Personalism 102

First topic message reminder :

This is a topic reminder post……

Personalism 102 is just a continuation Personalism 101…….. as we approach the limit of 40 pages.  

The contention remains that the best possible world is necessarily based on the philosophy and ontology of Personalism.  

The ontology is immaterialism, taken at it’s most fundamental level.

My very limited understanding of portals is that you don’t go to them….. they come to you.

Yes, indeed! ;-)

Gary,

2001 certainly contains eschatological elements.  

The monolith is the portal at the end of the world.
……….


So physics is how we save the appearances.

Why do appearances have to be saved?  

We use atoms and quantums to do the saving.

But how could we make babies without actual metabolic atoms?  

Why do we have to change the diapers of immaterial babies ?  

If we crash into a tree , a fender is going to get bent.

But who bends the fender, if the atoms don’t?  

What’s the difference between a material atom and an immaterial atom, pray tell?  

We can dream of car crashes and changing diapers……. if we wanted to.  

That might be a big if.

But it’s a necessary part of our self-deception.  

My trouble may be that I don’t sufficiently understand co-dependent arising.



(cont………)

Yes, I don’t think my comprehension of Pratityasamutpada is sufficiently comprehensive.  

Although I don’t actually believe in the physical quantum, I do believe in the metaphysical quantum.  
……….


I’m presently reading up on the quantum mechanics of time travel.  

The basic idea is that the BPW is a time loop……. Alpha <=> Omega.  

Time loops in general relativity are fairly straightforward, so it’s not clear why we should want to add a quantum?



(cont……..)

I remain skeptical that that physics will be of direct assistance with metaphysics…… it remains as a tool for prompting speculation.

Physicalism will mainly inhibit our attempts to come to grips with personalism.  

An apparent problem with immaterialism is explaining the solidity of material objects.

But once we understand the necessity of solid surfaces, the rest of materiality comes right along.  

It’s easier for an immaterialist to explain Wigner’s UEM than for a materialist.

Explaining cosmology and astrophysics…… how better to save the appearances?  

Maintaining the appearance of naturalism is a very basic necessity of personalism.

Where would persons be without a convincing background of impersonalism?  

On the other side, this background will fade away rather abruptly.



(cont………)

The solidity of matter is no small matter.  I have discussed it previously on this blog.  

It has to do with the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which, in turn, has to do with the anti-symmetry of electrons (fermions) under an exchange operation.

More technically, electrons are anti-symmetric under permutation.

The proof of this spin & statistics theorem requires relativistic quantum field theory…… and works only for identical particles.

It was not rigorously proven until 1950.

How many physicists can reproduce the details of the proof?  

Yet we manage to walk around and not fall through the sidewalk.

What is an immaterialist to make of this situation?  

Ok, so the materiality of matter is mediated by the immateriality of mathematics.

I would say that this fact is favorable to immaterialism.

This fact helps to exemplify Wigner’s UEM.  

Is it logic that keeps the world from imploding?

We can’t even dream about a square circle.  

The fact that pi is transcendental is a necessary part of the logical ecosystem of reality…….?

The objectivity of the world is intimately bound up with objectivity of mathematics.  

This would make Plato happy .  

But, wait, is mathematics actually objective?  

Is it not rather inter-subjective?

On the other hand, is logic merely inter-subjective?  

Understand that fermi statistics is what keeps the Sun from collapsing into a neutron star and/or a black hole ️……. and that includes the Earth and us, as well!  

The fabric of reality is the inter-subjectivity of mathematics.

Why then are portals not popping open, just spontaneously?  

Well, I’m thinking that the Metanarrative is another necessary piece of the fabric of reality.  

But, folks are not even aware of either the Narrative or of spin&statistics.

Perhaps we have an unconscious faith in both.

We are sleep walkers, after all……. and walking on the edge of a precipice.

About everyone agrees that our mere existence is nothing short of a miracle!  

And why is there something rather than nothing?……. the best possible something?

Ultimately, there is only one electron, just as there is only one person.

See the one-electron theory of the universe.

That’s why we’re all able to interact.  

