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.

Cyrellys
8:19 AM (22 minutes ago)

to Naconah, Bob, Lei, Cliff, Paul, Melody, Nicolas, Bo, Bob, chromedome505, Joe, Lost, Liberty, Fati, Nona, Doug, Elias, bogeydriver, CloudRider, Patrick, Susan, Rodney


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cyrellys
Date: Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: archive link
To: Dan Smith
Cc: MPD , Patrick Allen , Ronald Pandolfi , jake_reason , Rodney Richter , Gus Russo , Sam B Hopkins , Gary S Bekkum , Jack Sarfatti , Paul Zielinski


Dan,

I already expressed to you several years ago, back on OMFv1 you were wrong on your BPWH, but that you had some things accurate. You disregarded my comments to you. And you disregarded information I shared with you regarding my background that could have lent you some insight to make adjustments. And in the last thirty days you published on your threads a list of assumptions about myself which were patently incorrect. And I let it all slide. I support your efforts because you are making effort. Sometimes epiphany comes best from personal experience so I did not interfere, except to rebuke where it transgressed into eugenics or the tools there-of, which is something of a pet peeve of our Creator who values life above all else.

I would agree with Ron on Francis. The Pope's people maintain one of the most efficient and thorough intelligence apparatus in the world. They have a two thousand year old history of not missing much. And in fact may even be in many respects better informed than MJ12 groups...I wonder are we still referring to the Contact Control Structure in terms of Project Preserve Destiny and PI-40? I am aware the Council on Foreign Relations is still in a leadership position, but I did wonder if Brzezinski retained involvement after he bailed out of Obummer's mess?

Perhaps that is something to do with the toxicity comments that emerged when Obummer's handlers had greater allegiance to their depopulationist masters than to the black swan of the Contact equation?

I doubt even the Pope can rein in what they've set in motion. And does anyone honestly think someone from the heart of the nazi international will sing to the tune of the usupers so readily? It seems to me, they've initiated their own plan in lieu of what has gone on in the last six years. So much for Labyrinth's brain enhancement.

Cy

From: Dan
Date: October 6, 2014, 10:50:22 AM EDT
To: Cyrellys
Cc: five others

Subject: Re: archive link

Cy,

Thank you for this prompt and cogent response.  And, yes, I do agree that you and I are having some communication difficulties.  

It behooves us, therefore, to make every effort to increase our mutual understanding, ASAP, in light of the potential we have here wrt an imminent Disclosure, and the followup thereto.  

I will continue posting our exchanges on my section at OMF, to enhance the exposure.  However, whenever you wish, we might also benefit from private exchanges in an email, chat or voice context.  I did recently send you my phone number, to this effect.  

It does appear, for instance, that you and I often talk past each other when it come to the scope and relevance of divine providence wrt human affairs.  We need to understand how we might most beneficially agree and disagree on this topic.

Dan

From: Dan
Date: October 6, 2014, 11:31:46 AM EDT
To: Gary
Cc: Cyrellys and four others

Subject: Endtimes

Gary,

I do not, and never have, believed that the Endtimes were imminent.

The sudden, premature and chaotic ending of human history would obviously contradict the BPWH.

I have always maintained that human history will not be complete until our salvation is complete, which is not likely to transpire for another thousand years, or at the end of our promised Millennial Kingdom.

What is imminent, Gary, is simply Disclosure, per se.

I would urge that we continue this discussion in public on the OMF. I am also open to private communication, at any time. I have tried to call you on several occasions.

Dan

cc: OMF


On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Gary wrote:

Sorry Dan, apparently the end of times has been put on a temporary hiatus. Our world line branched off that particular path in the spring of 2013. This is similar to the branching that took place in late 1983. Will let you know if there has been any further developments in that regard!

(Btw, I wonder if Tom Drake, former NSA official, discussing "magic" and anomalous phenomena on Coast to Coast was making an allusion to MAJIC as in MJ-12 and the NSA? See the cover of Bamford's "The Shadow Factory."


Gary

STARstream Research

Cy and I had a lengthy convo yeasterday, in fact, after all these years, it was our first.  

As I suspected, there were fewer sparks on the phone than on the forum.  I agreed that most of her suspicions concerning conspiracies related to disclosures and eschatology were probably well-founded.  

On Sunday, after the SfA, I entertained a few die-hards with tales of the CIA, UFO's and the Vatican.... a perfect syzygy/maelstrom for the Antichrist.  But they did agree that had the CIA bothered to go to central casting they probably could have found a more convincing AC.  

Cy came off sounding a bit more sympathetic with capitalism than did I.  Both of us see the maintainance of sociopolitical continuity as the first priority for the near-term.  

Cy sees capitalism as a defense against a totalitarian government.  I agree with that, but it may not be easy to separate big government and big capital.  It would be fair to say that Cy is more concerned about totalitarianism, and I'm more concerned about tribalism.  It will be a brave new world, regardless.  


9:10--------

Been fascinated with Jung's Answer to Job, which also deals extensively with the book of Revelation.  All very apropos to the BPW.  


