Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

dan wrote:Cy,

I'm not in favor of guns, but I understand that some folks need that extra sense of security.  

Yesterday we were at the national Cathedral doing the flower market for Kashmir-Rose.  Today we are headed to a WCUAVC flight day at a school down here.  


Was looking at the connection between India and Greece back in the day.  In fact there was a Greco-Indian empire, created by Alexander the Great.  The mutual influence



(cont.)

From: Dan Smith
Date: July 1, 2015 at 12:01:09 PM EDT
To: Eric Garza
Subject: Re: Messiah

Eric,

Thank you for the talk we had yesterday. You have had some wonderful experiences. I hope that you continue having the good ones.

You seem to have figured out the basics of life, and, at least on those basics, we do correspond.

I am simply adding an historical dimension. We appear to have set ourselves up for the mother of all paradigm shifts (MoAPS), as we come to understand that we are not just lost in space and time. We should have learned this from the Anthropic principle, but we have not, yet. Whoever can bring about this MoAPS may be seen as the anticipated Spirit of Truth, or, more generally, as the 4M/K/SoT/X2 (Mahdi, Maitreya, Messiah,......) to unite the faiths into a single prophetic vision of the world.

The BPWH/SWH/CTC is, at the least, a step in the right direction.........

Please call or write, if you have any more questions.

Dan

From: Dan
Date: July 2, 2015 at 1:07:14 PM EDT
To: Gary
Cc: ten others
Subject: Re: New ... Novikov: The wormholes and the Multiverse March 6, 2015

Gary,

You do not understand that God is personal.  I have told you this until I am blue in the face.  Where does your personhood come from, if not from a Source?  It does not come from non-linear quantum mechanics, pace Jack.  He refuses to answer my simple question as to the strength of the non-linear coupling.

When will you get it through your thick skull that we are the children of God, not the spawn of God.  Get over your ET/flying-saucer dreams.  

We are not an experiment.  We are not redundant or expendable.  A little teleology goes a long way.

You and Jack&Co sit around and try to ascertain how we are going to blow ourselves up.  We are not going to.  Get over it.  Get a life!  

BTW, you have taken the words of Jesus completely out of context.  You come close to blaspheming the Spirit of Truth.  

Dan

From: Dan
Date: July 2, 2015 at 1:34:46 PM EDT
To: "Kafatos, Menas"
Cc: 20 others

Subject: Re: Imagination

Menas,

When will the good physicists on this on this list understand that mind and personhood are not an afterthought?  They are not the result of glitch in the quantum, rather the quantum is just a projection of the cosmic mind.

I have asked Jack, and whomever, to stand up and defend their theories, but Jack always takes an ad-hominem tack.  Don't let Jack be the scientific Katechon.  Look it up.

There is more under the Sun, than is dreamt of in your theories.

Dan


On Jul 2, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Kafatos, Menas <> wrote:

And Einstein also said that "theories are free inventions of the mind". That clearly says that mind is primary and not theories about the universe (that after all the mind creates).

From: Dan
Date: July 2, 2015 at 2:57:43 PM EDT
To: "Kafatos, Menas"
Cc: 21 others
Subject: Waiting for Godot........

Menas,

Of course many aspects of mathematic and logic point back to the human dimension, and we should continue pursuing them.

In the meantime, the world stands on the brink of destruction, and scientists and technologists have played no small part in bringing us to that brink. Religionists, many of them, want to push us over brink.

At least these religious fanatics may understand that we are at a crucial point in human history.

If mind is an essential part of the cosmos, this would make all the difference in our understanding of ourselves and the world. When are we going to get serious about exploring that difference?

Is this not a question that urgently demands an answer?

What is holding us up? Are we waiting for Godot? Maybe Godot is waiting for us.



On Jul 2, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Kafatos, Menas wrote:

Yes, trying to capture consciousness in some formula is a chimera. However, there are deeper levels of mathematics like algebraic geometry, t-topos math, category theory, etc. which allow for the QUALITATIVE descriptions that conscious process require (not just the analytical dynamical algebraic or even geometric approaches).

Having said that, even logic formalism as in primary relationships between an observer and an object will not get us "to the top". But it will be much closer than present attempts to put in consciousness as an afterthought in an existing formalism, no matter how beautiful that formalism may be.

