are just two aspects of the same Source, KIM that A=O.  A/O = almighty bit.  

Why are the academics so shy of the AB?  There must be a glass ceiling.  It is only Tononi who takes the last step from AB to TII/PII/PSR/AO.  And he will not admit it, explicitly.  AB = YWH.  No?

IOW, substance comes from entanglement.  Why should this still be a secret?  

Now, I have made an issue of the stability of matter, which has various attributions.  I point to Pauli exclusion.  More generally, let's look here..... http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~rajeev/phy246/lieb.pdf

Here is a later version...... http://arxiv.org/pdf/math-ph/0209034v1.pdf .

The exclusion principle is hardly sufficient for stability.  However, there is still no reference to the aether or entanglement.  We know that if gravity is included, then all bets are off, and we have singularity city, but we are just talking about 'ordinary' matter.....

Physics and other natural sciences are successful because physical phe- nomena associated with each range of energy and other parameters are ex- plainable to a good, if not perfect, accuracy by an appropriate self-consistent theory. This is true whether it be hydrodynamics, celestial dynamics, sta- tistical mechanics, etc. If low energy physics (atomic and condensed matter physics) is not explainable by a self-consistent, non-perturbative theory on its own level one can speak of an epistemological crisis.
Some readers might say that QED is in good shape. After all, it accurately predicts the outcome of some very high precision experiments (Lamb shift, g-factor of the electron). But the theory does not really work well when faced with the problem, which is explored here, of understanding the many-body (N ≈ 1023) problem and the stable low energy world in which we spend our everyday lives.

Lieb concludes.....

The results of this section suggest, however, that a significant change in the Hilbert space structure of QED might be necessary. We see that it does not seem possible to keep to the current view that the Hilbert space is a simple tensor product of a space for the electrons and a Fock space for the photons. That leads to instability for many particles (or large charge, if the idea of ‘particle’ is unacceptable). The ‘bare’ electron is not really a good physical concept and one must think of the electron as always accompanied by its electromagnetic field. Matter and the photon field are inextricably linked in the Hilbert space Hphys.

2:30--------

I'm asking if there might not be a connex btw the substantiality and the stability of matter, both involving a TII.



(cont.)

At Paul's behest, I have started reading Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (2008), a collection of essays by WL Craig, the well known apologist.  

Craig helps to clarify my dilemma between relationalism and substantivalism concerning space and time.  

My philosophical idealism has been grounded in Leibniz' relational idealism contrasted to Newton's absolute mechanism, but then we have Hume's skepticism leading to modern positivism wrt all things metaphysical.  In that context, the aether becomes a life-saver.  Do I thereby become a substantivalist?  Are not idealism and substantivalism naturally opposed?  

There is something here that I'm not getting.  


12:40---------

On odd thing that Craig points out, seemingly as a defeater of relationalism, is that it disallows contingency.  Only a substantive space seems to allow real contingency.  IOW, relations use up contingency.  We are back to the 'block' universe of Newtonian determinism.  Leibniz = Newton on this crucial level?  

Pre-established harmony = determinism?  No?  


5pm--------

On most accounts, Hume was skeptical of the self, as being another otiose metaphysical construct. This account is desribed as a bundle theory of self. OTOH, he also held the view that our understanding of the world would have to be subsidiary to our understanding of human nature. Undoubtedly, Kant made use of this insight.



(cont.)

Gary,

Thanks for this useful update on Max's earlier talk that you posted previously.  He seems to be retreating from the earlier talk, by here saying that anything and everything can function as an observer.  This is a peculiar version of panpsychism.  For example, he is saying that neutrinos are the main cause for the flatness of spacetime.  This is a rather extreme hypothesis.  

In fact, the larger problem is that neither measurement nor information have any sort of non-normative definition.  This fact, however, seems hardly to have penetrated the interminable scientific discussions thereof.  Science and philosophy are two ships, passing in the night.  