Spoke with John S about the Filioque, and how it comes between the Roman and the Orthodox churches, apropos of possible meeting with CB&co.


Colton F is working on the Academia section at KWF......

https://sites.google.com/a/kashmirworldfoundation.org/academia/


Sister, D, is taking a course on Wm James' Variety of Rel Exp. I would love see a comparison between James and Jung.



(cont.)

I received this forwarded from Sarfatti; unvetted but interesting, nonetheless:

On Oct 7, 2014, at 10:33 PM, xxx wrote:

Aloha Dan, 


Thank you for your encouragement and inspiration in our meeting this summer. It was a pleasure to meet you, and a delight to learn more about your ideas regarding life, the universe and everything, as well as the profound mystery inherent in the phenomenology problem. 

[rest of message deleted at CA's request.....]

From: Dan
Date: October 8, 2014, 2:18:53 PM EDT
To: Gary
Cc: Christopher A
Subject: Re: Touching base, Dan Throop Smith - Utrecht NSA SIGINT precognitive remote viewing programs,

I did meet Chris at Jack's place in SF, but heard nothing further until this latest missive, of which there seem to be other versions in circulation, some seemingly addressed to me.  I don't know who sent any of this to Jack.  I have not attempted to confirm any of Altman's story.  

WYSIWYG.......


On Oct 8, 2014, at 11:24 AM, Gary wrote:

You are mentioned below ... maybe Dan Smith will comment on this?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: JACK SARFATTI
Date: Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: Touching base, Dan Throop Smith - Utrecht NSA SIGINT precognitive remote viewing programs,

On Oct 7, 2014, at 10:33 PM, CA wrote:


Aloha Dan,

Thank you for your encouragement and inspiration in our meeting this summer. It was a pleasure to meet you, and a delight to learn more about your ideas regarding life, the universe and everything, as well as the profound mystery inherent in the phenomenology problem.

Within a day or two of our meeting, I'd been contacted under two particularly unusual contexts—the first, by a close friend of my brother's, a precognitive dreamer

[........]
Ad astra per alas fidelis,

C

In continuing preparation for the proposed meeting with CB and OP, I have been studying up on the trinity, noting the Filioque and the Great Schism of 1054.......

If I were to be a heretic in these regards, I would lean toward Modalism, at the least.  I would also reject the patriarchal/monarchial view of the trinity, in favor of a matriachal view.  

Furthermore, I would place the Logos aspect as key to Creation, as opposed to an arbitrary will.  Next to the trinitarian view, I would place the zodiacal view, as a subordinate modalism.  Thus do we accomodate the AZO/X/QRP and the 4M/K/SoT/X2.  Well, sports fans, they both add up to seven, now don't they!  See, I may not be quite as stupid as I look.  


As to Chris A's story, I would suggest that it is worth looking into.  What little of it that was posted here by Gary has been deleted at Chris' request.



(cont.)

Oct 9, '14------- Enroute to Montreal

Topics for RH meeting and for Boat.......

* Does the world need to be saved? End of progress? - Overshoot

* Copernicus - ETH v. UTH - Christocentrism

* Aviary, aquarium, eschatology - ORC - MJ12

* MoAPS - SWH - BPWH - immaterialism - CTC

* 4M/K/SoT/X2

* CohTT

* Omega - Teihard

* panentheism - monopsychism - Apocatastasis

* Modalism - trinitarian -

* world soul

* knowledge implosion

* Thomas Nagel - mind-body - impersonal intelligence? - Personalism

* Metamorphosis - chrysalis

* self-revealing v. self-concealing

----------------- 4:15pm in Canada ----------

9:55---------

Co-Creators


Oct 10, --- Montreal

What I'm lacking is any compelling reason for immediate disclosure.


1:30---- enroute to Quebec - via rail Canada - ~110mph

What is the urgency to activate ORC? We don't want to do this in the midst of an emergency, do we?

TBMK, I am not the timer, but that could change. Ocelot and ferret? If I have anything to say about it, we'll be safe than sorry.

All I have to do is point to the plausibility of the MoAPS, on the one hand, and the plausibility of the Tribulation, OTOH.

RH is already on record as entertaining the likelihood of the Tribulation. I point to Ron's involvement as a likely signifier. I was not the one arranging for this meeting, now was I?

Given that I do not have to prove immediacy, I have only to demonstrate inevitability, on which the three parties already agree.

Then we have to consider the question of geocentricity, anthropocentricity or christocentricity.

We can discuss the history of the church's involvement with Galileo and UFO's.

I also point to the implication that it is Francis rather than Barry who is MJ1, and that this implies the UTH/SWH. Disclosure is not seen as a secular/scientific event.

The next priority item is to discuss the ecumenism of the panentheism contained in the BPWH.

I do have a hard time getting past the probability that CK, CB and OP will be hostile witnesses, wrt the BPWH.  Yes, they probably will be, but that does not mean I should assume it from the outset.  