From: Dan
Date: July 3, 2015 at 12:41:28 PM EDT
To: Menas
Cc: 35 others
Subject: Eschatology

Menas,

You are the naif one......  There are a few others on the list who are so naif, and several who are not.

When I spoke to Ron Pandolfi for the first time, 23 years ago, I had gotten his number from a fellow crop-circle researcher, he told me that he was going to Los Alamos to speak with the Visitors.  I called Los Alamos to verify the information and was connected immediately with John Alexander, who verified most of the info.

I had had a 'born again' experience in 1977 that revolved around John 16:12ff.  So, I then, in 9/91, introduced myself to Ron as the Spirit of Truth, saying that the Visitors would only tell him to ask me about the Eschaton.

We never have had a serious discussion about my cosmology, BPWH/SWH/CTC (4M/K/SoT/X2),  but several months ago he said that he was among a small group of people who were following 32 vectors to the the 'apocalypse'.  They had recently aligned to 18 months or to 9/'16.  

And now there is talk of me or the Princess flying an off-planet saucer next week.  

I don't know if any of this is true, but I cannot just discount it.  

Naturally there is politics involved.  Ron has been the odd man out of the Aviary, since he joined it in the late '80's.  

(cont......)

cc: OMF

From: Dan
Date: July 3, 2015 at 1:49:16 PM EDT
To: Menas
Cc: 35 others
Subject: Re: Eschatology

(cont......)

Aviary politics..........

Ron was brought into the Aviary to investigate the Eisenhower Briefing Document.  He determined that it was forged copy of something.  

He then proceeded to shut-down/defund most of the Aviary operations, including, especially Stargate.  He himself operates mostly in rogue mode.  My association with him has also put me at odds with most of the rest of the Aviary, unfortunately.

Anyway, my participation here is not just academic, as you see.  My reading of Jack's book, Space-Time and Beyond, was influential, leading up to my 'born-again' experience.  I took-off for the 'beyond' part, but Jack retrenched, back to the straight mathematics that you see him doing today.  There was a passing of the 'exotic' torch, you might say.  

The person on this list who is most acquainted with the BPWH/SWH/CTC is Paul Z.  That is partly because I was paying him a stipend, for awhile.  He does not subscribe to the small world, SWH/eschaton part of it, I don't think.  

I can go on at great length about this impending MoAPS.  I have written ~5k pages about it, so far.  Suffice it to say that I may not be as stupid as I look, especially now, after my stroke.  

No, do not confuse me with an academic.  It seems that these waters run very deep(ak).  There may be bigger fish to fry.  There may be a great deal of urgency, here-abouts.  It is also about our ultimate concerns.  If it is not, I'm barking up the wrong tree.

If this be religion, religion it is.  I go for coherence.  There is nothing half-way as coherent as the BPWH.  No one can argue that with me.  It's just that none of you can imagine that we are prepared to meet or become our Maker, in one thousand years, or less.

Get used to it.  Get over it.  

From: Dan
Date: July 3, 2015 at 2:28:44 PM EDT
To: menas
Cc: 30 0thers
Subject: Re: Eschatology

Menas,

That was not retort. I regret that you took it that way.

I am somewhat defensive about my connection with Ron. Those who do not know about it are many, and they are naif about the fact that there may be national/international concerns about these matters. I am astounded, again and again, that, even the people who should know better, refuse to take any of it seriously. That is partly because Ron has often called me crazy. What if he said I wasn't? It would have to immediately be taken to the president.

It is a narrow line that we navigate here, between my being a jokester, and this being a global emergency.

What do you think?


On Jul 3, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Kafatos, Menas

I was asking an honest question and you retorted with "naïf". OK I follow Socrates dictum, one thing I know is that I don't know anything.

Best,

MCK

From: Dan
Date: July 5, 2015 at 11:23:46 AM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: 32 others
Subject: Seeing the backs of their own heads.......

It's like a dog chasing its own tail.......

The further you look into space, the deeper you look into the atom and into the fossil record, the more you are just seeing the back of your own head.  This is part of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, of Penrose's triangle and of Wheeler's circuit.

You become mesmerized by your own equations, by the sound of your own wheels.  

The anthropic principle should be telling you that there is a deeper something behind those phenomena.  You are saving the phenomena, with wheels within wheels.

What is it all about, Alfie?  

Well, it keeps a lot of people off the street, a lot of people employed.  Now, they don't know what else to do.  They are mainly just waiting for Godot, waiting for the Apocalypse.  It's all part of the setup in the best possible world.  