I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?" "Because, they are all the same electron!"

 Hmmm …….

Yes, and, technically, it’s all one (Feynman) loop , with the electrons running forward in time, and the positrons running ‍ backwards.  

The jguy called it the Alpha-Omega loop.

Aren’t we glad that we’re all on the same page ?

But how could we not be……. since there is only one of us?

Isn’t that cheating?!

Well, all is fair in love and war…….. and we can no longer afford war…… certainly the Earth can’t!
……….


Folks wonder whether or not biology is a quantum phenomenon.

Metabolism would be inconceivable without quantum particles obeying quantum laws.

There is a strong sense in which biology is an immaterial phenomenon, almost entirely dependent on mathematical principles and symmetries.

This is without touching on observer question.  

We have the question of what constitutes an observation.  

Geological features constitute geological records of past events.

If we include fossils amongst the records, we can recreate a detailed paleontological history.  

Now, I don’t question the paleo- part, I’m questioning 🤨 the ontological part.

I have asked this question before………

Is there such a thing as an unobservable universe?  
………


The whole point of the multiverse hypothesis was to mitigate the fine tuning problem of the Anthropic Principle.

However, if quantum observers must be conscious or sapient, nothing is gained by postulating universes without observers.  

Such universes could not exist.  

But consider all the lifeless planets out there that we observe in our universe.

There is no reason to suppose that the formation of planets depends on the eventual emergence of civilizations.

It is certainly not the case in our solar system.

The conceptual gulf between materialism and immaterialism was immortalized by Dr Samuel Johnson who claimed to have refuted Bishop Berkeley by merely kicking a stone in the path.

It’s not apparent that the modern mind has progressed beyond that of Dr Johnson’s.  

Isn’t it preposterous to suppose that consciousness, which can’t even raise a feather 🪶 in this universe, might, somewhere else, bring an entire universe into existence?  

This is comparing apples and oranges in the grandest possible manner.  

This might help demonstrate how science and religion are mainly just talking past each other.

Talk about flagging down the Santa Fe Express with a candle!  

Maybe this is why there aren’t many immaterialists left in the world.

But look at it the other way…….

If some mentalist could consistently lift a feather 🪶, we might have to revise our cosmology.

If mind turns out not to be a cosmic accident, we would have to rethink the nature of reality.

In the game of metaphysics, our fate hinges on the most subtle of matters.



(cont……….)

In philosophical quarters the question arises as to why there is something rather than nothing.  

But could there have been nothing?  

Could a nothing exist alongside a something?

Even intergalactic space is not a nothing.

Why can there not exist a perfect void?

We find ourselves back at the observer/measurement problem.

How can nothing be observed?  

The observer problem renders the quantum subjective…… and thereby renders all of physics subjective.

Nothing cannot exist, and objects cannot exist.

Only inter-subjectivity can exist.

And it has to exist, because nothing else can, and something has to.

Could there exist two entirely separate somethings?

I suggest not.

There would be nothing to separate them.  

This suggests that there can exist only be one mind…… inter-subjectivity being its manifestations.

Self-awareness is how the cosmic mind deals with the observer problem.

This is because you can’t comprehend the other without knowing the self.

You could not even comprehend the stone in the path, otherwise.

All this suggests that reality must be coherent.

Poor God…….. what is left for God?  

God is just the cosmic companion of our better angels.  

What about the unconscious?  

Is it not a separate world?  

And, in this vein, what are we to make of eternity?  

Eternity is everything outside the Narrative…… beyond the small world…… beyond the best possible world??

Does that make any sense?
…….  


I’m inclined to think that there is not much room for secrecy or opacity in the best possible world.  

Time and Narrative are something special here.  

Can there be an absence of time?  

How familiar do we become with the unconscious?
……….


Do all of those repressed memories have to come back to haunt us?

That is not unlikely.

What happens to all the memories in general?  

I would suspect they become integrated in some fashion.  

And how are they to be distinguished from the actual world?  

But after the bad (and good) memories have done with their haunting, what is left of them?  

We come to comprehend their necessity within the BPW.

They may integrate into a single thought, as with a work of art.
……..