Rather, should we not be conspiring to help the PtB out of a tight spot?  And, wrt the PtB, we're just starting with Francis, and the global conglomerate that he represents.  

Even supposing that Francis were sympatico, how could he possible signal that without causing a scandal?

Well, there are many ways that PF could signal his sympathies to a targeted audience, that would not be a problem. In fact, he must already have done so, we might suppose.



(cont.)

Of course, who cares what any individual or institution thinks about UFO's or the end of the world?  It would make sense only in a global or historical context, which, per force, does not exist.

Someone would have to compose a definitive history, but who could do that, starting from scratch?  They would need access to the Red or Yellow books, supposing that such tomes even existed.  

It is entirely possible that CK could have arranged for this meeting with CB and OP just on his own recognizance, for some ulterior or hidden reason, personal or institutional.  Would anyone at the NYT want to stake their reputation on someone else's whim?  Would anyone notice if the National Enquirer ran yet another UFO story?  

The point is that the glass ceiling wrt Disclosore has become very thick, over the generations.  It is hard to imagine what it would take to break that ceiling, other than the proverbial landing on the White House lawn.  It would have to be shock and awe, or nothing at all.  


4:40--------

The other, and likely preferable, path to disclosure is through the MoAPS, but this path would seem less likely to involve the church.  It would need to appeal to the intellignentsia, in the first instance, but there is no reason why the church could not involve itself in, or even initiate such an appeal.  In that case the mj13 business could be left as implicit.  

I would suggest that a renewed inquiry into the existence of the human soul would be historically timely.  If I were to be included in such an initiative in any non-trivial manner, the further implications could be ascertained, without being made explicit.  

At what later point would it be more timely than now for the church to call the scientific community to task for its attempted extirpation of the human soul?  For how much longer can the church pretend to be oblivious to this subversion?  

The only comperable effort is on the part of the evangelical community in advancing intelligent design.  But frankly, the ID concept concedes too much to materialism, from the outset.  Much more useful conceptually would be a broadly based notion of teleology, which lends itself to a solution to the mind-body problem, and then suggests a non-materialistic understanding of the world, leaving open the distinct possibility of a MoAPS.

Yes, if anyone with authority within the Church wishes to signal a serious reversal in our long march into scientific materialism, this would be the obvious point of departure.




(cont.)

http://www.starpod.us/2014/10/13/nsa-core-secrets-leaked-document/

Now we wait for a response.....

Yes, the institution of the Church, especially when juxtaposed with R,A&D, does allow for an optimal degree of flexibility wrt disclosure.  

IOW, cooperation amongst diverse segments of the PtB can be very beneficial when it comes to filtering and softening the impact of.... potentially earthshaking developments.  

This is how we may best avoid any sort of in-your-face, stop-the-presses, situation.  Yes?  Any other suggestions?  


IOW, there is nothing to prevent our OP from serving as an informal spokesperson wrt to ORC/rome.  Thus do we maintain an HOP, hands off policy (Orme), back at the ranch, that is.  It is just crystal clear.  


11:30-------

Both science and religion have grown too comfortable with the notion of the two, non-overlapping magisteria. It is not that simple. Incoherence reigns. Material progress with its attendant capitalism has provided the political foundation for a technocratic securalism. Quite possibly, quite likely we are facing the end of that regime.

Do we need a replacement? Well, we may need a new consensus as to who we are, from whence we came and whither we go. We may need a rational basis for cohesion, beyond mere survival. Or can we live and let live just for bread alone? Maybe yes, maybe no. Should we renounce the high road, without our due diligience?



(cont.)

Leaving Montreal for Baltimore by train.......

No word from the royal family.  The radio silence is a bit unusual of late.  Would CK suggest arrangements that never existed?  It is possible, of course.  

Anyone for second thoughts?  It won't be easy to walk this back.  

Is there light at the end of the ebola tunnel, or is that the e-train coming?  


11:10-------  At the border.....

Oct 15, '14 ------ Enroute from Montreal to Baltimore.  Adirondack/Amtrak.  

Short convo w/ ck.   Call tomorrow.  

What's to lose from making this minimal op/orc connection?  A simple precaution.  A minimal hedge on the future.  What would come next?  That would be the main agenda item.  Oh, yes, it was to meet with individual academics.  And maybe to get back to RtB.  Then we'll get to compare the social models of more central and less central for the nwo.  Any suggestions? Speak now........

Why will it have taken 23 years of R&D, just to meet with an academic under something more than my own recognizance?  An abundance of caution?  But, yes, this would surely activate the academic jungle drums.  I can hardly wait.  When will academic blogs pick up the beat?  

Should we encourage, or not, such dissemination?  From every indication up to now, dissemination will have to be pushed, if anything is going to happen.  Such request would need to be sanctioned by credible gov't authority.  Anything less than potus would be suspect.  Invoking such would then trigger the press briefing scenario, as long ago anticipated.  This puts us back to square one.  