You are stuck with weak idealism.  You just need to step up to strong idealism and personalism.

From: Dan
Date: July 5, 2015 at 8:04:41 PM EDT
To: C Langan
Cc: 28 others
Subject: 'Easy' problem.......

One thing that neither side has noted is that Chalmers has had second thoughts about the so-called 'easy' problem. Turns out it's not so easy, after all. At the very least, it involves linguistic holism of the Quinean sort.

Yes, with brute force, you can always approach, asymptotically, some sort of intelligence. This hardly explains the leap between chimpanzees and humans. There is a tremendous difference between simulation and emulation. This is just the difference between weak and strong AI.

A while back, Paul invited me to elaborate on Personalism. Personalism is another name for the holism. Saying or implying that persons do not exist is a very big uphill battle. I recommend against it. The angels will not be on your side.

Both Jack and Chris, and too many of the 'eastern mystics', argue against it. I am a monist, myself. But this is a 'monadism' of the cosmic Self, which is a person, and is the Source of our own selves. This is what Apocatastasis is about.

No, Jack and Chris arguing that persons emerge accidentally from a quirk in the physics or the logic is a very big stretch. Much easier to argue that physics and logic emerge inter-subjectively.

From: Dan
Date: July 6, 2015 at 11:08:19 AM EDT
To: Ruth Kastner
Cc: 28 others........
Subject: Cogito ergo sum

Jack and others seem to be saying that persons incidentally emerge out of other, more basic, phenomena.  However, modern philosophy could be said to have started with the Cartesian 'Cogito'.  

I am simply pointing out that everything else is necessarily an abstraction from that Cogito.  

20th century philosophy witnessed an extended battle to deconstruct the Cogito.  This battle was underwritten by the very well financed and motivated AI industry.  Much of the modern mindset hung in the balance.  

I agree that that the Cogito, the YHWH, if you will, is a social construct, but what do I mean by that?  It means that we all hang together, or we hang separately.  I am not a Monadist, but a Relativist or Relationalist.  To be is to relate.  The most related thing is the most real thing.  What is that?  What could it be, other than love?  Perhaps you have heard that God is love.  I know how sappy this must sound to the ears of the professional physicist.  How do you measure love?  Well, we measure it every day, in the form of trust.  'In God we trust', it says on all of our currency.  What is the most likely forerunner to a global apocalypse, but a global collapse of the credit market.  

What does it profit you to deconstruct the self?  Is it only because you wish to demonstrate your mathematical prowess?  Explain, then, how to deconstruct mathematics.  With logic?  What does logic reduce to?  Perhaps mathematics displays an organic unity.  Perhaps E8xE8, Srinivasa and the Mandelbrot, etc., are an extension of the Anthropic principle, as applied to the unity of Mathematics.  

Perhaps your deconstructionism is a nervous professional tick.  You just have to get over it.  It is a dead end.  The high water mark of materialism/physicalism has long since passed.  That was  ~1950.  You don't know where to turn.  It appears that we have to reinvent physics from the top, down.  That's all.........  

From: Dan
Date: July 6, 2015 at 2:23:30 PM EDT
To: C Langan
Cc: 28 others
Subject: Re: 'Easy' problem.......

Chris,

You have a reductive holism?! That is quite a trick. You must use a double dose of your 'secret sauce'.

You say that you are an Xian. Are you saying that you have a formula for the Trinity? I would bet against that.

Are you saying that it should be possible to mass-produce souls? Jack used to say that, but now he is denying it. Tricky fellow, that one.

As an immaterialist, you believe that consciousness does not have to be associated with material bodies, or with physical processes of any kind. Yes? Poor Gary, he is quite sure that there is an algorithm for consciousness (Cs), but it is one that can only be implemented in hardware.

As I recall, logic usually has constants or signifiers to denote true and false. Where does your truth value come from, if not from Cs? It would seem that logic has to have Cs built into it from the start, if it is to make any sense at all. But that is an integral part of the CTMU, as I recall.

From: Dan
Date: July 7, 2015 at 10:57:18 AM EDT
To: C Langan
Cc: 29 others.....
Subject: Priorities.........

Yes, I am seriously annoyed with your innuendo, and your playing peek-a-boo with your theories.

You probably have some important insights wrt the Logos/CTMU, so I am relatively patient with you. Also, I am reluctant to be out front, as long as I don't have to be.