When all is said and done, we come out as one person and one thought…….. more or less…. with visitation rights…… in all possible guises.

In the meantime we are in the thrall of the Narrative….. from its manifold perspectives.

There is a reason for everything, and we are that reason.

Can we let nothing escape our clutches?

Only if we so wish.

As for eternity…….?

Will we not find it overrated, after everything else?



(cont……..)

Materialism has a comprehensive Narrative, which even includes a Multiverse.

Immaterialism has no such thing.

Immaterialism can choose between theism and something like Sunyatta or Brahman.  

I gravitate towards something like panentheism.  

But what is the backstory for panentheism?

I had been thinking that the I Am emerged out of some inchoate phenomenal background.  

What is the alternative?  

Is it simply what the theists posit…….. an eternal and mysterious Presence……. no rhyme or reason……. until one fine day when it got bored?  

My thinking about this Presence somewhat solidified around my recent thought about the problem of Nothing……..

Would Nothing have been a viable alternative to Something?  

I’m asking a question based on logic, but where did the logic come from?  
………


Poor chick , I guess he must have narrative envy.

But chick may be plum out of luck .

Persons may be the one thing that cannot not exist.  

We, by logical necessity, have no backstory.

It would not even be correct to say that we came from nothing.

Perhaps we emerged from the Logos.

Isn’t that what John implies…….. the Word was with God, and the Word was God?  

More accurately…….. In the beginning was the Word……. period….. full stop .  

I guess I’m agreeing that, by Pratityasamutpada, Logos == Person… you can’t have one without the other.  

The Logos is the be all and end all of existence…….

It is the essence of existence……. take that, Al!  

Persons are nothing without sapience.

Nothing is nothing, without a logos.

Yes, necessarily, essence precedes existence!  

The Logos is the anchor of all existence.

The Logos is our anchor baby…….. El Niño.  

The Stoics spoke of the Logos Spermatikos…… the Ontos of ontology.

In Stoicism the seminal reason (logos spermatikos) is the cosmic source of order; its aspects are fate, providence, and nature.

We don’t say!  

There is no point in asking what came before the Logos…….. that is a logical question……. sorry !  

Furthermore, no piece of logic has any priority.

What about something like ZFC as the ground of all logic?  

I don’t think so.  

The case can and will be made that the best of the Logos is personhood…….. by Pratityasamutpada.  

The Logos comes from the Word……. all thought so derives.

There is no point in asking what preceded thought…….  incoherence?!

Does this disprove the Big Bang theory?

Well, once you can grasp the non-existence of nothing and of unobservable universes, you are halfway there.

It proves the existence of cosmic consciousness.  

Once we have CC, the Big Bang rapidly becomes otiose.  

But, you say, no one could have dreamed up the cosmos.

Well, isn’t that what cosmologists get paid to do?  

What about the JWST?

Well, the JWST is truly admirable piece of work, but first you’ll need some light .  

Where did the light come from?  

I strongly suspect that light is tied up with the Logos.

Someone must have had a real Brainstorm !

Someone knocked them on the head and they saw stars ……. even better.  

Am I making fun of the scientists?

More to the point, I’m making fun of the Darwinists.  

I mean, really, sports fans!  

Will someone please show me the genetic 🧬 sequence for the Logos?  

What will we do with all the unemployed scientists?

They will become entangled with the portals.

Just like all the rest of us.



(cont………..)

As an immaterialist/idealist, I’m saying that there are no objects.

The world is strictly inter subjective.  

We see this by coming at it from both directions……

From the quantum perspective, we see it in the observer problem.

From the cosmic perspective, we see it in the impossibility of an unobserable universe.

From the personal perspective, we see it in the transpersonal or interpersonal mind.

Mathematics, for instance, is neither objective nor subjective.  

It is decidedly inter-subjective….. transpersonal.  

And the world………?

I’m claiming that the world is the logically necessary backdrop for our collective consciousness.  

Otherwise, we would be ghosts floating in the void.

I have suggested that when the Olympians got bored, they engaged in the prehistoric ballgame of Pok-ta-Pok.

