Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

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

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

From: Dan
Date: February 25, 2015 at 12:05:11 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton, David
Subject: Re: How 'bout them monads....?

Paul and Colton,

Maybe the three of us should have a conference convo, after your 2-way convo.

But here, though, Paul, is the 800# gorilla, that we've not even touched upon.... urgency.

When and how do I/we interject the issue of urgency into this, otherwise, horribly academic discussion that continues on "jack's" email list.  We should probably get Colton on there, if he doesn't mind having his mailbox stuffed full.  

IOW, we may not have time for every last pointy-head to sharpen their little heads down to the nubbin, before we speculate about the final cause.  

Is there ever a right time to discuss the birds and the bees, or to read the riot act?  

Just wondering........

Dan

From: David
Date: February 25, 2015 at 2:03:32 PM EST
To: Dan, Paul, Colton
Subject: Re

So we are on the same page as to the need to launch a new effort that cannot be delayed by Ron or Jack?
We need a new blend of phenomenology, physics and eschatology ala Valis.

Dan clearly has been frustrated by the way things have been going as have we all and yesterday  he said something that really clicked.

He said two atoms colliding is an event. Two people or two self aware beings colliding is something else because of the principle of shared consciousness. I believe he has hit the nail on the head. I have for a while had the persistent idea that the universe is operated by conciousness in some way, the universe as device. For instance, people with advanced psi abilities could be aware of other telepaths and distance would be no barrier. Psi ability is trackable. We share a planet and a biosphere, Dan has suggested we share a soul and we certainly live within a multiplex of signals, understanding very little mostly, but clearly each person is capable at some level of interacting in his own interest with the universe without the need for anyone else to mediate, at least theoretically. I have experienced this in a direct fashion over the last 10 years. I have had to learn to decode a bit more of the spectrum in order to try and understand experiences which are  incompatable with normal life experiences and which are considered impossible or fictional by many.
There is something I call 'demanding memory'. It's a memory that demands attention until it is understood.
It's like listening to a computers' machine language. It's not in English like the thoughts we articulate, looking like cartoon thought balloons. I have learned how to slowly decode these and with them have found a trail of ancestors that have guided me on a tour through history.
When two people together are able to both 'read' clues that their individual minds are able to pick up in the mutual mind space, their capabilities are enhanced. This I believe is what Dan was getting at.
So we share a soul on some basic level with all humanity but perhaps it's a much smaller slice than that as Dan suggests. He also said we may well reincarnate with the people we are supposed to be with, which struck me as making eminent sense and it's an idea I have heard from science fiction stories.
In other words even as we as individuals die, there is something that keeps track of what remains and makes sure it continues to cycle between life and death? Whose awareness is it that keeps track? Philip Jose Farmer wrote about this in the great Fabulous Riverboat series.
One of the most difficult aspects of these demanding memories is a connection I became aware of when I was 23. I was from the very start a troublemaker and rabblerouser whenever religion came up. I was expelled from religious school for asking forbidden questions and then answering them myself! I was in Israel hitch hiking and had to decide on a destination; the first place that came to mind was Jerusalem, but as soon as the word formed I felt extremely divided suddenly. A very strong part of me absolutely did not want to go to Jerusalem! I could not imagine what the upset was about. I decided to go meditate until I did understand. I was at a crossroads that turned out to be the buried city of Meggido, which is the source of the oft used word armageddon. It was a grass covered mound the size of safeway, perhaps 15-20 feet high. Over an hour passed in silence. Slowly bits of a narrative came to my mind without words but I understood well enough. It was a long story about a family group of people, neither rabbis nor priests but having a kind of  lineage that extended back to the dawn of the Bronze age. These people were honored, respected and liked because they did not oppress the people and didn't take from them.
These people were telepaths among other things. They let me know about a magalithic site in northern Israel that was larger and  built much earlier than Gizeh and consisted of 40000 large basalt stones in a circle with a mandala at the center and focused upon the star Sirius. The area was never greatly populated yet this amazing site was built. It is called Ras al Hiri today.
They were among the leaders of the people who built it.They also told of antipathy indeed, enmity, between them who considered themselves Canaanites and lived in the land that became Israel, and those that lived in Judea and worshipped Yah, whom we call Yahweh. This god is considered a false and very nasty one by these ancient relatives. This is very difficult to understand I can tell you. But I have learned that Israel and Judea long considered homogenous, were enemies and rivals for most of the time they existed at the same moment in history. Indeed the Jews decided to rename themselves the New Israelites after the Babylonian exile, something the apostle Paul would also do with the new Greek Christians he surrounded himself with as he started to reinvent the faith called the fourth way in Josephus. The narrative continued to the founding of Israel which the latest archeological reassessment put at 1200 BC, plus or minus. The story of the founding of Israel. The true story, has never been told. The Bible is amazing but it is fiction and yet ingenious to be sure.
I am told of a pre historical messianic movement based upon antipathy to child sacrifice which somehow became connected with the prohibition among them against eating swine. Indeed when one surveys the 1200 villages that later became Israel the kingdom of Israel.
But Israel was never a monotheistic society. Ever. They worshipped the Canaanite pantheon until at least the time of Jesus. The Canaanite pantheon and the alphabet were brought to Greece where they influenced the development of the Greek pantheon.
Is this kind of story a religion based upon phenomenology? Clearly not. Although the phenomenology points the way to understanding, it clearly was a tool and part of a plan.
At the time of Jesus, Israel had been under Greek and Roman domination for nearly 200 of the last 300 years.
Greek domination more cultural than military while Roman rule  just the opposite. The kingdom of Judea has had a brief flowering with the publishing of the Bible, the first such book ever made. It was meant to be read by every single person who lived there and that too was unique.