We see how far we can get with just invoking francis w/o barry.  Francis doesn't do briefings like the wh.  He has more wiggle room, more formality, etc.  


6:30---------- on the Hudson.....

Should there be a third party to be a proxy for mj?  That would come after any academic foray.  Op is that, now, by (my) assumption.  Someone else could be designated.  

Folks could assume that this is a rogue operation, which is partially correct, in any case.  The PtB could rightfully deny any knowledge.  As long as the grey lady finds this news to be unfit, we are in the clear.  

If the meeting is still on, then I go into it making these many assumptions. If there is much resistance, I can claim to have been set up. End of story? Perhaps.



(cont.)

Back from Quebec.......

No news, just some recap.  There are three Catholic universities in the Balt/DC area.  The first step, after meeting w/ cb&op, would be to check in with the phil/theo depts at these institutions, to see if I can make any more inroads than I was able to do, back in the '90's, with just the occasional reference to ck.  After one or more of those, I would head back to jhu, and pick up with E2SHI.  A trip to the eternal city might only be a distraction, IMHO.  

IF there is significant progress with phil/theo, then we can begin to strategize our endgame.  Basically we would be trying to thread the needle between rome and dc.  A third party may emerge, such as in the uk.  Which horse is the most shy of the starting gate?  We would need two to gang up on the one with the least to lose.  

And, while negotiating with the principals, we would be keeping an eye on the blogosphere, to see if that domain could become the primary instigator. This latter possibility was always the first choice, from way back with FidoNet and CompuServe in early '91. Then the PtB could simply arrange to live and let live.



(cont.)

And this is from Sam........

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke......

http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982


And, yes, the meeting is still on, and never more than a week away.  And one slight ammendment is that the OP may be of the Eastern Rite, which is not quite the same as the EO, now, is it?  


But this brings up another point..... everything, besides the BPWH, is, by definition, a cult, and, yes, everything else includes science, especially.  Will I get away with this?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  

So, yes, sports fans, the BPWH is the unCult, practically by definition, given the CohTT.  Reason begins with the CohTT, and ends with the CorTT.  Any questions?  Reason begins with Agape and ends with Agape.  Everything else is chaos..... is atoms and galaxies swerving in the dark.  


Wrt the Great Schism of 1054, do see Hesychasm and the Jesus Prayer, besides the Filioque. And, while we're at it, what the heck is apostolic succession?




(cont.)

Meeting still not scheduled.  RAD together on friday for several hours, mostly at the microsoft store conducting a drone workshop, with over a dozen students assembling quadcopters from various components.  It is a lot of work for R&A to conduct these workshops, culminating in a flight day.  I looked after Kashmir.  Back home, A&I discussed the meeting, while R did office work and made interjections.  A memorable one of which was that Protestants were not trinitarian.  I expressed my non-amusement.  Like I say, the meeting remains in abeyance.  


In the meantime, I have been studying the Nakayama paper.....

http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0884v4 .

I am still trying to wrap my mind around the renormalization group, scale and conformal invariance, and assymptotic symmetry, and how they relate to holography.  It is a dense, 145p work.  Paul Z claims that he can see some glimmers of the SWH herein.  I'm having difficulty with the Witten conjecture, in this regard.  

OTOH, I've been working on Christology as it might relate to the abeyed meeting.  Here are some basic notions..... substance, essence, nature, physis, theosis, apocatastasis.  Do note the zodiacal references wrt the latter.  We moderns think of substance as matter, but that is not what the ancients had in mind.  We have to find our way back to the substantial.  

Leibniz' last two essays were on the topic of apocatastasis.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocatastasis#Stoicism .  Thus did he embrace monism, we may suppose, supposing that the individual monads were not aboriginal.  

Thus armed, I will confront CB&OP with the BPWH, should CK decide to stop playing games.

I am also supposing that unitarity and universalism are related concepts.  Nothing is lost within redemption.  Nothing is irredeemable.  The IR and UV points are the A/O.  The renormalization group must be ouroboric, which is to say that it is.... recursively conformal, or something like that.  

Within this context, do note the various passive/active uses of the Logos.  

Also, in this context, I do need to keep in mind Paul's review of Langan's CTMU.... Chris is attempting to revive formalism and logicism in the context of Wheeler and Kant.  


One might suspect that gauge and conformal symmetries are related. Paul does have a problem with gauge theories, in as much as they have little physical content. They are bookkeeping methods, not suited to any physical intuition. He relates this to the problem with the equivalence principle and the ether.



(cont.)

I'm trying to remember what it was like, before the proposed meeting with CB/OP.  I'm finding it difficult.  There was that first mention of mj, in connection with a boat trip, and that mention was what, three months ago?  These came under the rubric of ORC.  Before that was Alaska.  Before that was 23 years of inuendo and patience, interspersed with some trips to SF and a couple of radio shows.  There was the cruise in March, followed by the trip to soCal in ~July.  But now, with CB, my patience is wearing thin.  Oh, wait, also after the boat trip, there was talk of my 'retirement' party coming next June.  And there was the Druid camp meeting in June, featuring Gail and Dennis.  Gail pointed to 2015 as the year of what others were calling the zombie apocalypse.  Yes, there has been a bit of lead-up.  I'm trying to think of one thing that happened in 2013.  It's not registering.  