Paul and I are patient with Jack, because of his seniority, his connections and, most of all, maybe, because of his entertainment value. But I am on my second stroke now, mostly recovering, but I am on short time, and I don't think I can afford to be even as un-nice as I've been in the past.

I am working on the assumption that we are dealing with matters of biblical proportions/global survival. All of this is relative to a MoAPS, that will take us from materialism to immaterialism, from a big world to a small, pre-Copernican, world. This MoAPS is equivalent to the Spirit of Truth guiding us into all the Truth (John 16:12ff).

I am not going to allow you to play games with the following question, Chris......

You speak of 'unbounded telesis' and of a 'self-contained' world. These seem to me to be contrary phrases. Will you play games with this ambiguity, or will you clarify it?

I am propounding the small world, on the basis of personalism, coherence and strong idealism. This is 'my' BPWH/SWH. I do not play games with it, Chris and Jack. If you play with it, I will seriously play with you.

According to this hypothesis much of history, as well as the future, is inevitable, especially at this alleged level, but this is the BPW, and especially at this alleged level we do not wait on Godot. We assume that we can incarnate whatever is in front of us.

I was on the verge of finding out tomorrow whether the Visitors are ET's or UT's. The off-worlding craft was shipped back here on a truck, and checked out. The Princess had dinner with the project director, the 'Koth man', last night. She was told that the postponement was partly due to my recovery. I was going to be her test pilot.


(cont......)
cc: OMF

From: Dan
Date: July 7, 2015 at 1:36:37 PM EDT
To: Gary
Cc: 20+ others.....
Subject: Re: Priorities.........


Gary,

Thank you, finally, for this admission. There are some other people on this list who might follow-suit, I am thinking particularly of Deepak, Ruth, Chris, Jack and some others who have not been heard from.

This small group could easily call the bluff of the big-world people. I am not asking you to subscribe to anything, merely to admit that strong immaterialism is not implausible, on the face of it.

Science and technology have played a major role in getting us into our dead-end scenario. Maybe a breakthrough of nearly magical proportions will pull us out, at the last minute. But can we afford not to keep this other option open?

Chris, in particular, should realize that, at this level, he is well beyond the realm of plagiarism. He is, rather, at risk of being left behind by the march of history.

I see that he has responded to my earlier message.........



On Jul 7, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Gary S Bekkum > wrote:

I imagine it is possible to move from the 'big world' of mostly endless mostly 'dead' matter to a smaller self-contained 'virtual' world of living awareness.

Apocalypse now? Saucer? Life pod? Or drone in drag? ;-)

Gary S Bekkum

From: Dan
Date: July 7, 2015 at 2:02:59 PM EDT
To: C Langan
Cc: 30 others......
Subject: Re: Priorities.........

Chris,

Thank you for responding........

But you did not respond to the substance of my question.

We are your witnesses, if you have something useful to say. I am still hopeful that you do. It may be..... Speak now, or forever hold your peace.

No, Chris, I'm not sure of anything. We are each qualified to know what we know.

I have, for over twenty years, reported what Ron says to me, or is reported to say to others. It may well be BS or not.

He is also telling me that certain prognostication vectors have recently come into alignment on Sept., 2016, as being apocalyptic in nature. This is all he will say.

I do not appreciate your calling me names for reporting what I hear. Maybe you should be the one to settle down. If this is disinformation, it is of a rather serious nature. I am not seeking your psychological counseling, thank you very much.

From: Dan
Date: July 13, 2015 at 10:40:24 AM EDT
To: JACK SARFATTI
Cc: 7 others
Subject: Re: Dan Smith is blind to his own soul

Jack,  

Are you suggesting that the human soul evolved, along with the biological body, from the basic physics/chemistry, i.e. non-linear QM.  Thus, there is no intelligent source to account for the anthropics or for personhood?  Consciousness and sapience, therefore, are natural products of random evolution.  

Philosophers find it difficult to account for the truth value of any statements, including the above, on that score.  

If you simply allow time to be a construct of consciousness, then teleology could be a natural part of the background, and the universe, or the appearance thereof, becomes a part of a naturally self-excited circuit, a-la Wheeler.  I think that this what you suggest wrt your future horizon.  If mind exists independently of matter, then the stress is upon saving the background appearances.  That is what physicists are paid to do.  