The world naturally emerged out of such a ball-court…….. along with our bodies and a rudimentary physics.

But, here, I am not following the logical dictates of Pratityasamutpada.

Creator and Creation emerge as a whole.

The Metanarrative emerges as a whole.

It is not pieced together.

Atoms and stars emerge simultaneously.

Even using the word ‘emerge’ is somewhat suspect.

The Source and the Telos arise co-dependently.
…………


When we say that Alpha = Omega, we are saying the same thing.  

Recall that ontogeny = phylogeny.  

This is a rather similar notion.

Persons and metabolism would also be concurrent.

Even the notion of resurrection makes a bit more sense.

Does this help to explain our impending portal transition?  

Imagine the Olympians assembling to compete in that first game of Pok-a-Tok, and then play it backwards.

The notion of a closed timelike curve (CTC) is rather natural in this context.  

Let’s suggest that the A/O CTC is the original bootstrap.

We have pretty much extended that bootstrap to its limit.

If we add the Quantum to this mix, we end up with Geoffrey Chew’s Bootstrap model of physics.

I would call it cosmology or Cosmgenesis.

You can see why the jguy resorted to parables.

Gabriele Veneziano, the inventor of String Theory, was inspired by Geoffrey’s insights.  

Maybe it’s a small world after all.

Personalism is naturally/necessarily self contained.

Some modernists despair at the lack of quantitative infinities in personalism.

I suspect that there is a complementarity between a quantitative and a qualitative or transpersonal infinity, in this context.

I think I’ll stick with the latter.  

Is the transpersonal still going to be personal?

I would suggest that we are the living proof of that necessity.

When a chatbot achieves a qualitative infinity, I guess that chick will just have to eat his hat 🧢.  

Or we’ll have to teach the Marxists about cosmic bootstrapping.  

That came slightly after his time.

I keep thinking that we have covered the waterfront, but new stuff keeps popping up.

That’s what you get with those qualitative infinities.

We still might have a slight problem with free will.

I’m optimistic that our close encounter will those qualitative infinities will mitigate that problem.

We can’t have everything……. or can we?

Well, we can have the best possible amount of everything.  

And what we can’t have probably doesn’t exist….. and we wouldn’t want it anyway.

Let’s not get greedy.

Is God being greedy about the best possible world?

We’ll just have to ask ourselves.



(cont……….)

What can logic tell us about existence on the other side?  

We might first wish to know if there is any existence.

Immaterialism strongly suggests that there is something.  

Persons are the only things/entities that cannot not exist…… according to personalism.

And ultimately there is just one of us.

Will there be continuity for individuals?

Probably, yes, there is likely to be an immediate out of body experience.  

There is liable to be some immediate confusion as to one’s status.

There is the nearly universal admonition to follow the light.  

We will have various degrees of recognition/comprehension.

There are liable to be any number of purgatorial distractions.

Wishing to remain involved with one’s loved ones would be the toughest.  

One can easily imagine various degrees of lucidity in the altered states of afterlife.

Personal identity will be balanced by the lure of immersion with the other, just as we were lured by the aboriginal dispersion.

How much will we be resisting this lure back to Oneness?

Our Narrative continues until Oneness is achieved.

Only then do the bonds and bounds of time become dissolved.

Online, there are, evidently, any number of virtual worlds on offer.

These are liable to provide a degree of verisimilitude…… besides more direct forms of actual visitation or revisitation.

The eventuality of achieving Oneness would likely be expedited by psychedelic types of experience along the way.

Terence McKenna was an avid student of this path.

What else do we have a need to know about the Hereafter?  
…………


As a physicist, one might wish to know what is powering this whole shebang.

This comes back to the question of why there is something.

How is this not just a free lunch 🥪?

The cosmologists ask why there is an imbalance between matter and antimatter…….. or did there have to be a Big Bang ?  

We’ve decided that the only thing that can’t exist is Nothing.  

Here we have a quite a bit of Something…… in this BPW.  

So who dictated personalism?  

How did they pull it off?  

I’m suggesting that the least possible something is the BPW.  

In fact, it is the only possible something.