Sam and I are meeting with three present and fomer Hopkins economists, for lunch, to discuss the continuing global credit crisis and how it relates to energy supply.  

CK did ask me to look into that Lockheed reactor.  If it is not actually alien technology, then it is some kind of scam.  But what kind?  


Now you'll have to excuse me whilst I launch into a bit of speculation about the above......

It's mainly about what did CK know and when did he know it.....

I have frequently noted that CK claims ignorance about the BPWH.  Maybe there is more truth to that claim than I had given credit.  

And before I forget, another incident this year was the science fair at Jefferson HS, in May, where I was introduced to Ballard, amongst others.  Anyway.....

Ok, let us presume CK's innocence......

He is instructed to set up a meeting with the OP/rome, who he knows in connection with other excursions, and who, conveniently, happens to be acquainted with CB.  

CK figures he might be able to finesse this meeting.  But CB sees through the Armando ploy, and does some homework that CK has shirked for the past 23 years.  


5:45---------

Holy cow, says CB, what are you trying to get me mixed up with, here, CK? CB is not amused about the Armando ploy. He sees this meeting as a possible career ender. Everyone knows that CK has asbestos underware. Few others do. Can CK shrug off this setback? That depends on the source of his instructions. I have to suppose that these steps are part of a deal that was worked out decades ago. Can the PtB reneg on the bargain? What would be the sanctions? I'm sure that CK is not anxious to find out, so he will make an effort to find a substitute.



(cont.)

The demise of the CB ploy was a bit premature, but there is still no mention of the OP.  There can be no meetup before two weeks.  Not sure of the Armando status.  CB wants to consider eternity.  He will not be on the boat.  CK wants 5 questions to be considered and resolved on the boat.  Any suggestions, questions?  Why the boat?  

1.)  Timeline/window for disclosure... urgency/uncertainty.  

2.)  Specified sequence for disclosure...  Rome v. MoAPS v. phenomenology.  

3.)  Theological/philosophical/physics initiatives.  

4.)  Millennialism - what to expect of the endtimes

5.)  Socio-economics of limits  


5pm--------

6.) What are we gonna do about the 4m/k/sot/x2 problem?




(cont.)

Constructor Theory of Information 
David Deutsch1 & Chiara Marletto2 
1Centre for Quantum Computation, The Clarendon Laboratory, 
University of Oxford 
2Materials Department, University of Oxford 
July 2014 
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.5563v2.pdf

Apocalyptic prophecies drive both sides to Syrian battle for end of time.......

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/01/us-syria-crisis-prophecy-insight-idUSBREA3013420140401


6:15--------

Long time source identifies CB as closely connected with a half-dozen catholic monarchists, functioning mainly out of the UK.  

WL finds this amusing.  Me, less so.  I suppose that something akin to the papacy could be useful in maintaining a COG, likely in parallel with other secular and sectarian interests.  

It seems very likely that CB is being, wittingly or not, drawn into ORC in order to take some presure off of CK.  I may attempt to enlist CB in keeping CK's feet to the disclosure fire.  I mean, isn't this what CK gets paid for?  If this is the case, then rome is not my main target, now is it? I'm not saying that CK is being pusillanimous, merely trying to do his job.



(cont.)

From: Dan
Date: October 23, 2014, 11:39:11 AM EDT
To: WL
Subject: Fwd: Lockheed fusion background items.....

CK says he knows, in general, the source of the Lockheed funding, but he would like to know who specifically authorized the press release, which he sees as an embarrassment to Lockheed.

He suggested just calling the name on the release.

He would also like any more info on CB's monarchist group.


Begin forwarded message:

From: Dan
Date: October 23, 2014, 11:32:11 AM EDT
To: CK
Subject: Lockheed fusion background items.....

From a source.......

Emc2fusion is a competitor to Lockheed with a similar approach, I believe they received 15million in Navy money but recently the Navy has stopped the funding. emc2fusion estimated that it would take approx $30 million to get to a prototype reacor (THE EXACT AMOUNT I PREDICTED WOULD BE REQUIRED AS I TOLD YOU). This adds fuel to my case pointing out the apparent absurdity of Lockheed's plea for "partners"..........

The attached paper by Park et al is probably the closest to what Lockheed is working on but this is just an educated guess since Lockheedd has published NOTHING and makes no outside references to their technological approach.

High Energy Electron Confinement in a Magnetic Cusp Configuration....

http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.0133


Background on Robert Bussard.......

