Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

From: Dan Smith
Date: October 30, 2014, 12:33:34 PM EDT
To: Will C
Cc: Sam, Millard F, Alfred B.  
Subject: Re: Thanks for Meeting!

Will,

In all seriousness, you have run up against the God-limit, which may just be the one thing to take away from yesterday's meeting.  

God limit.....?  

In a nutshell..... praise The Lord, and pass the ammunition.  

How does that translate into yesterday's meeting?  

Allow me to translate it into the protestant work ethic (PWE)......

In short, mind your own business, and let God sort out the rest of it.  This is somewhat analogous to the invisible-hand of Adam Smith, no relation.  

Your problem, Will, is that you are NOT minding your own business.  You are trying to save the world, but who put you in charge of that?  

Understand, Will, that everyone one of us in yesterday's meeting goes to Church on Sunday, including yourself, as I hasten to remind you.  

As a Quaker, you understand the idea that there is that of God in each of us.  Yes?  This might give you a little more faith in the Invisible Hand.  No?  

But, yes, I do have to admit, however, that the Invisible Hand does seem to be leading us to hell in a hand-basket.  Perhaps we have been forsaken?  

Yes, I'll have to admit that things do look bleak.  Clearly, Davos/WEF is not going to save us, neither will the Navy, nor the White House.  And, hey, Will, maybe we don't need to be saved, quite yet.  

But, as gambling folks, we also have to admit that there might be a higher power, which might have the capacity to goose/override Smith's Invisible Hand, when the time is ripe.  No?  

I was attempting to address this possibility.  It seemed to me, at least, that you may have been the person in that who was most skeptical of that possible Override.  

What say you, Will, in all seriousness, now that you have seen the Abyss?  

Dan

cc: OMF

From: Dan
Date: October 30, 2014, 4:44:04 PM EDT
To: Dick F
Cc:  Jack, George, Bill, David, Paul
Subject: Re: Hansen paranormal video sound quality stinks

Dick,

No, we're still missing George's most philosophically significant video, IMHO.

It is a lecture over a power point, also with marginal/liminal audio, that includes the following topics.......

Liminality, anti-structuralism, apparitions of Marx, Derrida..... just to skim the surface.  

Bill is trying to relocate it.  It seems to have been removed from the web within the last couple of months.  There is a paper that goes with it.  

Dan

From: Dan
Date: October 31, 2014, 11:37:57 AM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: Jack, David, Gary, Antigray

Subject: Re: George Hansen video

Thanks, Paul,

Yes, we are caught betwixt and between the historically dominant paradigms of materialism and immaterialism.

It is a 'tricky' place to be.... hard to find a foothold. E.g. are we hologram or holograph?

The Visitors seemingly run circles around our defense, intelligence and academic establishments.

Who was it who told me...... Dan, when we can't track the phenomenon, we have only the interlocutors to track.

Maybe, just maybe, VALIS wants to open us to new possibilities, even to a new reality. Anyone for kingdom come?

Anti-gray....... Anyone for anti-God, anti-Future? Can you pray??



On Oct 30, 2014, at 11:13 PM, Paul wrote:


Hansen draws a lot from structural anthropology (Levi-Strauss et al.) but also from post-structuralism and post-modernism
(deconstruction).

Of course such philosophies have quite general application, and not specifically the study of paranormal phenomena.

My impression is that Hansen uses these ideas mainly as intellectual "can openers" to break down his audience's
prejudices. To make then question what is "scientific" and what is not.

In philosophy of science we absorbed a lot of this kind of thinking through people like Kuhn and Lakatos. For example, Kuhn's
ideas about scientific revolutions correspond very closely with the concept of "liminality" as described by Hansen.

From: Dan
Date: November 1, 2014, 10:00:05 AM EDT
To: Jack Sarfatti
Cc: Paul Zielinski, David Gladstone
Subject: So who died and left Dan in Charge?

Well, it does seem that MJ12 is in the process of retiring, and the Princess and I are leading the transition team.  Our temporary designation is MJ13.  

But first, we have to pass the MJ test, which, fortunately, is open book, and, even more auspiciously, we get to make up the questions.  So, yes, it is a made-up exam.  

And, but again, as they say wrt Nature, the problem is not to come up with the right answers, it is, rather, to ask the right questions.  

This is where the scientists have failed, bless their little hearts!  

Failed.........?

Not really, because the deck was stacked against them, from the beginning.

Who stacked the deck?  Descartes.  And he didn't stack the deck, he cut the deck.  It's called Cartesian dualism.  I call it the judgment of Solomon, and this judgement has gone against both science and religion.  No?  


(cont.)

cc: OMF  

From: Dan
Date: November 1, 2014, 11:49:25 AM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: Paul, David
Subject: Re: So who died and left Dan in Charge?

(cont.....)


No matter.... never mind?  

Since Descartes, there has been a breach in our understanding of the world.  Who or what is to fill that breach?  That is where the Visitors come in.......