An excellent source on this subject is Information & the Nature of Reality (ed. Paul Davies, '10). No easy answers are given to the hard questions. OTOH, all of Max's interesting formulas can hardly make up for the glibness of his handwaving, with neutrinos being his quintessential 'subjects'.




(cont.)

There is an odd segment in the above video referencing the flatness of space, supposedly documented in a paper that Max did with Dan Roberts, but I can find no other reference to the alleged paper.  He posits the cosmic neutrino flux as the arbiters of the homogeneity of space.  

I'm fairly sure that this neutrino flux is Max's proxy for the Aether.  As such, it provides a valuable insight into the ontological imaginations of physicists.  

(later......)


7:15---------

Had lunch with Sam and Jack Alpert who is visiting from KC.  Tomorrow, we head up to the Age of Limits conference in PA.  

Jack has a better understanding of the BPWH, but remains skeptical.  He does admit that he has no new converts to his RPD proposal as outlined on his skil.org.  


Back to Max........

As I understand it, the point of the neutrino flux is to prevent the buildup of quantum fluctuations in the metric of (interstellar) space.  Such (post-inflation) fluctuations would show up as distortions in cosmic radiation.  We need to keep space nice and smooth, in order for space not to become a fog-bank..... no starry sky, for instance.  

Of course, as an immaterialist, I don't believe in quantum fluctuations, per se, but they may point to a bigger problem, which may also be designated with the problem of a universal wave function.  I have spoken of the idea that you and I are guiding that wave function from the Alpha to the Omega by means of our weak-measurements.  

We, creatures, are acting as a lens to focus the radiation from the Alpha/Source onto the best possible Omega/Telos.  It's just that simple.  


Here is a problem, one of many, that I've been reluctant to address..... It is the problem of the present.  If our CTC is eternal, what is there that distinguishes a synchronized Present?  This is a problem that is latent in all of spacetime physics.  

On the one hand, I claim that our best possible CTC is embedded in Eternity.  OTOH, we do seem to experience a commonly synchronized present.  How are these two PoV's to be reconciled?  

How can our entire CTC appear to be simultaneously present?  

Or, how can Now ever be re-experienced, for instance?  Can any particular Now only ever be experienced once?  All the Now's get used up?  This is certainly the conventional assumption.  Time is irreversible and unrepeatable.  

There is a large potential here for solipsism.  How can it be avoided?  

Maybe that's why we have such a communication problem..... each of us is only ever talking to time-locked zombies!  There has got to be a better answer.  

Perhaps the transactional interpretation of the present could give us a clue. In that case, the present is the meshing of two gear-wheels, or where the rubber meets the road. How can we keep from spinning our wheels or stripping our gears? We need a super-synchromesh.




(cont.)

I think we'd better step back a minute........

Here are the top three mysteries......

1.)  What are we?  

2.)  What is mind?  

3.)  What is time?  

These three questions are intimately related.  We are defined mainly by our minds, and our minds are defined mainly by their presence, or, IOW, by being present together in the universal Now.  

The ultimate question may then be simply.... what is Now?  More directly, how could there be such a thing as Now?  

Yes, sports fans, these are the three biggest questions facing us, and, yet, I'm not aware that anyone, before, has made a federal case of their intimate linkage...... mind, time and identity.  

How is identity related to time?  

Most of us can identify love, even, or especially, when it is absent.  If you are, hopefully, a normal infant, you may be able to identify love only by its occasional absence.  

Similarly, we identify time mostly by its absence or non-presence.  Besides time, there is the eternal shining Now or Presence.  And then there are those of us who are simply absent-minded.  

The greatest miracle of existence is its eternal Presence. And not one of us has the slightest clue what that is about. And how often do we ever stop to marvel?


I'm heading out to the AoL conf. Be back on Saturday......

Constructor theory

“In principle, everything possible in our universe could be written down in a big book consisting of nothing but tasks [and in] this big book will also be encoded all of the laws of physics.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-meta-law-to-rule-them-all-physicists-devise-a-theory-of-everything/

 I'm back, sports fans, and I think I have some new news........