If someone runs across the second best world, just be sure to let us know.  

Does this mean that we should feel encouraged to thumb our nose at God?  

Do we not owe anything to anyone?  

I suspect that it’s more like we owe everything to everyone.

And haven’t we already determined that there is only one of us?  

Go figure!
………


Should we pat ourselves on the back?

Won’t this go to our heads?

Well, sooner than later it’s gonna be impossible to keep us down on the farm.

But what if you own a ranch in Montana?

Are you just going to throw your lot in with 10^10 of your nearest and dearest?

Well, if you truly wish to be alone with the Alone…… but where are you going to get the energy to run all your ranch equipment?

How about just being off the grid?

If you have a little patience, you will soon have a chance to touch base with God on that matter.

In the meantime, we probably don’t want to miss the greatest show on or off the Earth .



(cont………)

A fundamental claim of the BPWH is that sapience has its own ontological status.

This is just the premise of personalism.

In fact, all of ontology is grounded in personhood…… in the I Am.

The I Am is essential to all existence.  

One cannot separate ontology from epistemology.

Epistemology is necessarily grounded in self-awareness….. in the I Am.  

If Nothingness is not a logical possibility, then the I Am is the only necessary existence.  

Well, not quite.

Existence is necessarily inter-subjective……. by virtue of co-dependency.

This inter-subjectivity, in its turn, is co-dependent with a (self-contained) Narrative.

So the Narrative is grounded in the Logos.

Personhood is co-dependent with the Logos.

That is the definition of Sapience.

The aboriginal existence is not a naked singularity, as the I Am might suggest.  

Its primary accoutrement is the best possible, self-contained Narrative.

So, here we are.  

Are we embedded in Infinity?

Perhaps, a qualitative Infinity…… whatever that might be.

The transpersonal should be taken as a necessary accoutrement of the personal……. being the necessary Pale of Being.  

To be….. or not to be, Being is the Answer.

What, then is beyond the Pale?  

Nothing?

Probably!

This would be the necessary Nothing….. the epistemological Nothing.  

The epistemological Nothing has no ontological counterpart.
………..


How did Sartre manage to get away with Being and Nothingness for so long?  

He’s still getting away with it.

Its oxymoronicity has a certain novelty….. which should have warn off a long time ago.

Of such stuff is the Katechon.

The JWST, on the other hand, is something to behold.

It almost makes the Katechon worth while.

Even the novelty of the JWST will wear off, along with that of the LHC.  

Then we’ll be left twisting in the cosmic breeze.

And so will the novelty of the chatbot, if it hasn’t already.  

Won’t the novelty of the BPW wear off?  

Eternity has a somewhat dubious 🤨 ontological status.

Doesn’t God get bored?  

We have a transpersonal abyss.

We go spelunking, from time to time.

Could there be something we might have missed?  
….….


There might be a quasi-public portal opening next month.  

That could relieve the boredom.  

Wouldn’t that be tantamount to the Eschaton?

It would definitely put the Narrative on short time.
……..


Each one of us shares a unique perspective on the transpersonal Abyss.

That’s probably worth something.

It would be something to write home about.

Of course, we might just decide to leave well enough alone.  

We don’t need to go around kicking 🦵 every sleeping dog .

Why not just play with virtual worlds?  

What would Scheherazade do in this situation?  
………..


This was from the Canary’s two years ago…….. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-peqLdv0y8

It might have been a scouting operation.
……..


We are the result of the multiple personality disorder within the cosmic consciousness, emanating from the Source…… the primordial person.  

Our post-eschatological sojourn is to run that scenario backwards.

What if we refuse to participate?  

I suspect that this is an offer we can’t refuse.  

This emanation was the Big Bang of the cosmic psyche.

I haven’t attempted to speculate on the source.

The energy source could have been from the imminent collapse surrounding the Telos.

This is not to suggest that we are participating in an Eternal Return……. certainly not under the rubric of the BPW.
…….  


The logical necessity of a sapient I Am comes from a completion of the notion of the quantum observer.  