Have we been visited?  Maybe.  Everything we do, now, is on contingency, maybe on consignment.  

With MJ13 come new rules........

Fundamentalism is out, foundationalism is in.  

There will no longer be a tyranny of Scripture or of Logic.  Instead we have the Logos redivivus.  

What is the Logos and how does it work?  I suggest that this be the first question on our Exam.  

The Logos is the ground of being.  It shares that locus along with Potentiality/potency.  These are our yin and yang, if you like.  Keeping these forces in balance is our primary challenge, especially is this interregnum.  

In our little foursome, here, Jack may serve to represent the Logos.  Yes?


(cont........2)  

From: Dan
Date: November 1, 2014, 3:43:38 PM EDT
To: John S
Cc: Ronald, Paul, Aliyah, David, Jack
Subject: Re: dualism exposed

John,

Fight.....?  

No, I'm not looking for a fight.  Au-contraire, we should be looking for teamwork.  

Yes, I am a monist, and, within that monism I am also a dualist and a trinitarian.  

The Trinity is the A-team, is it not?

Dan


On Nov 1, 2014, at 1:00 PM, John wrote:

Dan

Dualism runs rampant through most or all of your expressions.  Dualism is a fight.  God cannot be dual since God cannot fight himself; otherwise God would be plural and not one.  And if God is not one, then there would be a "higher" God who is one, and not more than one.

John

From: Dan
Date: November 1, 2014, 4:31:23 PM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: Paul, David, John, Colton
Subject: moving right along.......

(cont......2)


At present, Jack, quite understandably, is not willing to sign on to this would-be disclosure project without, at least, a semi-formal arrangement.  Whilst that is being discussed, let me attempt to lay out some tentative guidelines.........

What mainly comes between Jack and me is personalism.  

Jack put numbers first, I put persons before numbers.  Now, my offer to Jack to be the keeper of the Logos still stands.  One immediate question is whether the Logos can incarnate.  

Allow me to rephrase that...... Jack and I agree that the Logos does incarnate in physics/Nature.  But which incarnates first, is it nature or persons?  

I appeal to the Quantum.......

1.)  Wheeler..... the only real phenomenon is an observed phenomenon.  

But what constitutes an observation?  By this token, we must also ask, what constitutes information?  

2.)  Information is strictly normative.  

#2 should hardly need to be defended.  Yes?  

Information >> norms >> sapient persons.  No?  Is this too easy?  


(cont......3)  

From: Dan
Date: November 1, 2014, 5:10:44 PM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: 5 others
Subject: Re: dualism exposed

Jack,  

Yes, I agree, show me a conscious AI nano chip, and I will eat my hat, with a word salad on the side.  

I disbelieve strong AI.  

I believe that AI can simulate but not emulate consciousness (Cs).  

The AI crowd has been on the verge of achieving strong AI, from day one.  But show me the 'money', Jack.  Show us the pay-off.  

Until such time, may we set aside strong AI?  Or must we continue to hold our collective breath?

Dan


On Nov 1, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Jack wrote:

Hogwash
Quantum physics is mind - matter dualism
The proof is conscious AI nano chips
Living example is US!
No need for your not even wrong word salad.

From: Dan
Date: November 1, 2014, 5:54:41 PM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: 5 others.

Subject: Re: moving right along.......

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


On another thread, Jack has objected to my dismissal of the claims of strong AI.  I have respectfully requested that he allow me to continue with this explicative convo, pending further developments on the AI front.  

IOW, Jack appeals to the notion of perpetual technological progress, while I raise various philosophical objections to that notion.  

Rather, I appeal to a possibly impending global emergency.  IOW, we may not be able to afford unlimited time to the technologists to solve our global problems.  

On that contingency, I ask forbearance in pressing the case for the BPWH.  I ask this forbearance of Jack, as I will be asking of the Vatican liaison person with whom we will be meeting, prior to the boat trip.  

What follows, Jack, is only to be intended to be in case of emergency........

We may be reminded of the cartoon......  but, instead of a fire extinguisher in the glass receptacle, there is a bible.  I am attempting to be a proxy for that bible.


(cont.......4)  

From: Dan
Date: November 1, 2014, 11:37:54 PM EDT
To: JACK SARFATTI
Cc: 4 others
Subject: Re: dualism exposed

Jack,

If you are correct, then there must exist a mathematical model for consciousness.

Yes?  

And must there not also exist mathematical expressions for the content of consciousness, i.e. that thoughts may be translated into mathematical content?  

Do you know of anyone who has ever attempted to perform such a translation?  

I don't.


On Nov 1, 2014, at 8:21 PM, JACK SARFATTI  wrote:

[......]

retro-causal non-linear post-quantum computer AI with entanglement signaling does work

i.e. does generate OUR consciousness

Our consciousness is the direct back-reaction of the classical material beables on their entangled mental quantum information Bohm potentials Q.