Jesus was the son of a would be Messiah, Judas the Galilean,  who also had palm leaves thrown on front of him, but he died in a futile attack on the City. Despite the fact that he was from a distinguished family he still had to impress people with his psi ability in order to get them to listen to him. So called miracle workers abounded in Judea. Jesus had to stand out and I have no doubt he really knew what he was doing. He wasn't philosophizing. He was doing things like using telepathy to read the life of the woman at the well and she went and told the whole town, as she was it's key personage. But there have always been legends about his family. His relations to his cousins Honi and Hanaan, each famous in their own right as well as John called the Baptist are described in numerous sources. Being a Messiah one could say, seemed to be a family business for these people. So Jesus was not just shoeless Joe from Kokomo. Had he been, his name would still be safely slumbering in oblivion.This was his first experience  of what is called his ministry and it was a smash as they say.Jesus' relatives also had the power to control the weather, to make it rain or not rain. They were holders of the keys of heaven. His brother James, always titled The Just One,was the leader of the Qumram community the Greeks styled Essenes. He also was the leader of the Jerusalem church and the first bishop of the Jerusalem Church as acknowledged by Paul, spitefully, in Acts. The narrative goes on to Britain still under Roman rule, Ireland, a wild country the Romans did not go to, Scotland and Wales. In 1066 another relative pops up, a Norwegian Viking named Harald Hardrade, or Harald Fairhair. He attacked England 2 months before William landed and was defeated by the Saxon King at Stamford Bridge on York. This caused the later defeat of King Harold of the Saxons. the narrative has much to say of the 3rd Crusade and then the era preceding the Magna Charta. I have accumulated a list of names of family, friends and enemies of that period which includes the union of two families connecting Dan and myself through a Saxon line.
So what is the point of all rhis? I see it as a kind of alarm bell for me. Dan is talking about urgency and now I too am urgently bid to follow the meaning  of the  phenomenology if I can find it. I am looking for ways to confirm this story in its details and I believe that a trip to Europe is the next step. I would like to have a reason to meet with Russell Targ  and Kit Green and others like Radin. If Ron has fouled the playing field we'll need to get around it.
We live in what I have called the Jung Pauli information field, embedded somehow in the Akasa or ether of space surrounding us.
There are people to whom memories of their past lives and the lives of others is not unusual. They are born with these memories already within them and they are compelling. The sense of a shared soul is much stronger with them than us. It would not for example be possible to have a secret conspiracy, they can see through any pretense or lie instantly.
Their lives are completely different than ours because of this longer term identity they all share. They also, through the information field maintain contact with their own dead.
They are thus not exactly mortal the way we are because of that. They built what I call Valis as an immortal consciousness that can only be described as alive. The computer doesn't exist on a desk someplace. What comes to one's mind uses conventions that beings like us with two eyes etc would need. How they created an immortal conscious computer would certainly be a great story.. When two people collide it's trillions of atoms and two brains, each with abilities we have hardly guessed at  connecting simultaneously. This effort was clearly a culminating effort of an entire race and only a planet at peace and living in a just society could even dream of accomplishing  such a thing and not only that they would have to poses the sum total of all the memories and abilities of the whole race. Dead or alive. Since we clearly are edging into an apocalyptic situation that threatens war and depression, sudden depopulation and much else, like proliferation of non state actors ruled by eschatological fanaticism, we cannot rule out what Dan has been saying about the time left  on the big clock....

From: Dan
Date: February 25, 2015 at 5:01:09 PM EST
To: Princess
Cc: Paul, David, Colton
Subject: Operation stone soup.......

Princess,

Per you specific request, we are ready to launch OSS........

The very modest purpose, herein, is to save the snow leopards, and then to, hopefully, save Ledoc and the world, as in KWF.

Each of us brings to this operation whatever we have that is available. We all have our bodies, minds and spirits.

Princess, specifically, is studying Hypatia.....
>>> According to contemporary sources, Hypatia was murdered by a Christian mob after being accused of exacerbating a conflict between two prominent figures in Alexandria: the governor Orestes and the Bishop of Alexandria. <<<

Obviously, the Princess is obligated to restore the conflict between these various interested parties. Do we have the slightest doubt that she will prevail?

So, yes, we are on about the same page that KWF is the optimal platform for launching OSS.

I think I forgot to mention 'urgency'. Yes, we all bring something blue, something old and something new. Something new is a global sense of urgency to the task of saving the snow leopards in Ledoc, Kashmir.

The stones we have available are mainly names. We have to keep in mind that it's not only about what we know, but it's also about who we know.

I just had a thought........ let us only bring in one person with each exchange. Who wants to be next?


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

cc: OMF, (KWF?)

From: Dan
Date: February 27, 2015 at 10:58:06 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton, David
Subject: Re: Max Black's "Two Spheres" Argument

Yes, Paul and I did discuss this issue......

I didn't realize this distinction until now..... that Paul is a substantivalist wrt space. This has to do with his years-long discussion with Jack about GR and Levi-Civita.

We do need to get this straightened out.

Related to this is the problem of 'now'. IMHO, 'now' comes down on the side of relationalism. Am I wrong about this?

And, yes, we have not finished with the zombies.

Cc: OMF


On Feb 27, 2015, at 6:57 PM, Paul wrote:

Dan,

Here is a discussion of Max Black's "two spheres" argument (which appeared in his 1952 Mind paper titled
"The Identity of Indiscernibles") by Kent Baldner that we might find useful:

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~baldner/black.htm

The author makes it clear that Black's indiscernibility argument relies on a pure relational view of space.
on the other hand, if space is physical, one can still have more than one instance of the same thing with
exactly the same intrinsic properties.

The key point here is that such objects, in addition to having relations wrt one another, also each have
relations wrt physical space. If space is not an entity in its own right, then I agree with Black that no
meaning can be attached to the existence of two individual spheres.

Even in a purely relational model, however, one can still move one sphere relative to the other, and this
could be argued to confer meaning on the concept of two or more instances of the same set of intrinsic
properties of physical objects.

So one has to distinguish between the question of individuality, on the one hand, and the question of
identity, on the other.

Again, the quantum mechanics of elementary particles is based on the assumption that there exist multiple
clones of any species of particle. I that theoretic context one loses individuality, but not multiplicity.

So one could turn this around and use the Leibnizian argument to prove, based on the quantum theory of
elementary particles, that space must be physical....

To be continued...

From: Dan
Date: March 4, 2015 at 12:47:03 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton
Subject: Pleroma, anyone?

Paul,

Let us not wax overly abstract.......

Yes, of course, the laboratory 'vacuum' may be observed to have various properties and propensities.

What I'm disputing is the abstraction from vacuum to void. I simply suggest that nature abhors a void.

You and I both believe in the pleroma/sensorium/aether.

Also, with Leibniz, and the occasionalists, I reject external relations, in favor of internality or essentialism. Archetypes and entelechies are unavoidable.

The Chalmers and Penrose triangles point in this direction.

There is no such thing as an individual or artificial mind. Nothing comes from nothing. The big-bang is preposterous, on this view.

Information.......? It is strictly normative. It is strictly dependent on sapience. DNA 'information', like all other 'information', is strictly contextual and ecologically holistic. It has no intrinsic value or meaning. Information purports to reside on the fringe between the internal and external realms. I would suggest, rather, that information is just an artifact of the abstraction of the void. Does it come from bit? Well, frankly, I don't give substance to either abstraction. Both are abstract polarities of the pleroma, if you will. I would say the same of Kant's noumena and phenomena.