Let's start with yesterday.......

Ron and I accompanied Aliyah to the Thomas Jefferson High School, to help her advertise the Kashmir World Foundation's wcUAVc at TJ's annual science expo.  Then along came lunchtime.  Ron and I were the first in line.  Pretty soon we were joined at the table by three women exhibitors, and then by a tall, well-dressed gentlemen, who knew Ron, and who Ron introduced as Bob.  

Now, I don't recall the exact sequence of the conversation, but I did do most of the talking, which was mostly my asking questions.  Early on, it turned out that Bob was to be the day's keynote speaker.  Naturally, I asked what he would be speaking about.  It was something about underwater vehicles.  

I turned to the young blond woman who was sitting next to me.  She  was doing something with astronomy.  Ok, like what?  She searches for planets.  Elaborate, please.  Small planets like the earth, looking for signs of life.  I told her that I was opposed to that.  She looked surprised.  Well, I was not opposed to the search, but rather opposed to there being life on other planets.  More surprise.  

So I explained that I was sort of a christian.  She works at the Harvard Observatory.  I asked if she knew the christian who used to work there, whose name I couldn't remember.  No, she didn't.  So I asked if she knew of Donald Menzel, and she did, and I said that he had been acquainted with my Dad.  

Then I asked about SETI.  Maybe that's how I got to the chistian thing.  And then I mentioned the fact that Donald, before he was an astronomer, had worked for the Navy, and was known to have been investigating USOs in the Pacific during WWII.  No response.  

I then turned back to Bob and asked if he had found any USO's.  Sure, he said, and when he found them, they became ISO's.  At about that point, Bob and the three women got up and left.  

Ron then turned to me and stated that Bob was a fraud.  This is a term that Ron frequently uses wrt his acquaintances, along with loons, crooks or worse.  No, actually, I think I may have just misremembered.  I can't recall his having used that term before, so maybe that's why my antenae went up.  

Ok, so why is he a fraud?  Well, he didn't actually find the Titanic.  What?!  You mean you didn't recognize him?  No.  Didn't you watch the movie?  Yes.  Well, that was Robert Ballard.  Oh, so why is he a fraud?  He didn't actuall find the Titanic.  He was just a cover story.  

What was being covered up?  

The fact that it had been discovered ten years earlier.  

How?  

By the folks who were installing the North Atlantic grid of underwater detectors.

Ok, Ron, if you guys are so clever, why haven't you been able to find MH370?  

But we have.  

So why withold the news?  Well, we want to embarrass the Chinese.  In fact, the Imarsat data was deliberately faked, just to mislead them.  

Fine, but what about the relatives?  

Well, the victims are already dead, just the same.  

But what about denying closure to them?  Well, the longer we wait, the more embarrased will the Chinese be.  

I also have a fraud detector.  My fraud detector lit up.  

Just like Ron says I'm half crazy, I say that he is half lying.  Our only problem is to figure out which have is which.  

But we should already know the answer, if we had been watching the news........

Do you remember that wonderful news clip of the two Chinese guys,  out in the rubber dinghy, with one of them holding an acoustic detector under the water?  Hmmm...... Who's embarrassing whom?  It seems that the Chinese are participating in their own embarrassment.  What do they say about the Chinese, and losing face?  Something is definitely not computing.  

See, today I'm reminded of a similar situation that I recall from about sixty years ago. And, yes, this involved my Dad's friend, Donald.

My mother was reading to me from the Harvard astronomy series that was edited by Donald. That would place it at about 63 years ago, give or take. She caught me up to the end, by which time I was reading them myself. It may have been the last in the series.
If it was the one published in 1953, I would have been 10. It had 'flying saucers' in the title, and was leather bound, like the rest of the series. What stuck in my mind was the stick in the glass of water. Somehow, the apparent bending of the stick was supposed to demonstrate that flying saucers were just some sort of mirage. Did I stop to wonder. Of course not. Not then, anyway, and not until some time in the 90's.