From: Dan
Date: November 2, 2014, 12:14:11 AM EDT
To: "John S
Cc: 4 others
Subject: Re: dualism exposed

John,

Yes, and I believe this would lend credence to the supposed efficacy of (quantum?) prayer-wheels.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_wheel

Imagine that with non-linear quantum computers (NLQC's) we could definitely speed up our communications with VALIS.  

But, wait, would not our NLQC's then attempt to usurp our intercourse with the future event horizon (God), leaving us behind, eating their quantum dust?  

Just wondering.........


On Nov 1, 2014, at 11:40 PM, "John S wrote:

Would it follow that there is a mathematical expression for prayer?

From: Dan
Date: November 2, 2014, 12:38:14 AM EDT
To: "John
Cc: 4 others
Subject: Re: dualism exposed

Hmmm.......

Well, yes, your mathematical prayer conundrum does raise the specter of free-floating thoughts.

Can there be thoughts without thinkers, or prayers without prayerful persons?

And, suppose there was a mathematical expression for personhood, how would the various thought expressions be assimilated (attached?) to that 'person'?

We can thank Jack and his theoretical boldness for pointing us to some of the deeper issues of the mind-body problem.


On Nov 2, 2014, at 12:16 AM, "John wrote:

but why the need for a machine to transmit the prayer?

From: Dan
Date: November 6, 2014 at 12:13:37 PM EST
To: Colton
Cc: Paul
Subject: Re: Updates

(cont......)

In fact, Colton, I am inclined to turn the argument around, and claim that the scientific atoms represent our 'misplaced concreteness' (Whitehead) wrt monads.  Atoms are the essence/soul of material objects, including living bodies.  And do keep in mind Leibniz' identity of indiscernibles (II), in this regard.  

I compare the ontology of atoms and (natural!) numbers.  They both exist by logically (coherent) necessity.  Mathematical physics has gone a long way to proving this, keeping anthropics in mind.  

# God not active.......?!  

Ouch!  I really don't want to say this, but I can see how this seems to be implied, in no small part, by the CTC hypothesis.  

Yes, God exists beyond space and time.  But s/he also exists, like us, within space and time.  This conforms with the idea of avatar/incarnation.  

The activity of God may also be seen in the Telos.  Yes, it is eternal, but it also has an active presence within life's realm.  Our personal intentionality is a reflection of that Telos.  God speaks to us in many ways.  That is the active Logos, which is reflected in the dynamics of nature and society.  

The temporal and eternal dimensions are reflections of each other.  Neither exists nor is complete without the other.   The (dialectical?) logic here is not unlike the quantum logic of complementarity, wherein we have both particles and waves.  The dualism of time/eternity are transcended in the Monad.  That's about the best I can do, for now, Colton.  

The BPWH does require some faith, but not as much as the idea of perpetual progress, IMHO.  


(cont.......2)



On Nov 6, 2014, at 10:45 AM, Dan wrote:

Colton,

Yes, please call anytime........

#  On the soul and world-soul.........

I am suggesting that there is but one sapient 'soul', of which we are all time-sharing.

I use the term 'soul' with some reluctance, because of its overly dualistic connotations.  In many instances I use the soul and self/personhood as synonymous.  Essence/archetype is another very similar idea, when taken more generally.    

The notion of the soul/self is a key part of my CohTT.  (Use of ChToT may be confusing?)  

The CohTT implies a primordial Source of coherence.  I take this to be the cosmic Self, but with the very strong caveat that there cannot be a Self w/o an Other.  Love and intersubjectivity are formed in the dialectic of self/other.  So I also speak of a primordial olympiad or zodiac.  Our world of space-time emerges out of the dialectic.  It constitutes our level playing field.  Our is the virtual 'pokotok' (Mayan) playing field.  We are the gods who became enchanted/mesmerized with this (best possible?!) game of life.  We are coming to the natural fulfillment of this 'game'.  All ye, all ye, in free!  

The one-electron model is just the application of Occam's razor to the notion of the Soul.  The soul comes first, logically.  It is a key feature of the best possible Monism, for sure.  Paul says that Leibniz actually agrees on this.  His infinity of monads all derive from and are contained within the cosmic Monad.  The monads are almost the antithesis of (scientific) atoms.


(cont.......)  

From: Dan
Date: November 6, 2014 at 1:29:58 PM EST
To: Colton
Cc: Paul
Subject: Re: Updates

(cont.......2)

# BPWH/SWH........ deontology, theodicy, etc.......

There is, within theodicy, a possibly interesting correlation between the BPWH and the SWH, and this is almost an inversion of the usual theodetic argument......

This is how I apologize for the extremities of evil witnessed on Earth.......

IMHO, many of the complaints against Leibniz, e.g. Voltaire, wherein we deal with the ontology of possibility....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic#The_ontology_of_possibility .