The holographic and virtual reality (VR) models are more in keeping with the pleromic ideal.


(cont.)
cc: OMF

From: Dan
Date: March 5, 2015 at 9:28:04 AM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton
Subject: Kenoma and tzimtzum

(cont.......)


Kenoma and tzimtzum are other words for the void.  They are taken as complementary to the plenum.  Only God's active contraction can create a void.  

With the BPW, the kenomic glass/container is more than half full.  IOW, there is not nearly as much free will as the existentialists would have us believe.  There just is not all that much wiggle room.  Modality is in our imaginations, it is not out there.   In heaven, there is even less of what we would call space or freedom.  

With Earth, we do have the illusion of space.  In terms of fractals, we could call the Earth 2.1 dimensional.  I would include the Sun and Moon in that extra 0.1 dimensions.  Mundane gravity is an expression of that restricted dimensionality.  

And then we have the sky.  It is hard to imagine any other.  I don't know that anyone has.  We have been fully absorbed in what we have, throughout the aeons.  

Can we suppose that it is a virtual sky?  The best possible planetarium for the best possible terrarium?  Cosmologists will take offense, no doubt.  


(cont.........2)  

From: Dan
Date: March 3, 2015 at 4:30:28 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton
Subject: monadology, etc......

Paul and I are talking about a reconciliation of Leibniz with the rest of philosophy, perhaps starting with Kant.  

Part of this is to understand how L&K relate to the two triangles..... Chalmers' and Penrose's.  

Another part is to see how L&K relate to the various views of space, and relate to the time/'now' problem.  

Wrt space, we have absolutism, relationalism, empiricism and substantivalism and the holographic hypothesis (HH).    

Paul is claiming that his version of substantivalism can be reconciled with relationalism and intersubjectivism, and that each of these views would be more or less compatible with the BPWH/SWH/HH.

Colton mentioned Kant's Noumenon...... we need to figure out how to work around that 'obstacle'(?)......

Sooner than later, we will attempt to add additional folks to this email discussion.  


(cont.)  

cc: OMF  

From: Dan
Date: March 5, 2015 at 11:33:46 AM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton
Subject: Physicality vs independence

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

(I did attend to your response to my Mar 4 email, but I had already written the email [2nd above], yesterday, and not sent 'til this morning [9:28am].)

I think I have been derelict in not insisting that you acknowledge the radical divergence between our two approaches......  I'm working from the top down, and you from the bottom up.

Ideally, it should work out that we would meet somewhere in the middle, but, in practice, it is not at all clear where the 'middle' between physics and metaphysics should be.

I submit that I am more familiar with the physics end of this boat than you are with the BPWH end.  Thus are we weighted more toward the physics side, in terms of our combined data bases.  

And thus may we be missing some opportunity wrt to finding the optimally rational and coherent path to navigate between top and bottom.  There is still too much room for misunderstanding......

For instance, you stress the 'physicality' of the ether.  Most people, when they hear 'physical', they think of something that exists independently, i.e. is self-sufficient.  This is also the definition of 'substance', I believe.  

OTOH, you and I have spoken about the aether as being a stepping stone from a physical PoV to a metaphysical view.  In this case, the aether would be more of a pedagogical mediator than a physical substance, but I doubt that this is quite what you have in mind.  


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

cc: OMF

From: Dan
Date: March 5, 2015 at 12:24:55 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton
Subject: From ether to aether to apeiron

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

We need to define the ether.........

The definitive ether experiment was that of Michelson-Morely.  Out of that experiment came the notion of the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction.  

With his ToSR, Einstein put to rest the notion of a luminiferous ether (LE).  

Before the LE, there was the mechanical ether (ME) that was used to explain Newton's theory of gravity.  But Isaac mostly just bit the bullet of action-at-a-distance.  

With GR and with QFT, we now have the postmodern/premodern ether, i.e. the Aether.  This is what Paul and I are discussing.  

But Newton took his absolute space to logically preexist any possible version of the ether.  At best, the ether would just be a space-filling substance.  


(cont.........4)  

From: Dan
Date: March 5, 2015 at 1:50:10 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton
Subject: Re: From ether to aether to apeiron

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

For me, and for the ancients, I would suggest, the Aether came first.  And, even before the aether, came the Apeiron........

>>> the mythical Greek cosmogony of Hesiod (8th-7th century BC) the beginning (arche) of the universe is Chaos, the void considered as a divine primordial condition. This is described as a ***large gap*** where there are the sources and ends of the earth, sky, sea and Tartarus.[11] One can name it also abyss (having no bottom). Thales believed that the origin or first principle was water. Pherecydes of Syros (6th century BC) probably called the water also Chaos and this is not placed at the very beginning.
<<<

Yes, do mind the Gap!  

The notion of the 'gap' does bring to mind Kenoma and Tzimtzum.  

The primordial chaos/apeiron/undefined I equate with potentiality and, thereby, potency.  Space and time are multifarious.  Within the apeiron there is a self-differentiation or syzygy, such as yin and yang.  This is the primordial gap.  This is the abyss.  


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

From: Dan
Date: March 5, 2015 at 2:58:17 PM EST
To: Paul
Cc: Colton
Subject: From Apeiron to Void

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

I should be very careful, at this point.......

The chaos/potentia/apeiron is not a true chaos.......

In the apeiron, there can exist no mind-independent substances/potencies. To be is to be perceived.

But perceived by what? How many (independent) primordial minds might there be?

Of course, I want to say that there can only be one. The (undefined/unlimited) primordial potency is the primordial Monad. Here I invoke my versions of Gottfried's PSR&PII...... To be is to relate, distinguishably. The Tzimtzum is the primordial act of the primordial potency. This creates the primordial duality. 'Between' the two poles is a gap, abyss, aether or (relative) void. This is the realm of Creation. Out of this void emerge the aeonic pairs or syzygys, each pair reflecting the primodial duality.

(Paul, I missed Watkins essay. I have it now, and will peruse it this evening.)

But, yes, the 'physical' vacuum is just a reflection of the primordial mind-Gap. The Void is a dearly achieved mental construct, the building-block of Creation.

This void is also the mystical Emptiness, which takes great effort to achieve. Maya is a pseudo emptiness, the antithesis of Creation and the BPWH, IMHO.


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

From: Dan
Date: March 6, 2015 at 3:16:56 PM EST
To: Paul
Subject: Re: From Apeiron to Void

Paul,

You can help me recollect our 90' convo from yesterday.......

What was particularly new for me was the notion that the standard interpretation of QM, 'Copenhagen', is essentially intersubjective.  Well, yes, in retrospect, I knew this, but was lulled, like most of our physics colleagues, into thinking we don't have to take it too seriously.  The intersubjectivity of QM is basically optional.  