THe EMC2 fusion research company is a legacy of Robert Bussard who according to some sources was quietly/secretly funded by the U S Navy for 10-15 years. After Bussard's death the current team have continued modifying his design. Bussard is a Princeton man and I'm sure you know of his space propulsion research. Ironically, as Asst Dir of the AEC, Bussard founded the US Tokamak project but later concluded that Tokamak would never produce net energy.

http://www.polywellnuclearfusion.com/PolywellReactor/Magrid.html

A tentative date has finally been set for the CB/OP meeting, and will be confirmed tomorrow.  And, yes, I do still treat this arrangement as a potential and long overdue breakthrough, despite its innocent appearance.  I'm guessing that CB has still not ascertained my identity.  If not, then I will quickly take his side against CK for having arranged this ambush.  I will enlist his assistance to determine whether or not this meetup was only intended as a joke on an old friend.  Otherwise, we should help CK to be more forthcoming about any possible serious agenda wrt it.  

From there on, it'll be a warm day on the farm for our favorite pelican, with a honk-honk here and a...........  I'm sure that CK will be a good sport, however.  Remember, it's all just a soap-opera.  

OP will be equipped with a substantial but bare cross, as is the custom with the uniate prelates.  What will I wear, asks CK.  

I will suggest that, for the sake of argument, we might suppose that we are acting in the furtherance of some sort of contingency plan.  And, under that presumption, we may best assume that this contingency is intended to subsume and provide a constructive vehicle for various eschatological concerns that might otherwise commandeer less benign vehicles.  

How else might we explain the R&D show?  

In the meantime, we may be sure that the PtB are continuing to search for and pursue more conventional responses to whatever may be perceived to be the world's most pressing issues.

At that point I will raise the Phenomenology issue and the alleged MJ response thereto, all as background to R&D and to the recent visit of R&A to the Vatican.  

You see, until there appears a potentially serious third party, none of these questions will have any traction.  But once such party appears, there can only be a lengthy backlog of laundry to be hung out to dry.  And someone tell me that I've not been sufficiently patient.  Or have I been too patient?  On that latter score, you may wish to consult with the FBI and various campus security offices in the region, and with Carnival.  

Like I say, the show goes on.  I'm even willing to suppose that it must go on, come hell or high water, whichever comes first.  

And CK wonders what the agenda might be.  Just consult your worst nightmares, Ron.  

So, yes, sports fans, who brought up the issue of MJ13?  Was that asking for trouble, or what?  I can also play the innocent bystander, believe you me.  Who dredged up Sunfish, the peanut gallery might wish to know.  

Does CK have any sources, or is he strictly freelance and rogue?  Maybe it's time to call 911.  Oh, wait, we already tried that.  Who ya gonna call when the Sun don't shine, or won't stop shining.  


11:20----------

And if this gambit falls through, what else is there?  Only some much longer and less timely shots.  

1.)  Physics gambit - mainly just Paul and Jack.  

2.)  GFC/SfA/RtB  

3.)  Jump the fence?  

And that's about it, sports fans.  It's a fairly grim picture.  Yes?  

Furthermore, because I have already been broadcasting my high expectations wrt CB/OP, #1 & #2 will suffer considerably if it falls through, at this late date, leaving us with.....

#3.....  yes, did anyone say it is wise to kick an almost retired dog?  


1pm---------

From: Dan
Date: October 24, 2014, 12:54:27 PM EDT
To: Gary
Subject: Constructor Theory of Information - Deutsch

Gary,

I believe it was you who brought this paper to my attention.......

Constructor Theory of Information David Deutsch1 & Chiara Marletto2


And this was probably an attempt to counter my oft stated position that information has never been defined objectively.  Yes, Deutsch claims do have done so, herein.  

However, in attempting to do so, he very often invokes 'measurement' without any attempt at definition.  Therefore, he is still trapped within a logical circularity.  

No?  

Dan

cc: OMF

But, yes, life goes on... inside or outside the fence.  


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/opinion/pankaj-mishra-nirandra-modis-idea-of-india.html

Hmmm.......



(cont.)

Over the weekend, there was a bit of a falling out in the R,A&D show, concerning the participation of a certain third party.  That correspondence had been posted here, temporarily.  Things seem to be back on a more even keel this morning, but the CB/OP event may have been further delayed, as a result.  

In the meantime, we can afford, hopefully, a more expansive view.  

A key provision of the BPWH is its advocacy of a top-down approach to understanding the world.  This is a very difficult concept for the modern mind, mine included.  

We all want to know... how does it work?  How can it possibly work?!  

Well, if it works at all, it works the way the mind works, given that there is a self, and that self has a free will.  And no one has a clue how that might work, or even how it might be possible, given atomic physics, etc.  

But, see, if we give up free will, then we give up reasoning.  A lot of folks don't understand this connection.  Don't computers reason?  Some advocates of AI claim that computers can reason and/or that we don't.  But amongst the philosophically inclined, such views are simply considered to be unreflective, at best.  

And here's the deal, sports fans...... dualism is all the fad, in modernity.  The mind is subjective, the world is objective.  

But no, say I.... the mind is subjective, and the the world is intersubjective.  IOW, we are the braincells of God, and the world is our co-projective, virtual reality, with a great deal of feedback, feed-forward or what have you.  The world is self-contained, self-stabilizing, especially in a teleological, final-cause, manner.  