These critics take possibility too seriously.  They suppose that God should have presented us with a panoply of worlds, and allowed each of us to choose our favorite.  Gottfried did not strive sufficiently to disabuse us of this naive notion.  Naive notions can be very difficult to dislodge, in any case.  

My counterpoint is that, especially with the SWH, Diversity becomes an end in itself, even to the detriment of any individual predilections.  And here comes the reversal......

Given God and given the extremity of evil on Earth, we have a prima-facie case for the SWH.  Yes?  IOW, there is no ((de-)ontological) excuse for the redundancy of evil.  There could only be one Holocaust in the universe, and so it could/must only happen here >>> SWH!  With the SWH, we should not expect normalcy of any kind, good or bad.  This is where Leibniz' critics went off the rail.  


(cont......3)

From: Dan
Date: November 7, 2014 at 11:51:13 AM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton
Subject: Coherence......

Paul,

I look forward to continuing our conversation, later today......

Not all systems of coherence are equal, even a-priori.  Thus do I dismiss Russell's specification objection.  

Furthermore, nothing transcends coherence, almost by definition.  

Yes, coherence is the prime-mover, the cosmic entelechy.  IMHO, coherence is an all or nothing proposition.  Holism is necessarily whole.  There is no half-baked coherence.  

Like Johnson and Paul (of T), on their respective paths, I refute incoherence thusly, as I kick the stone.  

Dr. Johnson's kicking of the stone can exist only under the Aegis of the Final Cause.  No other cause can measure up.  

IOW, Paul, we have no choice, physically or metaphysically, but to take the high road.  It is our story, and we're sticking to it..........


(cont.)  

From: Dan
Date: November 7, 2014 at 12:20:08 PM EST
To: Paul Z
Cc: Colton
Subject: Re: Coherence......

(cont........)

[btw, that first Paul was Paul of T, ntbcw Paul of Z!]  

IOW, Paul (of Z), with the BPWH/KWF, we take no prisoners.  

E.g., I don't distinguish between physics and metaphysics.  There is, in the End, only 'Physis', i.e. superNature.  

You say that we must stoop to conquer.  Stooping = Confusing.  No?  

What we need are boots on the ground, and the Ladakh mountains of Kashmir are our logical pied-a-terre.  No?  Will Jack understand this?  We shall see.  Can Jack withstand the Princess?  This is our nod to empiricism.  Or is it impiricism?  

Is there no crack in the cosmic Egg?  I've bee looking.  I've not seen it.  

If this is too claustrophobic, then, hey, drop some acid.  You may discover the dark side of the moon.  


(cont.......2)

From: Dan
Date: November 7, 2014 at 1:08:15 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton
Subject: Re: Coherence......

(cont......2)

In this eschatological pursuit, we don't have the luxury of always looking over our shoulder.  

Like the turtle, we must stick out our necks to make progress.  We are after the truth.  If and when we find it, the world will beat path to our doorstep.  

We'll know it when we see it.  So will they.  

We are the witnesses.  If we cannot feel it, first and foremost, how will we be able to testify?  

Yes, Jack is our guinea-pig.  I doubt that we can spoon feed him.  

The truth is within.  We already know that much.  We are only after its rediscovery.  We only need to prime that pump.  Does Jack not understand this much?  Lord, help us!  

Jack has an Achilles' heel.  I doubt that it lies in the subtleties of postmodern metaphysics.  

Yes, and what about (natural) numbers?  You claim that they are incoherent from some postmodern perspective.  I find this claim to be incoherent, and I am quite familiar with Godel.  He did not say that arithmetic was incoherent, he said it was incomplete.  I say, amen to that!  


(cont.......3)  

From: Dan
Date: November 7, 2014 at 1:43:34 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton
Subject: Re: Coherence......

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

And about those numbers.........

I can and must claim that they are thoroughly anthropic, from the git-go.  

But first, allow me a minor recap......

Our job, should we accept it, is to construct a scaffold..... of, by and for the truth.  This is, necessarily, a top-down labor of (communal?) love.  Yes, we are the Disneyesque imagineers.  We don't have time to apply the bricks and mortar.  We are not Masons.  Our's is to place a few strategic pitons in the cliff-face of the transcendental.  Ours is to find the few finger-holds on the way up.  Even this much will require a small army, and we are but three.  

But, yes, the numbers, they are anthropic.  They are holistic, even or especially in their individuality.  

Did the Pythagoreans not get this?  What did they get?  

Yes, there is the pythagorean theorem, 3-4-5, but then there is Fermat.  Can we understand the one without the other?  And then there are the rational points on the elliptic curves, and was that not how Fermat was proved by Borcherds?  

Yes, mathematics is an incomplete whole, it is a semi-organic unity.  What is it missing?  Yes, it is missing its participatory head.  Can we prove that?  Can we make it not implausible?  I would think so.  The backdoor into the numbers is the Mandelbrot, with its z' = z^2 + C.  Is the Mandelbrot not virtually organic?  It sure looks organic.  