And now, do you see the possible linkage between that stick in that water, and the Chinese officer holding the acoustic detector over the side of the rubber dinghy? And, while you're at it, you might want to recall a third such incident, with another famous physicist, with another water-glass experiment, very much much in the public spotlight, and then set that aside, for the nonce.




(cont.)

Good story Dan, but will Ron confirm it?

Gary,

And that is a good question, but there is a much more important question....... When do we want Ron to confirm it?  

Yes, Gary, when, indeed?!  

First we need to figure out what is actually being disclosed, don't we?  And that is not a simple question, is it?  

Back to your question...... Confirmation from Ron.......

Ok, but to whom do you want Ron to confirm this story?  To you?  To OM, or, just perhaps, to the world?  

But even before we get to that point, don't we also have to ask which is more important, is it the message or the medium?

Let's suppose, for the nonce, that Ron is not lying about the fact that MH370 was never actually lost, but, secondly, that this fact was being covered up just to embarrass the Chinese.  So we have two very distinct parts of Ron's story, one of which is rather more believable than the other, IMHO.  

IOW, it seems that Ron is giving us a challenge.  Can we figure out which part of the story is true, and then figure out what is the real purpose of the coverup?  

I've already answered the first part.  What then is the real reason, and is it more about the message or the medium?  

Ok, Smith, cut to the chase.........

Obviously, to me, anyway, it is about the medium.  IOW, the real story will then be about me, the medium, would it not be?  Or, am I just being messy-antic, as Jack S is wont to say?  

Ok, maybe I'm just the epitome of an egotist....... or not, as Kit would say.  

Ok, suppose I'm not just being an egotist, but rather that I'm just like the poor sucker in the army who volunteers for a tough assignment.  

What is the assignment?  Well, it's still the same assignment that I thought I got, back in 1977..... you know..... John 16:12ff.  Back then I cried for three days.  Now, I just have 'eight martinis', but I don't drink liquor, do I?  Not if there is an ample supply of wine!!  

Hey, Gary, is this rocket science, or is it brain surgery?  I can recall when you and I used to have many, lengthy convos.  What happened to your phone?  Or am I now talking to Ron, or one of his minions?  

Should I care?  Not really.  This is not about you, is it, Gary?  

Is it about me, then.......? Not really. Who is it about? It is about the rest of you. You wish me luck..... I wish you luck.

Luck? Does God play dice with the Universe? Albert and I are on the page with this one...... How could the omniscient creator possibly play dice? I think I've said it before....... there is only one thing that an omniscient deity can't do........ play dice. Am I right about that?

Yes, and no...........

An omniscient deity could play dice, but only after getting seriously drunk. Hey, folks, that sounds like a great idea, just about now. Am I wrong?

Mad Max says it's not about the dice, it's all about determining your address in the set of possbile outcomes.

Things are moving ahead at a faster pace, and I highly value my connection with OMF.

I am looking to help to reinvigorate this forum, and I will need all the help I can get.

If anyone would like to speak with me personally, just send me a PM or contact me at danthroopsmith at gmail.

Thank you.

From: Cloud Rider
Date: May 30, 2014, 12:35:42 PM EDT
To: Jack and Dan
Cc:
Ron, Gary, Art Wagner, George Knapp, Kim, David G, Paul, Saul-Paul, Nick Herbert
Subject: Re: Is Dan Smith The One (Betty Andeasson, May 1980) ;-)


Here is McKenna's context... but first, play this as a soundtrack for "all this."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANNqr-vcx0


Now, for those of you who don't remember the Sixties... but were there... proceed:

http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/170/psychedelica_victoriana.html

As for Betty A.'s? And as for Dan's being the Big E (as in THE Eschatology Personified) ???

Who, pray tell, cares? At least, he's not (as yet) a "shooter." Alas, Poor Dan...