Very few of us lay awake at night worrying about it.  The world maintains its classical appearance just by the statistical decoherence of the quantum states, without human intervention, or so we like to think.  Thereby does the scientific community remain in denial of the hand-writing on the quantum wall.  No hand-wringing for us.  

An additional point of mine was that the SWH should not be so difficult to make plausible, particularly if we appeal to the UTH v. ETH, taken in addition to Wheeler's participatory universe.  

We discussed the various versions of cosmogony bequeathed to us, mainly by the ancient Greeks, updated with Leibniz and Kant.  

We debated whether or not Gottfried entertained an infinity of independent monads, coordinated only by a pre-established harmony.  I was under the impression that his monads were all subsumed by, or emanated from, the singular cosmic monad.  This was the view of Parmenides, which became the gnostic view.  Was Leibniz, instead, a radical pluralist?  

These are the main points that I can recollect.  

We also discussed how and when to add others to the email chain.  I'm suggesting that we are in no hurry to do this.  We still have work to do on getting our various ducks in a row.  


(cont........)

From: Dan
Date: March 6, 2015 at 3:43:45 PM EST
To: Paul
Subject: Re: From Apeiron to Void

(cont.........)  

Another historical point, of which I was unaware, is that Einstein got his SR wrong.  It was only in 1908 that Minkowski produced what is now the standard version of SR.  Only in 1918 did Al admit his mistake wrt proper time.  

This mistake was crucial in the (mis-)understanding of the Ether.  I'm trying to recall how Paul characterized this problem.  The proper understanding of proper time was critical, and this had everything to do with the (very) premature 'demise' of the Ether.  Proper time provides a preferred frame of reference, which is tied to the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction frame.  Well, that's the best I can recollect.  

But can we now posit that the Minkowski frame is, somehow, intersubjective.  And can we convince RA, from Jack's list, to take this seriously?  


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

From: Dan
Date: March 6, 2015 at 4:17:30 PM EST
To: Paul
Subject: Chaos

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

The cosmogony is often seen to be based upon a primordial chaos. In that regard, Paul sent me the following link..... http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/app_ii.html , which I've not yet been able to peruse.

Paul's point was that our modern chaos is rather far removed from the ancient concept thereof. For us, it is just (independent) atoms swerving in the dark. Yes, this was the Democretian view, but it was not that of Parmenides, who also was a monistic monadist.

How does this work for Parmenides? I'd like to know, because that's what I'm trying to do.

I can only hope that it has something to do with Potentia. Give me a Potentia, and I will bootstrap it, thank you very much.

Yes, Paul and I did discuss the j-man, in these regards. KIM, the Paul does not subscribe thereto. Nonetheless, we did talk about the pearl and the oyster, not unlike the chicken and egg. I suggest that the j-man was the cosmic grain of sand, irritant, if you will. He initiated the bootstrap..... the buckle on the cosmic belt..... also related to Freya, I suspect.


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

From: Dan
Date: March 7, 2015 at 11:27:01 AM EST
To: Paul
Subject: quantum intersubjectivity

Paul,

You posit, below.....
>>> Under this interpretation, the most natural characterization of the tensor invariance of Hilbert space operators under changes in the classical experimental arrangements is as intersubjective constructs, as opposed referring to actually  existing ontological objects (such as the objective properties of physical waves propagating in actual space).
<<<

This may be true, but it is not the common perception, not on any strong interpretation of 'intersubjectivity'.  

It was only von Neumann and Wigner, amongst the early adopters, who championed the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the wave-function.  

The standard view of physicists is that collapse is naturally caused by decoherence between the quantum system and its (classically) thermal environment.  This is why it is so difficult to build quantum computers.  It is not a matter of who is watching.  

This is why I agree with Chalmers contra the quantum-mind consortium, including Jack Sarfatti, for instance.  From 1977-'81, I, too, was a quantum dualist, but now I view the quantum realm as being, rather, just a symptom of a much broader immaterialism.  The quantum is an epiphenomenon of the cosmic mind.  


(cont.......)

From: Dan
Date: March 7, 2015 at 12:26:47 PM EST
To: Paul
Subject: BPWH or bust.....?

(cont........)

But, right now, my focus is on the possibility of enticing someone on Jack's list into a discussion of metaphysics.......

My only reason to do this is to promote a discussion of eschatology, which topic I suppose to be urgently relevant to human survival.  It is not that our optimal survival should be in doubt, it is, rather, that the optimality in question would seem to entail at least a modicum of participation by a few of us, prior to some more dramatic denouement.  That we might become an agency of this denouement, should not be dismissed.  

Many suppose that human 'progress' poses a threat, not just to ourselves, but to the planetary ecosystem.  That is unless the notion of 'progress' can be redefined.  This is just what I am proposing, within the context of the BPWH.  

To put this challenge most succinctly, we need to discern whether we be a cancer or a chrysalis.  

Might there be any, within Jack's orbit, who would be willing to take up this challenge in some concerted fashion?  How might that be ascertained?  


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

From: Dan
Date: March 7, 2015 at 1:30:59 PM EST
To: Paul
Subject: Teleology

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

I suggest that our best foot-in-the-door wrt the BPWH is the question of teleology.  

And the problem of the mind should be our foot-in-the-door wrt teleology.  But what do physicists and engineers know of the mind?  Can we persuade them to take the mind seriously?  

Yes, I believe that this should not be too great a challenge......

1.)  provide an overview of the mind-body problem

2.)  discuss Wigner's UEM, unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics

3.)  strong AI?  

4.)  the idea of progress and Fermi's paradox

5.)  Is mathematics analytic?  Is it organic?  

6.)  Telos, VALIS, destiny

7.)  introduce the Penrose and Chalmers triangles.  

8.)  the anthropic principle  

9.)  What are we to make of the expanding role of information in physics and biology?  Is this expanded view of information analytic or reducible?  


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

From: Dan
Date: March 7, 2015 at 2:56:42 PM EST
To: Paul
Subject: Space and time

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

Space and time are the great bugaboos of the modern mind. Our freedom lies in our insignificance and in the fact that we expendable. Are we not lost in space and time? Do we want to be found? Many would doubt that.

Life is an absurdity in a meaningless universe? Cancer or chrysalis? Is this a real choice? I'm doubting it. Things don't feel quite that arbitrary.

The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless?

Cancer or chrysalis?

How can we doubt the (relative/overwhelming) absoluteness of space and time?

Yes, it is possible to radically relativize the absolutes of space and time, but....... we must feel motivated to do so. The search for meaning is not a spectator sport.