For instance, from a recent Scientific American…….  Quantum Theory’s ‘Measurement Problem’ May Be a Poison Pill for Objective Reality
Hmmm ……..  

chick ’s solution is, of course, the most radical possible.  

It comes from an attempt to deal with the paradox of Wigner’s Friend.

Wouldn’t just a sentient observer be sufficient?

For instance, fossilized tree rings leave a record of ancient rain falls.

Wigner’s Friend can easily observe the rings.

Whatever meteorological uncertainty that may have existed is, thereby, collapsed.

Or suppose there was a satellite ️ observing the planet in ancient times, making records.  

Any sort of record constitutes an observation.
……….


The Scientific American article indicates how convoluted the arguments become as we attempt to understand the world from the bottom up.

‘Strong’ personalism, on the other hand, comes with the obvious outcome as integral to its ontology…….. there is ultimately just one observer.  

In the meantime, we have a ‘sum over the histories’ of its individual observers.

We could say that the transpersonal connections between all of the observers keeps our best possible reality on track.

There is no need for a poison pill ……. unless you find the BPWH hard to swallow.



(cont…….)

If Nature hadn’t already existed, we would have had to invent it ourselves.

It didn’t, so we did.  

Such is blasphemy amongst the Nature lovers, among whom I would certainly count myself.

Nature is a very significant aspect of the best possible world.

I can’t say that it is a logical necessity, because we can and will exist without Nature.

If the personal needs an impersonal backdrop, Nature fills that bill in a most admirable fashion……. as we pat ourselves on the back.

Nature exists primarily to render ourselves as Creators…… through reproductive metabolism.  

Prior to our assumption of bodily existence, reproduction was our cosmic disorder……. our multiple personality disorder.

Our assumption of bodies was a case of Pratityasamutpada, on steroids…… primarily in the form of stars and atoms .

Sympathize with chick for just a moment……..

I don’t believe in either stars or atoms….. not in their objectivity.
………..  


What is Nature, then, if it is not a product of physical and biological evolution?

My claim is that it is the product of the Logos.

We are also a product of the Logos, in concert with the I Am.

What is the difference between the Logos and the Source?  

There may be considerable overlap, but the Logos tends toward the impersonal…….. as with mathematical physics.

Atoms and stars are the product of the Logos.

Nature is an elaborate ruse by which we participate in Creation, in our own right.

What, then, is the difference between a logical star and a physical star?  

The starry sky has a decidedly fractal nature.

What we see is what there is.  

There are no other observers out there, sunbathing in some distant galaxy .  

Isn’t that why ETs have such pale skin?!

Aren’t all stars just nuclear furnaces?  

Our observations of them certainly indicate that.

Allow me to suggest that the heavens are a hall of mirrors.  

Am I trying to save energy?

Am I trying to save the appearances?



(cont……..)

Ok, here’s a bit of progress………

It has occurred to me to employ Mach’s Principle to account for the fixed stars .

Combine that with Olber’s Paradox, and we are up and running with the night sky .  

The Earth and Sun do supply a frame to explain centrifugal and coriolis forces.  

Physicists say that mass there explains inertia here.

I’m not invoking distant masses however.

I’m only appealing to the fixed reference frame.  

The night sky is not just for decoration.

Astronomy and astrology have played important roles in our culture over the years.

I’m still a bit weak, however, in explaining solar phenomena such as photosynthesis……. not believing in photons!

That makes it hard to explain photo-chemistry.

But I do believe in light ….. if that might help.

Sunlight makes things grow.

It helps to see, but immaterialists tend to believe in direct perception.



(cont…….)

Mach’s Principle and Olber’s Paradox provide us with a better understanding of the division between the Celestial ontology and the Mundane ontology.

Yes, this harkens back to the Lunar and sub-Lunar division of premodern times.

Previously, the Moon marked the boundary, but now it is the Sun .  

More accurately, the Sun is now on the Mundane side.  

Before, the Moon was on the Celestial side.

Physics now occurs on the Mundane side, while Celestial side is the logically necessary backdrop to our Mundane drama .  

The Celestial backdrop, however, must not be obviously faked.

The JWST is currently surveying the delineation between the physical and the unphysical.