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/metastuff/wonder/ch5.html



In a message dated 5/30/2014 11:44:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Jack writes:


Begin forwarded message:

From: art wagner
Subject: The One (Betty Andeasson, May 1980)
Date: May 30, 2014 at 4:40:23 PM GMT+1
To: JACK SARFATTI, Gary Bekkum

Where are you?
I’m before this huge great big door. It’s glass. Layers and layers of glass.
What are you standing on?
Glass.
Let me ask you now: You’re going to see the One now, right?
Yeah.
Why are you going to see the One?
Because it is time for me, they said, for me to go home to see the One.
All right, in other words, does this imply that the One is someone that you have seen before?
I don’t remember.
Okay. Do you know why it is time to see the One? Why haven’t you asked questions?
They haven’t been there very often. Those little people haven’t been there very much for me to ask.
Yeah, but they are asking you to do a lot of things, shall we say.
I know. But, I’m in their place. I can’t do anything.
Okay. In a moment you’re going to see the One, right? We don’t want to waste the experience. We want to get the most out of it. So when you see the One, I want you to ask yourself: "What am I getting out of this? Why am I here? And, what will this mean to me later on in my life?" It’s like any big experience a person is allowed to have. Okay? I want you to progress to where the door is open and you are seeing the One.
Oh!
[At that very moment, an indescribable smile came over Betty’s face. The only adjective that the investigators could think of to describe it is rapturous. This expression of pure, unrestricted happiness remained on Betty’s face as the hypnotist continued to question her.]
--------

"... What was said was that culture is the shock wave of eschatology. Nothing is unannounced. This is like a weird quality of experience, you can't learn this from physics or economics. (Maybe you can learn it from economics.) Nothing is unannounced. Everything is preceded by the shock wave of its coming. So somehow the spreading zaniness of reality is part of the boundary-dissolving qualities that are going to make up this new cultural mix of disembodied human beings, nanotechnologically-maintained environments, dissolved self-definitions, people living at many levels at the same time; intelligence as a kind of free-flowing non-local resource that comes and goes as needed; prosthesis, implant, boundary dissolution -- these things are usually presented as fairly terrifying. But in fact I think behind it all lurks, you know, the demons who do calisthenics in the angles of every room on this planet to keep it all from collapsing into a flat line."
-- Terence McKenna [ 1946-2000 ]

Well, it has been a long twelve days that began that previous Wednesday morning, when I picked up Jack Alpert at the BWI airport, and ended at 3pm, today, when I told Ron that I thought it best to temporarily decline Aliyah's kind offer to cohost a D-day party.  In telling me that he was unaware of Aliyah's offer, he did help to confirm my thinking in regard to the party.  

But were those last twelve days worthwhile?  Certainly they were for me, but it did seem that the learning curve was beginning to trend downward, so it seemed appropriate to pull back from that line of attack.  

There were several highlights, IMHO..........

1.)  The very idea of academics and Druids getting together for five days to discuss the collapse of civilization into a 'zombie apocalypse'.  Definitely up there on the weirdness scale.  

2.)  What I thought was Gail Tverborg's economic model predicting the collapse of the credit system in 2015.  It turned out that I was the only one who saw that particular date on her slide.  Others reported seeing 2020 or 2030.  A strange form of optical illusion, I thought.  

3.)  Ron telling me, at the TJ high school science expo, last wednesday, that we had never actually lost track of MH370, and were deliberately misleading the Chinese with faked ImarSat data.  

4.)  Aliyah, yesterday, offering to co-host the D-day party.  

But I guess that all good things must end, at least temporarily.  

5.)  And let's not forget that email exchange, on Friday, with Jack Sarfatti wondering if I'm the One, and Dick Farley being thankful that I've not yet become a shooter.  Yes, Dick, we must all count our blessing's!  

So, yes, those were the twelve days of May.  

Ooops, how could I forget......

6.)  What I now count as the scariest dream of my life, this last wednesday night, when, for a few moments, I thought I was on an airliner that was being 'abducted', with colored lights flashing all around.  Maybe that Chinese naval officer, holding the acoustic detector over the side of the rubber dinghy, rather than being embarrassed, was participating in the grandest deception of all time..... or not.