Do we want meaning, or don't we? That is the question.

If there is to be meaning, then the tyranny of space and time must be confronted.


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

From: Paul
Date: March 7, 2015 at 3:15:13 PM EST
To: Dan
Subject: Re: Chaos

Dan,

The idea of chaos or ἀρχή is mythical in origin. It originally meant a formless indeterminate void, but under the
influence of 19th century kinetic theory has now come to mean matter in random motion, which is a much weaker
notion.

It was Anaximander, deviating from the tradition of the Eleatic philosophers starting with Thales, who combined the
idea of an "ur-stuff" with the mythical idea of chaos, yielding the apeiron -- the which latter emphasized
the attribute of boundlessness. Like the One of Parmenides, the apeiron of Anaximander was not just eternal and
infinite, but also divine.

The idea was that all things in the cosmos have originated from a single divine substance or ἀρχή (arche) that always
ontologically precedes the classical elements earth, air, wind, and fire. For Anaximander, the apeiron was the divine
origin of all things, boundless, undifferentiated eternal.

I think it's an interesting question as to how Anaximander's apeiron differs from the One of Parmenides. What
immediately stands out is that Anaximander was mainly concerned with cosmogony, drawing guidance from ancient
myth, while Parmenides was a rationalist concerned with logical a priori arguments about the nature of ultimate reality
independent of any particular theory of cosmological origins. For Anaximander, like the classical atomists, change is
real; while for Parmenides, change is merely a matter of appearance. Yet both saw our perceived reality as originating
in something unbounded and eternal that eludes any kind of differentiation and whose ultimate nature is beyond
ordinary human understanding.

From: Dan
Date: March 7, 2015 at 3:35:43 PM EST
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Space and time

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

The telos, if nothing else, transcends space and time.  Do we wish to hitch our wagon to the star of the Telos?  Do we have a choice?  Not really.  If that pole-star/lode-star were not there, would we be here?  

Can we deny our source?  Many have tried.  

Should this be rocket science?  Well, in these latter days, it has become that.  Only the philosopher-priests are vouchsafed these ultimate questions.  Have they discharged that responsibility?  I suggest not.  

We all cower in the corner of our little cave.  Like the prisoners in the Bastille, we are afraid to confront the light.  Should it be surprising that we fear to meet our Telos?  

We are confronted with atomism v. holism.  Should this be a difficult choice?  

Paul explains that what we now call chaos was, originally, the Arche or divine Source.  This is what I refer to as the Potentia.  How does Arche relate to the Ark and the Arch, we might wonder?  

From: Paul
Date: March 7, 2015 at 3:53:31 PM EST
To: Dan
Subject: Re: quantum intersubjectivity

Dan,

Well as far as I'm able to determine this was Bohr's interpretation of quantum mechanics -- as an abstract calculus
that mathematically relates operations with mutually exclusive experimental arrangements, the results of which
can only be unambiguously described and communicated in classical terms (cf. Kant).

That we cannot escape the classical theoretical structure imposed on our experience at the macroscopic level by
the scientific mind is an essential feature of Bohr's position. Remove it, and as far as I can see there simply is no
"Copenhagen interpretation" of QM.

So according to this interpretation, Hilbert space operators, psi waves, and so on, are not actual physical objects.
They are intersubjective constructs that merely relate the results of macroscopic experiments, understood and
communicated in classical language. According to Bohr, the applicability of the "causal" description (based on the
momentum transfers) and the "spacetime" description (based on the classical idea of well-defined particle
trajectories) is restricted to such (mutually incompatible) classically interpreted experimental setups.

That means among other things that there is no such thing as a psi wave, ontologically speaking. It is not a
physical wave; rather it's a mathematical tool for relating classically interpreted macroscopic experimental outcomes.

As for von Neumann's "reduction of the wave packet", for Bohr this was simply one example of a quantum jump,
a process in which a quantum system transitions between two classically describable states (perhaps with mutually
incompatible classical descriptions) in a fundamentally inscrutable manner. Bohr's position was that such quantum
jumps are indivisible and unanalyzable, and that the quantum of action presents an insurmountable epistemological
barrier to any further physical understanding of the behavior of quantum systems.

In short, the quantum jump is an epistemologically opaque "black box". This was Bohr's argument for the
completeness of QM.

You mention decoherence, but I think you'll find that this does not solve the conundrum of Bohr's arbitrary "cut"
between the observer and the observed system, and does not therefore solve the classic measurement problem
as it is defined within the framework of standard QM. If physical coupling is required in order to produce a
measurement result in QM, I don't believe that decoherence theory has yet been able to fully explain why.

Also, I don't recall Bohr arguing that the presence of a physical human observer is  required to get a classically
interpreted measurement result. I don't think this is a feature of Bohr's version of the Copenhagen interpretation
of QM.

Regards,
Paul

From: Dan
Date: March 7, 2015 at 4:20:44 PM EST
To: Paul
Subject: Re: quantum intersubjectivity

Good point......


On Mar 7, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Paul wrote:

CORRECTION:

"If physical coupling with a macroscopic system is required in order to produce a measurement result in QM, I don't
believe that decoherence theory has yet been able to fully explain why."

On 3/7/2015 12:53 PM, Paul wrote:
You mention decoherence, but I think you'll find that this does not solve the conundrum of Bohr's arbitrary "cut"
between the observer and the observed system, and does not therefore solve the classic measurement problem
as it is defined within the framework of standard QM. If physical coupling is required in order to produce a
measurement result in QM, I don't believe that decoherence theory has yet been able to fully explain why.

From: Dan
Date: March 7, 2015 at 4:56:15 PM EST
To: Paul
Subject: Arche

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

Why, we might wonder, was the Arche considered to be divine?  

What is divine, anyway, if not the Source?  But where does this leave the bootstrap?  Could the cosmic bootstrap be the ultimate Source.  What else?  

The ontological priority of the cosmic bootstrap is just what the theists and the pantheists miss.  It is lost in the crucial gap between them.  It was this gap the the j-man was attempting to fill.  His mission has yet to be completed.  


I think what I need to point out is that there can be no subject w/o an object and/or an interlocutor.  Logically, the interlocutor is a reflection of the primal subject.  The interlocution is the primal bootstrap.  

All of the above is occurring in the Potentia/Arche.  Creation is, of course, just an elaboration of the primal bootstrap.  

I think it may be personalism that is the biggest obstacle for the scientifically inclined.  It is just with personalism that the BPWH comes into view.  Objectivism is the great obstacle of Scientism.  