For instance, we’re suggesting that Dark Matter and Dark Energy delineate the unnatural, having no counterpart in mundane physics.  

Yes, this is a tricky delineation…….

On the one hand, we have the Mundane and Celestial.

On the other hand, we have the ‘physical’ and the ‘unphysical’.

The quotations are used to remind us that the ‘physics’ being referenced is taken within the metaphysical context of immaterialism.

The metaphysical context harkens to Wigner’s Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics (UEM).
……..


What drives physics on the mundane side is bio-physics.

The division into the mundane and celestial realms is tantamount to the recognition of the geocentric and anthropocentric nature of reality.

This is the logical result of immaterialism.

Once the portals open, the cosmos will revert to being purely anthropocenric……. the Earth being the stage for history.

The historic, geocentrality of the world will remain indelible within Eternity……. available for visitation.

Keep in mind that we, persons, are only superficially indigenous.

Our true home is with the Source…… the I Am…… in the Garden of Eden, if you will.



(cont………..)

The Mach/Olber insights offer us a decent handle on the appearance of the night sky .

With that bit of conceptual progress, we turn our attention back to the other end of the cosmic scale…… back to the atoms ……

Atomism was an ancient and honorable perspective, found particularly in Greece and India, along with other cultures.

The principal modern amendment comes from the Quantum.

The Quantum allows mathematics to play a central role in our understanding of atomic ontology…….. particularly in form of wave mechanics and matrix mechanics.  

That was in the first half of the last century.

In the second half, we see the rise of the Standard Model.

According to the Standard Model, the menagerie of the elementary particles being discovered in the accelerators were found to be artifacts of the underlying mathematical symmetries.

Doesn’t the mathematics render the atom to be more objective?  

That depends on our understanding of the ontology of mathematics.

I’m not the only one to see mathematics as an extension of the Logos……. the Logos being an extension of personhood (see Philo).

We could follow Kant in viewing the Logos as the essence of the à Priori.

The Logos extends far beyond logic.

It includes our linguistic and moral sense.

The atom has a microcosmic essence as does personhood.

And, of course, the Quantum necessarily invokes the Observer.

The two ends of the cosmic spectrum are decidedly personal, and so is everything in the middle.

Does this prove that the portals are about to open?

We’re almost there!

What’s left?  

What’s left is to pick up the pieces.  

It is to determine the priority of the remaining items.

What item should come next?  

Short of that determination, one can only peruse the scene .  

Perhaps a general review of the BPWH/SWH is in order.
…………


For the Stoics, it is the seminal word (logos spermatikos) that pervades and animates the world.

This does get to the nub of things.

Wigner’s UEM is a notable example.

Is this merely a restatement of panpsychism?  

Both panpsychism and logoism seem to favor a dualistic view.  

Immaterialism is a stronger statement >> mind only.

Yogachara (mind only) and Madhyamaka (Sunyatta) are the two main schools of Buddhism .  

Advaita Vedanta is similar Yogachara.  

It posits the ultimate reality of Brahman alone…… a cosmic Self.

Buddhism posits no such self.
……..  


The non-prophetic traditions are very weak on personalism.

They do not shy away from quantitative infinities.

The prophetic traditions embrace the concept of an historical Narrative……. a concept which is explicitly personal.  
………  


With an immaterial reality, portals are a virtual necessity, especially in the context of the meltdown of the Katechon.  

The opening of the portals would be synonymous with the advent of the Eschaton/Rapture.  

With regard to the opening of the portals, I would rather be too early than too late.  

In the context of the best possible Eschaton, the timing of the opening is liable to be a nail biter.  

I hardly know what is the next priority item to deal with.



(cont………)

Well, we’re back to the objectivity of atoms , or the lack thereof.

Our primary tool will be the relativity of existence…… namely, entanglement.  

The place to begin entanglement is with metabolism.

And, as with the microcosmic nature of atoms, we must consider the microcosmic aspects of biological cells.
……..  


Fred Hoyle is credited with discovery of the Anthropic Principle in 1953, by predicting the nuclear resonance in the triple alpha process, which is responsible for the large abundance of carbon in the universe.