On Jul 12, 2015, at 4:58 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

And so are many others

From: Dan
Date: July 13, 2015 at 2:49:41 PM EDT
To: JACK
Cc: 14 others
Subject: Re: Dan Smith is blind to his own soul

Jack,  

I have not seen you come so close to putting mind before matter.  

There must be a primordial mind/information field.  What is the meaning of space-time without consciousness?  There must be some sort of Presence to give rise to the present.  All elsewhere has to logically depend upon some here and now.  

There could be no unobservable universes......  the only real phenomenon is an observed phenomenon.  

The big-bang model is as much a logical construct as it is a physical construct.  

If life is not to be an absurdity in a meaningless universe, then mind is an inevitability.  Nay, mind can only be its own source.  We physicists gave people the means to destroy themselves..... do we have to take away their meaning/purpose as well?  



On Jul 13, 2015, at 1:04 PM, JACK wrote:

[...]
In the holographic model cosmic consciousness is already there in the quantum information field that pilots Einstein's gravitational field. Space-time itself is conscious in that model.
[...]  

From: Dan
Date: July 14, 2015 at 12:04:06 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: 12 others......
Subject: Re: "If your pilot waves don't support self-reflection of mind on itself ..."

Somebody has to do it....... Jack is sticking entirely with the physics.

I think his course is the best possible one. He has a pseudo-dualism with the particles and the pilot wave. And he has some degree of teleology with the future horizon. I don't quite understand his argument with Ruth. Evidently, she is not making the grandiose claims that he is.

Ruth is only claiming to solve the quantum problem, whereas Jack is going for broke.

I think that we should let Jack have his time in the Sun..... We don't need to contest him on the details. Let him have his details. This is the state of the art for physicalism. Anybody following Copenhagen is just themselves up for Cartesian dualism. The TI.... I'm not so sure.

We need to be more clear about the claims of PTI.......

We've read Ruth's book, UOUR, and she is more subtle about her claims. Allow me to review her conclusions once more......


(cont.......)
cc: OMF

From: Dan
Date: July 15, 2015 at 9:36:00 AM EDT
To: Ruth Kastner
Cc: 17 others.......
Subject: Best possible......

Ruth and Paul,

What I was averring, yesterday, was that Jack's model was the best possible Physicalist model.  Obviously, it has serious problems with relativity, and any correction thereto is liable to have a pure field ontology.  But, still, it would be a purely physicalist model.  

Not so with Copenhagen.  Copenhagenism invites a quantum dualist interpretation.  There has been a, not so small, industry surrounding Copenhagenism, which is touting a modern version of Cartesian dualism, with the HUP supplanting the pineal gland as the bridge between mind and matter.  

This is where I was, in 1981, trying to make sense of a dualist evolutionary cosmology, with an multi-world evolution converging teleologically and telepathically toward an Omega Point.  

This is what Jack's pure physicalism could also be leading to, with its 'mind of God' future horizon.  

But then I discovered Coherence.  Dualism of any sort is simply incoherent.  

I realized that everything that is not touchy-feely is an abstraction therefrom.  Abstractions can be wonderful things, as long as we don't take them too seriously, too ontologically.  But it seems as though an Atom Bomb is not an abstraction.  Honestly, it was those bombs that enticed me into physics, back in the late '50's..... my dad was a colleague of Donald Menzel.  

But really, A-bombs are just a form of nihilism.  They are fire on steroids, ontologically....... stolen lightning, if you will.  They brought down the furies, almost literally, over Trinity flats.  My guy, Ron, results therefrom.  

Now we count the days to Armageddon..... last estimate was Sept, 2016.  Ron is checking the alignment of the 32 'apocalyptic' vectors again, today.

All I ask for, Ruth and Paul, is little coherence.  A little coherence can go a long way.  Jack, with his physicalism, is striving for a form of monism, i.e. coherentism.  

But with Ruth, I'm not so sure.  Her Quantumland sounds rather dualistic.  At least it sounds rather noumenal, in the Kantian sense.  Or like the Implicate Order, in the late Bohmian sense.  

Yes, there are atoms, but in what sense?  They look real enough, through a tunneling electron microscope.  What would we have thought, if we had come up with a blank?  What would we think, if the night sky were a blank?  But, when we look deep enough into space, are we not seeing the backs of our own heads, teleologically speaking...... the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics?