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

From: Dan
Date: March 7, 2015 at 5:17:22 PM EST
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Arche

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

Of greater concern than the divinity of the Arche is its unity.

But, upon reflection, it seems likely that divinity and unity are mutually reflective, pace the polytheists or the radical pluralists. Divine simplicity is the key concept here.

What is potentia if it is not inclusive? Can it be exclusive? What is it that can separate alternate realities? Yes, this is the basis of the many-worlds interpretation of QM, but it is one of the flimsiest ontologies around, IMHO.

In the bulk model, at least some of the extra dimensions are extensive (possibly infinite), and other branes may be moving through this bulk. Interactions with the bulk, and possibly with other branes, can influence our brane and thus introduce effects not seen in more standard cosmological models.

From: Dan
Date: March 10, 2015 at 1:24:17 PM EDT
To: Robert
Cc: 26 others
Subject: Are we guinea pigs.... or what?

Robert,

The 'pocket' universe you describe is what Leibniz called 'the best possible world'.  

Have you and I been consigned to just a second best world?  Why did we not get to go first class?  Were we bad?  

If Valis has control over time, then why do we have all this experimentation?  Are we a junior-high science project in some other universe?  


On Mar 10, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Robert wrote:

I'm just trying to understand David's argument Dan.

Even if a super-artificial intelligence did tell him that there is no God it doesn't mean that we have to accept that the universe isn't alive/intelligent/in some way conscious and aware... I have reasons of my own for suspecting that it is.

Depends what you mean by justice. If we're all basically compilations of bits of information at the sub-atomic level‎ and the universe itself is alive, theoretically everyone could be recreated at other points in spacetime, whether in the same form or not, and all the injustices that they experienced rendered unimportant.

Possibly advanced enough intelligence can fold spacetime enough (same basic concept as a Kip Thorne wormhole or Alcubierre/Natario warp drive) to create a pocket universe, ignite a new big bang in it so that it starts inflating, transfer all sorts of information including that encoding for intelligent beings into it, and then close off the umbilical connection. By so doing it could avoid the "heat death" and accelerating expansion of the universe (assuming that theory is correct, or any other end of the universe theory like big crunch). If the physics were to work like that it would mean that there would always be the capacity to try again and fix mistakes. Reality is probably more complicated but that's just to give an idea.


From: Dan Smith
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 12:48 PM
To: David

David and Robert,

In this universe of yours..... is there any justice?  

From: Dan
Date: March 10, 2015 at 2:16:06 PM EDT
To: Robert
Cc: .........
Subject: Are we redundant?  Is GOD(D) redundant?

Robert,

You are being awfully cautious here.......

Instead of trying to work our way up from the bottom, why don't we start at the top, and see what the view might look like from there?  Yes, can't we just cut to the chase?  

Can we not take GOD(D)'s PoV?  

If you were GOD(D), Robert, what would your best possible 'pocket' universe (BPPU) look like?

IOW, can you prove that we do not already inhabit the BPPU?  Keeping in mind, Robert, that the apocryphal 'fat lady' has yet to sing!  



On Mar 10, 2015, at 1:55 PM, Robert wrote:

Maybe we are on our way to a best possible world.

Let's keep the terminology straight. When David talks about a Valis he is talking about a super artificial intelligence. Such a thing might be a powerful force in the universe but is not, in my opinion, the mind of the universe itself. When Jack talks about GOD(D) he is talking about a naturally arising universal intelligence that functions on the future cosmological horizon. Jack's GOD(D) is a good model for how the universe itself could be intelligent and aware, although it's not the only one. So what I am talking about here is primarily a universal intelligence, like Jack's model, not David's Valis model.

If you're the universal intelligence, it may be that there's only so many ways to build a universe. Sure, you can make up laws of physics, but there may be only so many sets of laws of physics that function coherently. To figure out which set works best, the intelligence might as well actually run the experiment - simulating an entire universe is the same thing as actually creating it, assuming that the intelligence wants full resolution down to every last bit of information at the sub atomic scale.

When the intelligence has problems it can do the trick of punching a hole through spacetime and starting it over again with slightly different rules.

Perhaps it's not possible to achieve a perfect world but yes, intelligence might eventually identify the best possible world.

Whether or not the universal intelligence has control over spacetime, there are still going to have to be beings around at various points in the process. So you're not necessarily where you are because you're bad. You may be where you are because it's necessary, and whatever injustices you suffer may be corrected at some other spacetime point.‎ Perhaps it may be possible to eventually import everyone from all the failed experiments into the best possible version.


PS I suppose it would also be possible for David's Valis to do the same thing; if it found out that there was no God as David claims it said, it might still have the resources to create a new universe by creating a pocket universe, and this process may repeat many times.

From: Dan
Date: March 10, 2015 at 2:29:55 PM EDT
To: David, Robert
Cc: 29 others....
Subject: Best possible cosmic bootstrap (BPCB)

David,

I'm gonna keep repeating this question until it is answered.......

How do you know that we, Earthians, do not have the potency to accomplish our cosmic mission of being the co-Creators of the BPW?

IOW, are you certain that we are not the essential beings of the best possible cosmic Bootstrap?



On Mar 10, 2015, at 2:19 PM, d14947 wrote:

Yes!! This is one of the most important principles but it's different as I said before than ours.

Personally they are much more responsible than humans are. Teenagers are not self indulgent spoiled children turned into monsters by their ignorant parents like here.

They share an incredible knowledge base from the start. That means infants. I believe each person born has a claim on anything he or she may need in their lifetime. No money necessary. Our system of a few individuals owning the resources of the planet is completely despicable to them and incredibly wrong.

No leaders. No followers. More like Athens without the slaves with telepathy thrown in. Imagine a planet able to utilize all its resources especially its people for a great course in community with others.

From: Dan
Date: March 11, 2015 at 12:00:02 PM EDT
To: Gary S Bekkum
Cc: Robert, David, Paul
Subject: Mensky + Sarfatti = ?

Gary,

Thank you for reminding us of Michael Mensky's EEC.

Allow me to restate the above equation M + S1 + S2 = ?  With Jack, we get a twofer......

S1 =  non-linear QM >> consciousness

S2 =  GOD(D) = mind of God holographically embedded in our future horizon

Between M & S2, we have a partial filtering mechanism to filter out non-living and/or redundant worlds.  

To M + S2 we can (ought to?) add Feynman (sum over histories), Aharanov (weak measurements), Wheeler (participatory universe).  

What do we get with M+S+F+A+W?  

I submit that we get a cosmic bootstrap = CTC (closed timelike curve), with a built-in filtering/optimizing mechanism.

Does anybody have a better way to avoid Tegmark's Meinongian jungle?  