It is very easy for us to imagine atoms swerving in the dark, and that you and I are bags of such chemicals.  This is the legacy of four centuries of reductive thinking, gratis Descartes.  How do we turn that analytical juggernaut around.  We turn it around on a holistic/synthetic dime.  That's how.  And, guess what, sports fans, if I mind my p's&q's, and don't p*ss off the Vatican too badly, I get to be that dime in time.  Wouldn't that be fun?  And isn't it comforting to know that our old friends, the Bushies, are back on the scene.  Yes, the balance of global trade sometimes rests on something so trivial.  That is, if we take teleology seriously, for a change.  

What then does telos say about atomos? What can atoms be, but bits of telos? There is that of the telos in every atom. That is essential to the anthropic ptinciple.

It also has to do with substance. We think of substance as matter, but no, it's more like essence. I'm thinking back to the idea of the quantum aperture.... Heart of the Matter.... http://www.bestpossibleworld.com/nexu54.htm .

Atoms are not and cannot be objectified, although we do try. They have the ability of chameleons to incarnate ambience. They are slippery little shape-shifters. Yes, they are.




(cont.)

Since it is just the two of us ----


Free wills are not a free as one might think when weighed against some advances propagated within the  Un-public AI groups.   And so, what if we can/could control the masses? What do we gain, only control?  Does becoming, god-like, through technological advancement predispose us to become Masters of a new slave state? A new Slave world?  

Reflecting biblically, “Let my people go?”  Would God intercede once again? This is on the assumption that one believes in the truth of such an event taking place.

What happens when AI is fused into a group mind, connecting multiple minds into a super consciousness?  Who is to say that it would not 'damage' another part of the brain?  When and if this should occur, those involved, should contemplate how well can science fix what is broken in the mind currently within the myriad of current afflictions.   I am not advocating my dislike for all the wonders that such advances could bring us, but only other ideas for reflection.  

When and if such technologies slowly become fused into the very nature of daily life, privacy will become obsolete. When you enter into the privacy of your bedroom in essence becoming your most intimate and vulnerable, all that is said and done, would be public record, if ever required.  When you enter into your conversations with God or seek some resolution within a confessional, it will have been recorded.   In such a society, would people no longer pray or reach out, seeking such counsel historically commonplace for thousands of years to any higher power?

If such a society knew these facts, that, at any time, those in control of such data, could use it politically or publicly against you, would such society submit the most cherished moments of their existence to such possible manipulations?  Perhaps in a different world where corruption has been extinguished, this might be a reality, but as the world seems today?  And then there is the reality of who would control such information, let alone have access to it. In the current system of political parties would not the pendulum of alternating powers through the electorate only place the current power structure in grasp of such information only to be used against the party – out of power?  

Would those entrusted with such responsibility need to be apolitical in theory, and perhaps even a sacred class of arbiters between such powers?  Would this class of literally connected individuals, need to remove themselves from society to free themselves from is prejudices, practices, or threats by proxies for coveted information?  Would they be an extension of a futuristic Justice Ministry separated from war related establishments?

Hi Bard,

It's been awhile.......

But, yes, let's suppose, for the sake of argument, and for specificity, that I am being groomed for some pivotal role wrt our transition to cosmic consciousness.  

All of us have an innate fear of being taken over by Big Brother in the sky, and I am about the most harmless proxy for BB that anyone could imagine.  I am the paraclete or helper/comforter.  How's my bedside manner?  

But, no, I should not make light of this transition.  It is a kind of ELE, afterall.  But we have as long as we want, to make it..... as many lifetimes as we choose, however, I suggest that our kingdom come, our transitional Millennium need be no more than a thousand years, max.  It has been pre-ordained in the Telos.  It was written in the stars, from the git-go, this being our ouroboric CTC.  Yes?  It is our very own BPW..... by us, for us and of us.  We have met the BB and it is Us.  This was the ultimate message of the X1 event, but we have been reluctant to take it fully onboard, for perfectly understandable reasons.  

We are, deep down, perfectly aware of the contingency and fragility of our precious little egos.  It makes us paranoid wrt the Telos.  However, buying guns and digging bombshelters is no defence against our cosmic Apocatastasis.  How can God not find these frantic antics amusing and adorable?  

And, yes, will there not be a plethora of antichrists, little tinhorn dictators, who will attempt to preempt the Millennium, and some of whom will be much less than amusing?  Sure there will.  There always have been.  And, IMHO, they have almost outstayed their welcome.  When the cat was away........

The real action is going to be on the wiki/google front.  That will be where the sky will fall, our knowledge will implode.  Will the sky fall on our bedroom privacy?  Well, it does seem that facebook has come a long way, baby.  We hardly need Big Brother when we already have Jerry Springer, now do we?  