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

From: Dan
Date: November 7, 2014 at 2:49:58 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton
Subject: Re: Coherence......

(cont.........4)  

My point is that numerology is the logical antecedent to mathematics........

A case in point is Euler's identity.... e^i*pi = -1.  Does that not have a numerological aspect?  I am disposed to place it in the anthropic basket.

Then there are the three barleycorns in a inch, and the speed of light, etc.  How convenient.  

And when do we replace mathematical intuition with computation?  What is computation, btw?  And what about Srinivasa?  

What is mathematics, if it is not normative?  Is it more or less normative than science?  

So, yes, to answer my question....... in as much as mathematics is incomplete, by so much is it normative, and vice-versa.  If numerology, a-la Kabbalah, etc, is not related to the normativity of mathematics, then I'll just have to eat my hat.  

And, yes, I do relate atoms, physically and otherwise, to numbers.  Both are essentially normative and anthropic.  

We could also digress into Riemann's theorem, at this point.  Fascinating, is it not?  Does it not, nearly as much as the Mandelbrot, point to the organicity of mathematics?  And, yes, I do love the issues of primal randomness wrt the primes.  Are they pseudo-random, or what?  For instance, I refer you to the incredible labor that has been devoted to the twin-prime conjecture.  Is there a largest twin-prime?  Everyone is sure that there cannot be such, but just try proving it.  

And, yes, we could go on...... numbers can be mesmerizing.  

But we have bigger fish to fry.........

From physics we can slide into biophysics, perhaps by way of memory.......


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

From: Dan
Date: November 7, 2014 at 4:01:02 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton
Subject: Re: Coherence......

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

Is biology organic, in the sense of holistic?

I point to memory as my exhibit A for the transcendental aspect of biology.

Look up memory. The result should cause any materialist to blush, if not have a stroke.

I see not a single concerted effort to quantify memory, much less to embed it in any known biological system.

Look, if we cannot quantify it within astronomical bounds, including astronomical variations, who are we kidding, when anyone claims any sort of reductive explanation for life? Life does not compute, not from the git-go, and certainly not on our end of that spectrum.

Another source here are the newly emerging animations of various biological systems. These animations are touted as much or more by the ID consortium, than by the biologists who produce them, but who then find the animated homunculi to be more than a little embarrassing. Yes?

Are the reductionist biologists painting/animating themselves into a corner, or what?


(cont..........6)

From: Dan
Date: November 8, 2014 at 10:17:10 AM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton
Subject: Re: Coherence......

(cont........[from below])

And what of our erstwhile philosophes....... 'Hey, we're not gonna sh*t where we eat!'

Thomas Nagel is, unfortunately, the exception that proves that rule.  He can, all too easily, be cut out of the herd.  

What's funny, though, is to see the dog's dinner that passes for philosophy, inside the barricades.  I refer to the link that Bard sent on OM....... PT-AI.org.  Even Danny Dennett seems embarrassed by his 'colleagues' naivete.  

So, no, I'm not looking to construct another glass house.  It's more like a paper bag or a tar-baby.  You can check-in, but you can't check-out.  And, yes, while the Cat's away, the mice continue to play, bless their little hearts.  

And when will the Cat pounce?  How will She pounce?  

Yes, I do like playing with Jack.  It's a lot like playing with one's dinner.  That 'dinner' is also called the Hieros-gamos, or the wedding feast in the sky.  There is the empty chair at the banquet..... the bonfire/potlatch of all our vanities.  

We keep our powder dry, but we pass the ammunition........


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


On Nov 8, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Dan Smith wrote:

Thanks, Paul......

The question before us is whether science has a (metaphysical/ontological) leg to stand on.  

The simple answer is no, they never have, and, yes, this is hardly controversial.  Neither does anyone else have a leg, in the final analysis.  

But, of course, in this era of secularism, the fact that King-science is naked and legless, is not something that gets bruited about.  

Even, or especially, the religious fundamentalists don't wish to throw any metaphysical stones, because they know that they also live in a glass house.  

So, yes, pulling the ontological rug out from under both science and religion is child's play.  Pragmatism prevails....... up until the Eschaton begins to cast its shadow.  

That shadow is first seen in the possible/probable end of technological progress.  No certainty, just the shadow of reasonable doubt.  The modern mind is nurtured and sustained on the Promise of progress.  Jack&Co can see through that Promise, but they have the social sensibility to not make a Federal case of it.  Then we come along.......


(cont........ [above])

From: Dan
Date: November 8, 2014 at 11:52:24 AM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton
Subject: Re: Coherence......

(cont.......2)

My coherence is just a little bit stickier than anyone else's. That's all.....

Let's inventory our ammunition........