6a.)  Or was it 9/11?  In any case, why did Ron feel that it was his duty to so inform me, in both instances?  Inquiring minds might wish to know.

6b.)  Sam, at our lunch on Thursday, asked me to call Ron to see if my earlier posting might have breached national security.  Ron reassured Sam that no one read my posts, anyway.  Thank you, Ron!

Hey, folks, never fear, your state secrets are safe with Chicken Little!


And, hey, again, we're still not quite finished.......

7.)  I had been thinking of inviting Deborah to the D-day party, but was holding off calling her until I could speak with her friend, Jane.  But when I went to the Times this morning, I saw there had been a plane-crash at the nearby commuter airport.  Hanscom field has an excellent safety record.  I believe that last previous fatality was in about 1980 when a small plane crashed, just nicking the roof of her home in Concord.  I asked her to call back, if she wanted to hear any other news.  But Deborah, unlike me, is just not a party person.

The gods must be crazy. What else could it be??

Had a brief convo with Ron, this morning.  Here's the deal, sports fans.......

I can have any kind of party I want, so long as it is also my retirement party.  Like they say, the only good saint is a retired saint.  

Ok, so when shall it be?  Hmmm.......  Well, based on Gail's economic model, it should be no later than next year, so, Ron, how about this time, next year, when I can be a blushing June retiree?  Hey, Dan, whatever your little heart desires.  


Back to MH370, etc.......

Ron is not encouraging my further speculations along these lines, no, not at all.  Last night I went so far as to google 'titanic bodies', and there was my lunch-mate, Bob B speculating that, of course, there would be intact bodies in the interior comparments.  

Ok, Ron, so why haven't we peeked in a porthole?  Hmmm.......

MH370.....?  No body parts?  Nah!  The fishies eat them.  Do they eat the teeth and dentures, too?  Hmmm.......  

So, you can see how far my investigation into MH370 is going to get.  But, sports fans, I would put big bucks on that scary dream, lacking any material evidence.


And what about the putative flight tracking?  On every plane, or just on 370?  Hmmm.... wonders I.  Ron did admit to special sensors on the Carnival boats.  On MH370, why the heck not?  But who is tracking whom, and to what end, and who has a need to know?  Surely not I!  


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

A year ago, I would have died to be on this mailing list......

From: Jack Sarfatti
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 4:24 AM
To: Brian Josephson
Cc: Chris Langan; Paul Zielinski; Robert Addinall; Lubos Motl; David Deutsch; David Kaiser; Fred Wolf; nick herbert; creon levit; Saul-Paul Sirag; Seth Lloyd; Bj Carr; Dean Radin; Russell Targ; David Gladstone; Kim Burrafato; George Knapp; John Alexander; Ruth Elinor Kastner; Gary S Bekkum; art wagner; Dan Smith; Ronald P; jim woodward; Jagdish Mann; Hal Puthoff; John Cramer; Menas Kafatos; XBenford; Harry Yesian; Lenny Susskind; Tony Valentini; Guido Bacciagaluppi; G. t Hooft; Max Tegmark; Timothy Ferris; Henry P. Stapp; Basil Hiley; Maurice Alexis de Gosson de Varennes; Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr.; Peter Woit; Phil Vixra; Carlos Castro; Tony Smith; Tim Palmer

Subject: Re: The Reference Frame: Constructor theory: Deutsch and Marletto are just vacuously bullšiting

My point here is that evolution is driven mostly from our future cosmic dark energy horizon not merely accidents from past to present.
This is already implicit in
Wheeler Feynman
Hoyle Narlikar
Teilhard de Chardin
Cramer
Aharonov ...

Now, all I have to do is retire.  Times do change, or not.  



(cont.)

Title for a book about Dan?

"Your state secrets are safe with Chicken Little!"