But again, this is not to belittle the cosmic Telos, aka VALIS.  VALIS is reality.  We are but the temporary projections of VALIS.  Trust me, we have no secrets from VALIS.  VALIS is closer, much closer, to our hearts and minds than are our arteries and neurons.  That doesn't mean that we will not need every one of those thousand years to get up our nerve to kiss our collective little hineys goodbye!  

God can make like a sneak-thief, and she can also be a drama-queen, but, no, she really does not like to scare folks.  Who would, in the End?  She is not your Halloween goblin.  


2:35-------

My point about atoms is that, like everything else, their existence is intersubjective.  When analyzed, atoms turn out to be mathematical, probabilistic constructs.  Are not numbers objective?  In a sense, numbers are most objective items in the world, but they are also quintessentially mental.  

Does mental = subjective?  Not according to Plato's ontology.... universals/archetypes were more real than their particular instantiations.    

But, being something of a jesus-freak, myself, I'm inclined to think of the inarnation as more real than the Logos, for instance.  It does depend on one's PoV.  

In their own way, atoms are incarnations, but they are eminently cloneable.  Seen one, you've seen 'em all!  

Our problem with atoms is that we tend to think of them as individuatable.  Maybe in the lab.  In nature.... uhn-uhn.  Or is it in-vivo v. in-vitro?  Mt Everest is a pile of atoms, in-vitro.  You and I are bags ot atoms, in-vivo.  But are our atoms any more or less purposed than Everest's?  Do our atoms become more real or less real when we die?  They certainly become more analyzable.  

It might be said that atoms are nature's way to minimize psycho-kinesis.  Their bottom-up consort helps to moderate/mediate the top-down Telos, proxied by you and me.  

Being an immaterialist, I do need to find some find a rationale for distinguishing my idea of Everest and the mountain itself. I also believe in direct perception. I actually see the mountain, not just it's image on my retina. This is one reason why immaterialists are so scarce, because most folks have the decorum to not parade their ignorance in public.

In the past, I have explained atoms by metabolism. I'm trying desperately to extend that rationale to another dimension.



(cont.)

From: Dan
Date: October 28, 2014, 8:46:31 AM EDT
To: Bill
Subject: Re: Is this really necessary?

Yes, please do excuse my spelling/hearing.  

If you have a better plan for dealing with CK, you might wish to share it with the rest of us.  

My reticence....?  It could be an important meeting, for the BPWH, and I don't want CK and/or AP to fumble/sabotage it.  No point in a meeting if we're not on the same page.  Yes?  

CK is now claiming to know what is going on, but he thinks I need to figure it out.  For instance, he is asking (rhetorically?) why truck-bed fusion is getting so much less play than desk-top fusion.  I said it was about the lack of novelty, i.e. the many limitations of the classical MHD has been thoroughly researched in many related contexts.

Is it just possible that CK was the instigator here, and he's wondering why his brilliant ploy did not garner more eyeballs?  He was only worried that, with your Harvard brilliance, you might have seen through it.  



On Oct 26, 2014, at 11:02 PM, Bill wrote:

---------------------------CUT----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill tells me that, back in '92, the CIA/IG promised that they would be keeping a 'pin register' on CK's phone.  Have they stopped keeping that register?

Bill further informs me that he has copies of every email communication that he has had with CK, for the last 22 years, and that it is voluminous.  So who is not supposed to be communicating with whom, and why, we'd like to know.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure where the above is coming from but if anyone asks me about it - I will tell them the truth.  Is this the standard of quality for Stanford intellectual discourse?  Of course, we Harvard men suspected this but it's a bit sad to have it confirmed.  If you are trying to provoke CK I suspect his annoyance threshold is a bit higher.

Is this stemming from your reticence to actually engage with assorted Catholic representatives and authorities?  If so, why the reticence?  Fear, Insecurity, Sloth? You told me a few days ago that such a meeting would be the "most important in your life", etc.

By the way, it's "PEN REGISTER" not PIN, see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register

Oh, yes, CK would point out to Bill that every govt phone has always had a pen register.  If officers wish to avoid the pen register, they avail themselves of other devices.  His point was that the IG was just pulling a Harvard leg.  How better to stave off boredom?  


Noon [EDT - Don't know why [my?] forum time went 1hr out of sync.  I don't see how to reset it.] -------

Back to my favorite bugbears, atoms.....

Why are atoms relatively transparent, mathematically, but so obdurate, psychokinetically?  How so?

Due to their universality, i.e. move one atom and you have to move every atom, unless you resort to 'physical contact'.  

Yes, we can and will move (restore) mountains, in the O>>A hiatus/reset.  

[I need to check on https://sites.google.com/a/kashmirworldfoundation.org/academia/ as being authored by Colton F ......]


7:07 EDT -----------

The recent hiatus is on hold while other things do move forward.  

We are struggling to get on the same page.  I think.  I hope.  

The Princess is not always kept totally informed.  There are rumors and such.  We can sympathize.  


9:55-------

And do take a look at Colton's recent addition.......

https://sites.google.com/a/kashmirworldfoundation.org/academia/best-possible-world.



(cont.)