# a (sticky) coherence, to end all coherence.

# it from bit, and the bits are normative, through and through.

# participatory universe

# normativity of mathematics and computation.

# organicity of mathematics <=> anthropicity of physics.

# weak-measurements, advanced potentials, advanced holographics, CTC's, II, LAP

# A/dS/CFT - (SWH) - Nakayama - Strominger

# Aether!

# (very!) weak-AI

# UTH vs. ETH

# end of progress - scientific, technological

# major population sustainability issues

# mind-body problem

# Jack's own (pvt!) admissions - enumerate

# we represent a possible national security contingency wrt global uncertainties.

# MoAPS - not already long overdue?

# etc., etc........

Don't be bashful, anyone.........

And you are going to lead off, Paul, with Nakayama? Or maybe I should start the convo by making reference to impending crises, sounding Jack out on that. Last time we spoke, he was saying it was already much too late to avoid the impending apocalypse.

OTOH, maybe you should start..... gently.....

Then we need to get the rest of the duck's in a row.......

We should probably just work on Jack, alone, at first.


(cont......3)

From: Dan
Date: November 10, 2014 at 1:09:59 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton, Sheva
Subject: Re: Coherence......

Paul,

Allow me to introduce Sheva, our most recent philosophical/Academia/KWF intern.  We had a four way convo last evening..... Aliyah, Sheva, Colton and me.  Sheva is a junior at --- University in DC, already with several philosophy courses, along with a minor in Law, I believe.  

And, Sheva, Paul and I go back several years, with Jack Sarfatti being our point of contact.  All three of us have physics backgrounds, but Paul and Jack are currently practicing, albeit in a non-professional capacity.

Before Jack and Paul, there mainly has been Ron, Aliyah's husband, with me being the godfather of Kashmir.  I will allow you to research our various backgrounds, at your leisure!  

Anyway, as you can glimpse, here, Paul an I have been involved in a lengthy conversation, mainly over the last couple of years.  We are still trying to determine the focus of this conversation......


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

cc: (as usual to OMF, another story, and just using first names.)  


[The email below is manly Paul commenting on >>>(my statements)<<<]

On Nov 7, 2014, at 5:00 PM, Paul wrote:

On 11/7/2014 8:51 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
Paul,

>>> I look forward to continuing our conversation, later today......

Not all systems of coherence are equal, even a-priori.  Thus do I dismiss Russell's specification objection.<<<

I agree, but this is not the thrust of Russell's objection -- which is that truth defined as coherence is the truth of a proposition with respect
to a reference set of propositions. Coherence theory doe not define the "truth" of the system as a whole, which system has to be given.

Of course the same objection applies in foundations of mathematics to formal axiomatic systems selected according to consistency and
completeness.

Thus coherence theory alone cannot be the ground of a priori metaphysical necessity -- although it may still be consistent with it.

Of course we can still argue for a Kantian synthetic a priori, but of course that is merely an "autobiographical" observation about the structures
the human mind imposes on sense experience.

Classical metaphysics penetrates appearances and grasps metaphysical reality a priori, by pure reason.

This is not to say that the choice of coherent system is arbitrary (see Watkins on this); just that the coherence theory of truth alone
cannot pick one coherent belief system out of a class of equally coherent belief systems.

This does not mean that coherence must be discarded; just that on its own it does not deliver the a prior necessity claimed by classical
metaphysics (n fact, the coherence criterion is even central to modern post-positivist philosophies of science based on Duhemian
theoretic holism).  

>>>Furthermore, nothing transcends coherence, almost by definition.<<<

This is OK if the propositions that form the reference set for coherence are those known to God -- which is one version of the coherence
theory that was designed to overcome Russell's objection. But it doesn't work for human belief systems.

>>>Yes, coherence is the prime-mover, the cosmic entelechy.<<<

Epistemological aspect: logos

Ontological aspect: pre-estabished harmony of solipsistic centers of perception

>>>IMHO, coherence is an all or nothing proposition.  Holism is necessarily whole.  There is no half-baked coherence. <<<

Sub specie aeternitatis, yes, but we are also talking about what is known or believed by humans here, right?

What is known to God is not known to mere mortals.

Again, coherence still operates nonetheless, but it is not enough on its own to give us a unique answer as to human knowledge (or science =
well founded belief =/= episteme).

>>>Like Johnson and Paul, on there respective paths, I refute incoherence thusly, as I kick the stone.  

Dr. Johnson's kicking of the stone can exist only under the Aegis of the Final Cause.  No other cause can measure up.  

IOW, Paul, we have no choice, physically or metaphysically, but to take the high road.  It is our story, and we're sticking to it..........
<<<

You can have your high road, but in order to relate the metaphysics  to science -- which is about what is known to mere humans -- you also need a
low road.


(cont.)  

From: Dan
Date: November 10, 2014 at 2:07:06 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: 2 others
Subject: Re: Coherence......

Yes, what the heck are we trying to do here, anyway..........?  