Now, regarding Occam and Tegmark's Level 1 and Level 3 fungibility argument ... News from the parallel worlds ... via e-mail earlier today:

And since many worlds predicts all possible outcomes, in at least one world "out there" Jack has been viewed over two-billion times on YouTube dancing Gangnam Style with PSY instead of 4Minute's HyunA ;-)


Now THAT would be an argument against the MWH!

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/psys-gangnam-style-video-passes-2bn-youtube-views-9465797.html


Or not! The mind boggles at the possibility (the Ron and Dan show?) ...

Added note for Dan:

Tegmark suggests this reference paper as background:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0102010v2.pdf

From the above referenced paper, concerning LEVEL 1 parallel worlds (not the quantum many worlds, but other versions of our own universe sharing the same space in which we exist):


The existence of O-regions with all possible histories, some of them identical or nearly
identical to ours, has some potentially troubling implications. Whenever a thought crosses
your mind that some terrible calamity might have happened, you can be assured that it has
happened in some of the O-regions. If you nearly escaped an accident, then you were not so
lucky in some of the regions with the same prior history. On a positive side, some amusing
situations can be entertained where distant copies of ourselves play all sorts of different
roles. Some readers will be pleased to know that there are infinitely many O-regions where
Al Gore is President and - yes - Elvis is still alive.


This raises the problem of determining one's personal "address" in the set of all possible worlds as well as a more subtle problem -- fungible states of consciousness and their potential relationship to real but very distant events.

Yes, sports fans, things are begining to move right along, and this is happening on several fronts.  I don't know how much I'll be able to blog coherently about what is going on, and about what may be reasonably anticipated.  

The skinny of it is that a year from now is the drop-dead date, or D^2-day.  But once we set our minds to this deadline, then the challenge is to bring about the best possible disclosre (BPD) within the least possible time.  Am I right?  And virtually all I have to do now is put my money where my mouth has been for the last forty years.  So I'm shooting for six months, as an easy target date.  Maybe too easy.  

Feel free to offer any and all suggestions, up to and including.... drop dead, Smith, or show us the money!  

Perhaps I should hire someone to be my interlocutor wrt OM.  And/or a small contingent of volunteers might also work.


But, hey, don't all speak at once......!  


11:05----------

As I say, things continue to move on several fronts.  On the home front, I have just turned all of my assets over to Throop.  Any hiring decisions will have to be approved by him or his delegate.  

Welcome to the New World Order, sports fans.


.

Why don't you begn by explaining what D^2 DAY is all about?

To celebrate D^2 DAY we will be featuring our Dan Smith interview this weekend!

http://www.starpod.us/2012/10/12/dan-smith-interview-part-one/

By the way Dan, re: a Best Possible Dance event for a Best Possible World, SK has already done this on their end. The whole show, held at the DMZ miles from the North, took place last August. The entire show is online at YouTube. Of course, I envision a much larger event, crowd funded, held simultaneously in major metropolitan areas around the globe, using holographic projection technology to share performances.

Girl's Day (intentionally or unintentionally?) tease the NK propagandists making sexist remarks about President Park at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rz_fnhu3vU&feature=share&t=51m18s

Gary,

I'm not suggesting that you give up your day job, today.  But hiring you to be my general interlocutor/PR person would be high on the list of my suggested priorities to Throop.

About D^2-day....... It is a somewhat convoluted, but still interesting, story, about which my verbal skills now exceed my typing skills.  How much would you charge per minute to allow me to explain it to you over the phone.  And I do trust that you still have my #.  


I have just left a voice message at Gary's old number. I have not been able to speak with him in years, but I think I will remember his voice, for identification purposes.

.

I'm on my way to SF to meet with Paul and Jack as a followup on Jack's recent sojourn and hobnobbing in Europe.  

He gave an important talk in Catania, Sicilly.  


2:20-------

Have a two hour lay over in Philadelphia. At Ron's suggestion, I've invited Larry F to hop on the plane with me to SF, or join us there later.



(cont.)