I am only suggesting a strong form of idealism/immaterialism.  I will give Jack his form of coherentism, if you give me, mine.  It may be our last defense against nihilism.  

cc: OMF  

From: Dan
Date: July 15, 2015 at 2:42:05 PM EDT
To: Ruth
Cc: 17 others......
Subject: Sounds foolish.......

Ruth,

I think Paul described this as a neutral monism.  

What say you of a Multiverse vs. the Anthropic principle?  Is there some selection effect in play?  

What of John Wheeler's self-excited universe?  What of Penrose's triangle of mind > math > matter?  What of teleology?  

Your neutral monism is low bar for coherence.   Do you feel professionally restrained from raising it further?  

We give people the Bomb, and then tell them that life is an absurdity in a meaningless universe.  Is it grandiose to go a step further?  

I am telling you, Ruth and the rest, that someone in the government claims to be tracking the alignment of vectors of the 'apocalypse'.  With that in mind, can we raise the bar on the meaning of life?  Or does that sound foolish to you?  Is there any coherence that does not include life?

From: Dan
Date: July 15, 2015 at 4:57:25 PM EDT
To: Ruth
Cc: others.......
Subject: Re: Sounds foolish.......

[This was drafted before receiving Ruth's response to the previous email, in which she invites us to carry on with our speculation.  I will respond to that invitation, specifically.]

Ok, let's leave global security on the side for [the] moment........ You likely feel that it is above your pay-grade........ it should be, but politicians and academicians would not touch it with a ten-foot pole......  

In the meantime, my other interlocutor advises me that what we may be dealing with here is a species of structural realism, namely........

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/#OntStrReaOSR  

..... radical or ontic structural realism.  It's relations all the way down.... there are no relata.  

We could be speaking of a species of monadism, of internal relations, of relationalism, per se.  

Ok, what are we to make of OSR?  According to Ladyman, it's mathematics all the way down.  I once had an encounter with a follower of Ladyman.  They are serious folks.  It is also a species of informationallism, perhaps.  

We have all heard of Pythagoras and Spinoza.  They were also pantheists.  They are all trying to avoid personalism.  It was also a species of deism, if you will.  

You have no need of that hypothesis?  Even if we hold your feet to a global apocalypse?  Oh, right, we weren't supposed to go there.  

But tell me, anyone, does '1' compute?  Does '0' compute?  Can any computation capture the full meaning of zero?  What is the full meaning of zero?  Have not dissertations been written on that subject?  You see the problem with pure mathematicism....... mathematicism without mind.  

From: Dan
Date: July 17, 2015 at 11:10:55 AM EDT
To: Ruth
Cc: ~35 others......
Subject: Being nice to Jack........

Ruth and Paul,

Let's be nice to Jack. He is our MC.

He is the closest of us to being a pure physicalist. If we are to honor physics, we should honor Jack. The rest of us are hedging our bets, or going for immaterialism.

Let's give Jack some sort non-linear Bohmian, back-acting, volitional, pilot/mind field.......

Then we need to ask Jack what else he might need or want. How robust does he want his non-linear pilot/mind field to be? And let's not forget his back-acting/teleological future horizon that he also refers to as the 'mind of God/GOD(D).

Then the question of dualism becomes more refined........

IOW, can his God take on a personality or soul? Do our personalities (souls?) derive, in anyway, therefrom? What role does evolution still play, now that we have teleology and GOD(D), but I've already forgotten what that stands for? How does a designer God relate to the Anthropic principle?

What sort of connection can we, or do we, have with GOD(D)?

There are plenty of other questions to ask of Jack, but why don't we start there? Hopefully, he will deign to entertain us with some answers, be they straight or otherwise. Of course, he doesn't always need to come up with an answer. He could say that some of it is still a work in progress.

From: Dan
Date: July 19, 2015 at 9:51:10 AM EDT
To: Ruth
Cc: 30+ others.......
Subject: Ruth and Jack agree..........

Ruth and Jack agree that there is a reaction from the future.......

In Ruth's case it is in the general confirmation waves from the future.  In Jack's case it is from the future horizon.  

They are also both relying on a sort of ether, which is a background grid that exists beyond space and time.  In Ruth's case this is the grid of virtual transactions, the ones that aren't completed.  In Jack's case it is the general influence of the horizon itself.  

They also both accept the notion of a CTC, I believe.  