Well, we are looking to the MoAPS, mother of all paradigm shifts, and do so in the context of a global crisis that cuts across all disciplines and 'dimensions'.  

I will admit, up front, that Ron has played a critical role, albeit very discretely, rather too discretely to my taste(!), in keeping me motivated, from a possible national/global security PoV.  The latest manifestation of which is a long delayed meeting with a putative vatican-liaison person.  This meeting may never occur, but just Ron's toleration of my blogging its prospect does provide sufficient adrenaline to keep my old heart going pitter-patter, or something.  

So, yes, I do love it that the BPWH continues to defy easy pigeonholing.  Well, theologically, perhaps, it could be all too easily categorized, and one doesn't have to twist my arm too hard to get me to extemporize about that.  Do they, Paul?  Otherwise, however, the BPWH is a mishmash of the premodern and postmodern.  Modernity does not fare too well in this mashup.  

(cont....)



On Nov 10, 2014, at 1:26 PM, Paul wrote:

Dan,

Maybe we could start by getting some comments on the prospects for a revival of natural philosophy -- which appears
to include what you mean by "metaphysics" -- and how this might fit into the outline I sent out of a modern "coherence
theory" of scientific verisimilitude.

This might make sense of your proposal to merge physics and "metaphysics". For example, you propose to do with Leibniz'
monads what "scientific materialists" have already done with material atoms (I think this would also be consistent with
Watkins' analysis of the relationship between classical metaphysics and scientific theories).

Meanwhile I'm trying to get a discussion started with Jack on physical holography and conformal invariance...

From: Dan
Date: November 10, 2014 at 3:00:59 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: 2 others
Subject: Re: Coherence......

(cont.......)

The closest thing to a technical question, here, is how does my version of the BPWH differ from that of Leibniz?  

Was Leibniz seeking certainty?  Was he doing anything other than seeking coherence, especially with his PSR, principle of sufficient reason?  

What then is my claim on history?  That comes mainly with the eschaton.  Gottfried had no place for the eschaton.  Why the heck not?  I'm not mistaken about this am I?  

Searching Leibniz & eschatology yields mainly just speculation by 3rd parties.  

What else is Gottfried missing?  He is definitely missing postmodern physics, ufo's and Ron.  That ought to suffice for history.  


(cont.......2)

From: Dan
Date: November 10, 2014 at 4:51:01 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: 2 others
Subject: Re: Coherence......

Ok, so Paul and I had a 40' convo.......

# Leibniz was not a global teleologist.

The first such was Teilhard, TBMK. But Teilhard has been swallowed up by the Transhumanists, of which Jack is our favorite prototype.

Then the was the.....

# Panentheism issue........ who was the first?

When I last checked, it was AN Whitehead. Paul states that it was Spinoza, despite his often being labeled as pantheist. Was Leibniz a panentheist? Almost certainly, TBMK.

And then we have Aristotle and Plotinus.........

Wait, the first global teleologists had to be the Apocatastasis folks, i.e. eastern orthodox.

No, actually, it goes back to the Stoics (~350bc), at least. How did it get dropped, almost entirely by the intelligentsia?

But, no, the stoics were just going on the idea of eternal return, back to the golden age, or garden of paradise. The ancients only saw decay in the present.

It was only with, perhaps, the Zoroastrians that history could have a positive outcome. But that was only in the context of armageddon.

The counterforce to armageddon was evangelism and millennialism.

This is where we come to the global political scene, with the possibility of a MoAPS.


On Nov 10, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Paul wrote:

Right now modernism is not faring well period IMO. So I say, strike while the iron is hot.

I say revive natural philosophy, and revisit the whole question of causality vs. teleology on a level scientific
playing field, shorn of pseudo-positivist dogma. Also holism vs. atomist reductionism.

Did Pythagoras and Plato really win out over Aristotle? How about combining the best of both worlds?

But yes there is an urgency that prevents us from spending too much time on this kind of thing. I get that.

From: Dan
Date: November 10, 2014 at 5:09:34 PM EST
To: Paul  
Cc: 2 others
Subject: Re: Coherence......

Ok, so how is the BPWH metaphysic non-traditional........?

The Apocatastatic telos is only partially prefigured by Teilhard.  Jesus was not big on history.  The eschaton was always to be imminent.  And, as Wm Buckley was won't to say, do not immanentize the eschaton.  

Certainty is to be eschewed in favor of Agape.  This is cosmic harmony, occasionalism, qv, taken to the top.  Final causation, if you will.  

Certainty will never override faith or love.  Who, in their right mind, could have thought otherwise?  

So much for classical metaphysics.  We do postmodern metaphysics.  

Truth is only ever what is true, as in true love.  It is not an absolute.  It is always dynamic and intersubjective.  Never objective.  

All of this must be reconciled with the best possible closed-timelike-curve (CTC).  

This latter task is still a WIP........ (Interns take note!)  