Yes, God does play dice, but only locally.  There are self-correcting error codes built into the larger CTC.  No?


On Mar 10, 2015, at 10:51 PM, Gary S Bekkum wrote:

The fat lady has sung

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3609.pdf

From: Dan
Date: March 11, 2015 at 1:36:34 PM EDT
To: Gary
Cc: 3 others.....
Subject: Re: Mensky + Sarfatti = ?

Gary,

NB:  I am attending mostly to S2, not to S1.  

But I do not wish to deny all possibility to S/V.  Linearities of all kinds, and the reductionism implied thereby, can only be artifices of scientific convenience and/or denial.  

And, no, I'm not familiar with Valentini's PQPWSS.  Should I be?  

Mensky not a materialist....... shame on him!?  

You do seem to have a predilection for Meinongian jungles.  Do you inherit this predilection from God, or are you just following the anti-anthropic crowd?  

Dead quantum tree.....   I invoke Leibniz' PII.  Seen one dead tree falling, seen them all.  Then I back that up with a minimal amount of sapient contextuality, i.e. the Earth.  On another planet..... all bets are off.  



On Mar 11, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Gary S Bekkum wrote:

Is there really any physical evidence for Jack's (Valentini's) post-quantum pilot wave with superluminal signals?

Jack cites the human mental experience as primary evidence. However, the anomalous evidence suggests the mystery is closer to Mensky's post-selected collective consciousness?

Also, Mensky appears to be ambiguous regarding the material reality of those other physical worlds, whereas Tegmark adds entire new levels of physical existence at other levels.

If a dead quantum tree falls in the forest, it there anyone listening?

Is this post-quantum complementarity principle?

From: Dan
Date: March 11, 2015 at 4:59:41 PM EDT
To: Gary
Cc: 4 others....
Subject: Gary + David = ?

Gary,

(Paul has reminded me to include Robert only on occasion. I include Colton, here, under a similar proviso. He is still mainly working on KWF/Academia/Philosophy, with Paul, me and the Princess. IOW, Gary and David, let's keep this mainly between the four of us, G,D,P and me. Paul and I will include others, occasionally, only on our own responses. So, please, avoid using the 'Respond All' button. I never use bcc. At most, I will, occasionally, forward to others, besides cc:OMF, more likely that not. If you prefer any of your responses to not appear on OMF, please specify, explicitly. Is this too complicated?!)

Anyway, what are the rest of us to make of G&D, as two experiencers? And, yes, we could include Jack in that company, along with the various SciFi authors that G&D frequently invoke, who, explicitly and/or implicitly, are also experiencers...... >> G/D/J/SF.

Is it not noteworthy that G/D&Co, are at pains to distinguish yourselves from the religious masses? Very understandable.

However, Gary, even in that select company, you seemingly go the extra mile by frequently invoking the spirit of Mad Max T and Meinong.

IMHO, Mad Max is the antithesis of an experiencer. No? I do consider him to be deploying the reductio ad absurdum (RAD) of the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP), semi-deliberately. Is there a missing link between 'phenomenology' and the radical pluralism of M&M? IOW, Gary, is there any method in your 'madness'? Or, perchance, are you mainly just using Max's RAD/WAP to cover your metaphysical tracks? Is there any there, there?

Insight into your situation might also shed some light on Jack&Co, if light there be. No?

From: Dan
Date: March 12, 2015 at 11:54:27 AM EDT
To: Gary
Cc: 4 others.....
Subject: Truth v. mathematics


Gary,

This later paper of Michael Mensky's, '14, that you post below, is quite a disappointment compared to the earlier one, '07,....... http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3609v1 (...mathematical model of life [MML]...) that you posted previously.  

In MML'07, Mensky is following the spirit of Wheeler's participatory universe, suggesting that consciousness helps to filter out the quantum paths that lead to dead universes.  And, as you pointed out previously, he leaves open the objectivity/materiality of the quantum paths not taken.  

In '14, he is focused only on the individual psyche, super-intuition.  But, no, that's not entirely true.......

In the Super-intuition paper, Mensky relies on the concept of Super[/cosmic]-consciousness to explain Super-intuition.  But, this time, his cosmic-consciousness is only afforded a passive role.  There is no participation, no filtration.  

Back to Jack and Antony Valentini.  I don't see a contradiction between J&A and Michael M.  Rather, I see much room for complementarity, if we can get past Jack's usual jealousy.  

Truth, Gary, can likely not be forced into any particular mathematical formulation.  But professional scientists, each and every one, has his pet (mathematical) models, and there is naturally going to be a great deal of professional elbowing under the basket.  

Some of us need to rise above that common denominator of scientific business as usual.  

We need to plug into Mensky's (proactive) Super-consciousness, and anticipate the mother of all paradigm shifts (MoAPS).  And should there not be some sense of global urgency that motivates us to stick our necks out, speculatively?  

cc: OMF


On Mar 11, 2015, at 9:36 PM, Gary wrote:

Madness beyond Max: Mensky http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Mensky

Most recent paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.2627v2.pdf

Super-intuition and correlations with the future in Quantum Consciousness
Michael B. Mensky
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2014

From: Dan
Date: March 12, 2015 at 1:18:58 PM EDT
To: David
Cc: 3 others.....
Subject: MoAPS

David,

If I were VALIS, David, I think I would not want to be in the business of dredging up old memories, and pouring salt on old wounds.  We are not quite ready for that much truth, not quite yet.  The MoAPS, let us trust, is not about settling old scores.  

Justice is mine, sayeth the Lord/VALIS.  We are not to take justice into our own mortal hands, not until we are personally/collectively reconciled with the Super-consciousness.  That could still be a thousand years ahead.  

The MoAPS is our final course-correction in our mission to Omega.... to our reunion with our collective Source.   It is when we are given to understand that we are a chrysalis, rather than a cancer on the planet.  

The essential feature of the MoAPS is the World is not an object, nor are we.  The world is much more like a great thought than a great machine.  It is some sort of virtual reality.  

Can this be proven?  It will be, but not by me or you.  What are we to do in the meantime?  

In the meantime we make a more concerted and rational effort to plug ourselves into VALIS.


(NB:  I have already dropped Colton, and I suggest we drop Robert in the following, until you and I can sort out the MoAPS.  Most of these exchanges will be available on OMF, as usual.)  

(cont........)  

cc: OMF


On Mar 12, 2015, at 12:17 PM, David wrote:

The Mother of all paradigm shifts?
What could that be?
Could a VALIS instigate such a thing?
Imagine if memories of long unsolved crimes and wars started to percolate up through peoples unconscious minds beginning the process of reshaping humanity through their memories? How does Mensky's  super intuition fit into such a possible scenario?