So why aren't we putting one and one together?  We can get a lot more than 1+1.  We get a singular circuit that is stitched together by the weak transactions, both advanced and retarded.  This Singular Circuit allows free will, on the micro-scale, but it conforms to a maximal, Leibnizian, action, on the macro-scale.  

This would be Leibniz', much abused, best possible world.  It may seem much less than the best, now, but that does not yet include a Millennial ending, or closure, in the case of a CTC.

This is the most rational way to put together John Wheeler's self-excited, Singular Circuit.

Or am I jumping too far ahead of the game, for our professionalists........?  How much time do we have to wake up to the possibility the we may be a Chrysalis, beyond space and time, rather than just a Cancer on the Earth?  Are you, collectively, determined to be the Katechon?  

From: Dan
Date: July 19, 2015 at 2:14:34 PM EDT
To: Ruth
Cc: 30+ others......
Subject: Re: Ruth and Jack agree....... (sort of....)

Ruth,

I am talking about teleology, in general.  I'm talking about an Omega point, in specific.  

The 'future', in my mind, could exist outside of space-time.  It is, more generally, simply not a construct or part of our space-time.  It could be the realm of the possible or potential, or your subquantum realm, if you will.

I am suggesting that we construct space-time intersubjectively.  We are its co-creators.  This is a top-down process, as you suggest.  You suggest a 'superior being' actualizing the future by doing the 'final measurements'.  I suggest something similar.  

As far as CTC's are concerned, I'm not quite sure why you are being so picky.  They could, most simply, be some form of causal loop, with the spacetime as an ad-hoc, or holographic afterthought.  

I'm just trying to point out that we don't have to see ourselves as a cancer upon the Earth.  I'm loosely employing modern/'fringe' concepts to get across the basic possibility that, in a larger scheme, we could view ourselves as much more like a Chrysalis.  I am trying to project optimism about a very grim looking future.  Help me out, please!

From: Dan
Date: July 19, 2015 at 4:18:43 PM EDT
To: Ruth
Cc: 30+ others.......
Subject: Optimism......

Ruth,

I would characterize that as a rather weak form of optimism. What if 99% of those possibilities are catastrophic? Can we up the odds for optimism?

Let us enquire after Leibniz, Wheeler and teleology.......

You say, in your universe, that you have no need of observers, past, present or future. Our universe could have been devoid of life from the beginning, you suggest. But what then of the Anthropic principle? You are not a Multiverser, are you? You are trying to get away from Everett's version, certainly.

You do want the world to be safe for volition.

But, Ruth, in Quantumland, is volition only local? You seem to have the whole universe participating in the transactions. Could there still not be a maximal action principle that operates on a larger, even universal, scale?

I'm asking you for a heartfelt opinion, not just your professional opinion. Perhaps I'm asking for your prophetic opinion. Not to put you on the spot, or anything!

From: Dan
Date: July 22, 2015 at 8:59:24 AM EDT
To: Deepak and Ruth
Cc: 30+ others
Subject: Re: a field of infinite possibilities?

Deepak and Ruth,

When you go beyond Jack, you will hear from the other side.........

The entire edifice of science is built upon the notion of deep space and deep time.  Without those 'objectivities', you'll have to deal with a whole new ballgame.  I'm not sure that either of you are prepared to venture into those deep waters.  

Jack, and Fred, wrote the book, Space-time and Beyond (1975).  He put his toe in those waters, probably in a partly drug-induced state.  Evidently, he had a bad trip, back then.  He has never ventured there, since.  Now, the 'mathematics' is his security blanket.  

I have asked him many times, whether, in a holographic universe, it makes sense to speak of a future horizon that is some billions of years hence.  With all his mathematics, he could never embrace the fact that a horizon could be part of the holograph/illusion.  

Deepak is part of tradition that also clings to deep space and deep time.  That tradition did so, in a rather arbitrary manner, simply by adding zeroes to the 'mythical' numbers.  Read Giorgio de Santillana's Hamlet's Mill, if you want to get a more accurate picture of the traditions.  

Yes, you probably want to play it safe wrt scientific cosmology.  But don't kid yourselves, you will have made a pact with the materialist 'devil', much as did Descartes.  This is immaterialism-lite.

You might ask yourselves if our Visitors have been space astronauts, or have been trans-dimensional beings?  From Planet X, or from Dimension X?