From: Dan
Date: November 14, 2014 at 12:23:22 PM EST
To: Colton
Cc: Sheva, Paul
Subject: Deus otiosus?

(cont.......)

Besides the otiosus issue, we have the related death-of-god movement.  And, of course, there is good ol' deism, as opposed to theism.  

I believe that panentheism is the best antidote to the many attributions of inactivity to the cosmic Nous.  An important caveat is that panentheism should logically include teleology in all its panoply of forms and levels.  

Most significantly, is that the BPWH necessarily subscribes to a directedness of history.  Yes, there has been progress, up to a point....... an optimum point which may be just about now!  

Of course, the main point of the BPWH/SWH (small world hypothesis) is that Progress is not perpetual.  This further caveat should be quite obvious, although the popularity of transhumanism seems to argue otherwise.  The give-away is that transhumanists never mention the anthropic principle.  A telling oversite, indeed.  

The question before us then is the optimum range for material/technological progress.  The answer to this question determines the timing for the 4M/K/SoT/X2 event, IMHO.  


(cont.......2)

cc: OMF (as usual)


On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Dan wrote:

Colton,

I've read and re-read most of your content on the Academia site.  Here are some thoughts.......

#  Monopsychism...... (in the BPWH summary entry)..... (btw, 'nous' is usually spelled w/o an 'e'.)

You say that God is 'non-active' in the BPWH, as in neoPlatonism.  Actually, God is supposed to be inactive in virtually every tradition, with certain specific exceptions.  

I have been at pains to counteract that view, but it is not easy, especially not when we have spent the last couple of millennia under the aegis of a deus-abscondus.  

Your raising this issue provides me with the opportunity to clarify my thoughts on one of the most fraught issues in philosophy and theology.  But first, I am to call Sheva..........

From: Dan
Date: November 14, 2014 at 1:19:52 PM EST
To: Colton
Cc: two others  
Subject: Deus redivivus

(cont........2)  

As they say, timing is everything........

Within the monotheistic tradition there are diverse opinions concerning the endtimes.  

In the pantheist traditions, the opinions are even more diverse, however, the expectations wrt Kalki and Maitreya do speak to similar historical concerns, across the spiritual front.  

I need hardly point out that eschatological concerns are not confined to the sectarian world.  

Such concerns had a dramatic debut on the secular scene at Trinity Flats, 70 years ago.  In fact, I have often opined that the R&D show has a direct line of descent, therefrom.  


(cont.......3)  

From: Dan
Date: November 14, 2014 at 1:58:21 PM EST
To: Colton
Cc: two others
Subject: Re: Deus redivivus

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

This issue did recently come to the fore in the context of a putative MJ12 group. The folklore is that this group emerged early, relative to the green lights that were seen in and around TF in connection with the atomic tests. I have known CK for twenty-some years, and this group had not been mentioned until a few weeks ago, when it came up in relation to a possible visit to rome. In the brief time since I posted this speculation to OM, that putative visit appears to have been placed on indefinite hold.

But, yes, timing may well be everything, in which case we cannot complain too strenuously about the groundhog-like furtiveness surrounding this issue. Just ask me about ocelot and ferret, the two 'birds' that are not birds.

But, yes, we might suggest a homework assignment to the interns........ What would you recommend as the optimal timing, given various possible extraneous factors? But don't let it keep you up at night.

However, I hope you do see how this question could pertain to the 'otiosus' issue. Or, as I sometimes put it, when the Cat's away, we mice do play.

From: Dan
Date: November 18, 2014 at 5:06:58 AM EST
To: Paul Price
Cc: Ron, Bob Collins
Subject: Re: Updated--Rick Doty, paid contributor

Paul and Bob,

Yes, Friday would work for me.

As usual, though, Ron has set up a rendezvous with two potentially competing agendas. I am told that the program is to be about MJ12/13, and here he suggests ATS as the topic to Bob.

If it is ok with Bob, I can probably hold up my end of that bargain, especially if Ron and/or the Princess were to be interviewing, with me being the analytic fantasist. IOW, I might be cast into the role of Joseph vis-a-vis his brothers and the Pharaoh.

It might be helpful to the audience if we could go over some of the points before the show.

Dan


On Nov 18, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Paul wrote:

Hello Bob, Ron and Dan! I would love to do an interview with all of you at the same time! What about this Friday? Please write back and let me know!

Paul Richard "Rick" Price

On 11/16/2014 at 6:27 PM, "Ron wrote:
Hi Bob,

In many ways the two of you are opposites. You focus on facts, and Dan focuses on fantasy. It will be good for the radio show.

Ron

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Bob > wrote:
I hope it's not the notorious Dan Smith?? Rumors and hearsay don't work well with me....Rmc


Ronald wrote:
Hi Bob,

It would be great if you could appear as guest on Paul's radio show and discuss your book. Mr. Smith also could participate from an analytically perspective.

Thanks,

Ron