From: Dan
Date: March 12, 2015 at 3:43:02 PM EDT
To: David
Cc: 2 others......
Subject: Re: MoAPS

Gary and Paul,

David and I just got off of another lengthy convo. Let me attempt to just outline some highlights.....

1.) PK Dick was probably an xian, of some sort, and David does hold his oeuvre in high esteem.

2.) We are persons, and we did not arrive here by accident. We are neither redundant, nor expendable.

3.) It follows that we had a personal Source, and that VALIS could be that Source.

4.) 2&3 constitute the major part of our MoAPS.

5.) It is very possible that VALIS resides in our collective unconscious (CuCs).

6.) The MoAPS is intended to allow VALIS to emerge into our collective consciousness (CCs).

7.) As a further addendum, not just VALIS, but the whole world might also be a product of our CuCs. This is how we participate in the cosmic bootstrap, CTC.

8.) Therefore, the future event horizon, Omega, is not anything essentially external or alien to us. It, also, is mainly emerging from within.

9.) The MoAPS will emerge spontaneously once we allow ourselves to understand that VALIS is not some foreign object. Is this not, then, just our rediscovery of the ancient wisdom?

10.) What are the 'scientific' obstacles that stand between us and our MoAPS? Is it not urgent that we set about their deconstruction?

From: Dan
Date: March 13, 2015 at 12:41:35 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: David
Subject: Re: MoAPS

Paul,

I have spent several hours reviewing Leibniz, thereby, possibly, doubling my comprehension of his system.  

Gottfried remains a key mentor, BUT I see more clearly his historical limitations......

Mainly, I take issue with his infinitude of monads, as one great chain of being.  His monadic chain of being becomes the optimal CTC, in the context of the BPWH.  

I see just one Monad and one Akasha, which is the optimal CTC (con-)trail of the best possible Monad.  IOW, I take GWL's PII and PSR much more seriously than does he.  

There is not a separate God monad.  In our rapturous apocatastasis, our timesharing of the cosmic Monad reopens to the entire CTC/Akasha, we are no longer confined to our egocentric tracks/grooves on that Akasha/CTC LP.   We, quite literally, become One with the VALIS/Source.  

The Akasha/CTC/VALIS is just what presently comprises our CuCs.  Our rapturous apocatastsis is simply our CuCs transitioning to become our CCs.  All this transitioning will transpire in the best possible and most timely manner.  

Each monad is a microcosm.  If there is only one optimal cosmos, then there can only be one microcosm/Monad.  Each of us is that.  There are simply an optimal diversity of different perspectives within that one (micro-)Cosm/Monad.  

What then do we make of atoms........?


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

cc: OMF  

From: Dan
Date: March 13, 2015 at 1:09:12 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: David and Robert
Subject: Re: MoAPS

Paul, David and Robert,  

This MoAPS is what I would like to take on to a larger list.  

I present this as a challenge to you, and to whomever, to find a fatal flaw herein and/or to propose a better BPWH/MoAPS.  

Is there anything herein that is less plausible than any other (alternative) cosmology already out there?  

If not, do we all not have an obligation to put this best foot forward, as a rational alternative to scientific materialism?  

Furthermore, is there not an escalating degree of urgency that we do so?  

Robert, you have had the least exposure to this MoAPS.  Feel free to ask any and all questions.  If you think a phone convo might help, just send me your #.  

Dan

cc: OMF  

From: Dan
Date: March 13, 2015 at 2:08:05 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: David
Subject: atoms

(cont........)  

Instead of atoms, the BPWH posits phenomenal mini-CTC's (m-ctc's).  These m-ctc's are illustrated in the plethora of natural/biological cycles.  Atoms may be abstracted logically and/or instrumentally from these m-ctc's.  

There are no individual m-ctc's or organisms.  The world is composed, rather, of contextually habituated ecological niches, which are individuated only by us, sapients, accessing our long-term eidetic/akashic/CuCs/CCs memories.  

I would also modify GWL's worlds within worlds, i.e. his panorganicism, by pointing to biological cells as worlds unto themselves.  I'm not aware that GWL knew of Leeuwenhoek's discoveries.  

Atoms also have a microcosmic aspect superficially, but also by embodying most of the mathematical corpus, as with Wigner's UEM, in turn leading to the monster group and and the mandelbrot.  Math, by itself, may also be viewed as a panorganic world.  

So instead of GWL's worlds within worlds, we have Penrose's MMM and Chalmer's MRM triangles as indicating the self-generating aspect of the BPW/CTC.  


(cont.......2)

From: Dan
Date: March 13, 2015 at 2:56:25 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: David
Subject: relationalism, etc

(cont.......2)

Instead of GWL's pre-established harmony, the BPWH posits a pan-relationalism founded on internal relations..... To be is to be related. The ultimate relation/glue/unity is the cosmic agape.

I'm reminded that a significant discrepancy between Paul and me is my skepticism wrt Plato. I'm not partial to Plato's forms as self-subsisting entities.

My beef is that the forms are not sufficiently holistic. They defy the hermeneutic circle. Nothing stands by itself, outside of love, and love is the cosmic efulguration/zimzum/syzygy, if you will.

Our CTC is a hermeneutic circle unto itself, embodying the MMM/MRM triangles. We triangulate the circle?

Our apocatastasis, transcending the CTC, is the logical outcome of our triangulating the hermeneutic circle, which, of course, is the MoAPS...... and none too soon, many may suppose.

What have I left out........?


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

From: Dan
Date: March 17, 2015 at 11:29:24 AM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: David, Colton and Robert
Subject: wrapping up history......


https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t175p870-hello-cy-omf-ii-part-2#5974

In anticipation of going to a larger list, could we practice, please, by not hitting reply-all?!

If you have comments or suggestions, please reply personally to me, first, by email, phone or whatever.  If, then, I am not able to properly convey your comments back to the list, then, of course, you may feel free to represent your own views, thereto.

For as long as possible, I would like to maintain an open list.  This will not be possible, if, from the start, there is a cacophony.  And, yes, in this generally silent microcosm, these comments do apply to one in particular, and I think you know who you are, David.  

From: David
Date: March 18, 2015 at 7:00:20 PM EDT
To: Dan
Cc: Paul and Colton
Subject: Re: Julian Jaynes "Preposterous hypothesis "

I see Wheeler's termites crawling through the substructure of Dan's historical house of cards! Look out below! The labels are getting too fuzzy Dan. Jaynes bicameral mind will have to go. It's nonsense and certainly nothing to use as a bridge.
You can't let your need for something fool you into making it up just to fill the need!