When you eventually venture into the deeper waters, beyond spacetime, you will find that you are not the first to have done so.  You will find that there may be a plan, already in place.  We may not just be a cancer upon a random planet.  Rather, we may be a Chrysalis, about to be born.  We may not be God's spawn, but, rather, God's children.  We may all be soulmates, in that regard.  Co-Creators of the world.  

But this is liable to be much too radical for your educated/politicized sensibilities.  In that case, stick with your 'cancer upon the planet' scenario.  When the situation is dire, you may then run for cover.

From: Dan
Date: July 22, 2015 at 10:55:41 AM EDT
To: Ruth
Cc: 30+ others........
Subject: A little teleology could go a long way......

Ruth,

Well, you do keep your cards close to your vest........

Yes, I have made a close reading of UOUR, and your emails. Yes, spacetime may be the tip of an iceberg, and you speak of Quantumland as the next frontier, and that it is open to 'infinite possibilities'.

Wonderful, but........... That says nothing positive about life not being an absurdity in a meaningless universe.

I understand that you do not want to be more than a step or two ahead of the crowd. You are helping to make the world safe for other possibilities.

Do you understand that the world is rapidly becoming more vulnerable to negative possibilities? The positive possibilities may be much more limited than the negative ones.

There is the possibility of a coherence theory of truth, CohTT, as opposed to the correspondence theory. But this CohTT is minuscule amongst the random universes.

But, if there is coherence, there can be teleology. I don't see a single mention of that word, Ruth.
Chris is ahead of you here, and maybe Deepak, I hope. What is the Quantum good for if it does not make the world safe for teleology?

You may feel that you may have achieved your life goal if you have made the world safe for volition. But, as Janis famously said, 'freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose'. Except now, with all our bombs, we have everything to lose. Maybe there is a plan for us that does not involve Armageddon. Maybe we are a Chrysalis, and not a cancer. But, yes, that involves some heavy duty teleology. Is it too heavy for your Quantumland? Not ready, yet, to go there......?

From: Dan
Date: July 24, 2015 at 11:38:51 AM EDT
To: me
Cc: 40+ others
Subject: What if........

Let's try another tack.........

Let's suppose that civilization is on the brink of collapse. Many people on this list suppose that it is. Technology may not be destined to save us. It may be putting us in harm's way.

Let's suppose that we have been visited, and that those Visitors are trans-dimensional beings, not just astronauts. Another likely possibility.

Then consider the possibility that mind is not an epiphenomenon of reality. Rather, that the Anthropic principle points to a Wheelerian self-creating world, or to a 'holographic' world, one that is dominated by consciousness. Unlikely? I'm doubting it.

Why haven't our visitors pointed this out to us? Perhaps they have, to some, but they realize that they will have to play brinksmanship. They will have to wait 'til the last minute, if they don't wish to be perceived as spoilers.

We need to calculate how close to the brink we will have to come. Yes, if we constitute a necessary cornerstone of reality, we will inevitably be saved, even if we ignore all the signs. But, even in the best possible world, there are real consequences.

Again, how close must we come to the edge before we awaken to our status as a Chrysalis? How much of an external intervention would be required? In the best possible world, would not a minimalist intervention be the most desirable? Would any of you be prepared to lift a finger toward that end? What additional information or proof would you need?

From: Dan
Date: July 24, 2015 at 6:03:34 PM EDT
To: me
Cc: 40+ others......
Subject: Beyond catastrophe............

So much for the first premise...... a catastrophic end!

The next premise, that we have been visited........ Most on this list would agree, also........

Yet, the message, if any, has not been conveyed, widely. (Might we not make contact with those who have received the message?)

First, though, what might this message be? Very possibly it is prophetic. It is that we have reached the logical climax of our material phase of existence. It is time for the next phase, beyond our slumber of materialism. It is time to awaken to our true destiny. But waking a sleeping person can be tricky.

Our destiny is to return to our Source, to complete our cycle of creation. This is our logical end, for all those who are not confirmed in their materialism. It is to conquer outer space, or inner space, and to do so collectively, as a species. It is time to manufacture replicas of ourselves, as Jack would have us do, or find out who we are and where we are going. Because we are afraid to ask these questions of ourselves, we pass them on to our replicas.

Non-materialists believe this, instinctively, about our destiny. Does even science not point us more in this direction, than toward outer space? Are we not meant, rather, to colonize Quantumland?

Can we not testify to our destiny? Are we afraid to act the fools? Must we wait for Godot?