However, even with the relative abundance of carbon, the emergence of biological life is thought to have occurred only once on the Earth.

But, yes, the abiogenesis researchers have outdone themselves with positing clever scenarios for the spontaneous emergence of life.

Nonetheless, IMHO, a teleological explanation is long way from being ruled out.



(cont……..)

Here you go, Dan:

We construct a metrology experiment in which the metrologist can sometimes amend the input state by simulating a closed timelike curve, a worldline that travels backward in time. The existence of closed timelike curves is hypothetical. Nevertheless, they can be simulated probabilistically by quantum-teleportation circuits. We leverage such simulations to pinpoint a counterintuitive nonclassical advantage achievable with entanglement.

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.150202

A 1 in 4 chance of getting it right:

"Imagine that you want to send a gift to someone: you need to send it on day one to make sure it arrives on day three,” said lead author David Arvidsson-Shukur, from the Hitachi Cambridge Laboratory. “However, you only receive that person’s wish list on day two. So, in this chronology-respecting scenario, it’s impossible for you to know in advance what they will want as a gift and to make sure you send the right one. Now imagine you can change what you send on day one with the information from the wish list received on day two. Our simulation uses quantum entanglement manipulation to show how you could retroactively change your previous actions to ensure the final outcome is the one you want.”


https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/simulations-of-backwards-time-travel-can-improve-scientific-experiments

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.150202

Thanks, Gary,

I’ll take a look.  
…………


I was struggling to come up with the microcosmic aspect of biological cells.

I think what I was reaching for was their totipotency.

According to the BPWH, persons are the only microcosmic/totipotent beings…… from the perspective of immaterialism.

However, atoms and cells mimic this ability on the ‘material’ plane.
………..


Atoms and cells jointly serve the purpose of reproducing the cosmic Self…….. giving us 10^10 selves……. on the playing field of the Earth.

There can’t be a Creator without a Creation.

Atoms and cells make Creation possible.  

They also tend to be extremely gregarious.

This is what Creation is all about.

The cosmos is about self-containment.

Despite the celestial appearances, the cosmos is personal.

The background to our inter-personal Narrative is necessarily impersonal.

The anthropic Logos necessarily has this impersonal side.

Physics does a very good job of concealing its anthropic core.
…………


Atoms and cells are the reflections of persons, on the ‘material’ plane.  

They are completely entangled with persons.

There is speculated to be a rebalancing of the antipodal portals next month.  The recent eclipse is considered to be a portent.

The rebalancing will include one or more phenomena that will serve as a warning of an imminent opening.  

An expedition is planned to investigate the local entanglements.

Some aspect of the impending phenomena were remote viewed in 1986, as recorded in a CIA document.
……….


Should I remind folks that the opening is sometimes considered to be equivalent to the rapture as understood by the xians.  

These are the phenomena that can only be understood in the context of immaterialism.

They would be an integral part of the Metanarrative, marking the end of mundane history.

What then remains is the return to the Source.

There will then no longer be a single linear time frame.

Time will become individually contextualized…….. the background will be some semblance of eternity…….. ie. episodic, as in altered states, one of which would be being one with the One.

Any questions?  

One will generally wish to follow the light, otherwise, there may be a paucity of road signs.



(cont……..)

The five day opening and solar flameout is still being mentioned.  

What is less certain are any preliminary manifestations.  

More should be known in another month.  
………


Berkeley surmised that…… esse est percipi.  

That might be a bit stringent.

For instance, the tree on quad survives the night by being contained in the mind of God.  

Did Creation not need any creatures besides God?  

Is God not almighty?  

Does God need us?  

I suspect she does.

It seems probable that she is a dramaturge…… of a sort.

The good Bishop surmised that we are amongst the witnesses to Creation.

What about all the rest……. all those sentient creatures?  

John Wheeler……. no phenomenon is a real phenomenon unless it is observed.  

Isn’t a picture worth a thousand words?  

A picture is not worth a single word, if no one is there to verbalize it.  

What constitutes an observation is discussed daily by quantum physicists.  

Who is to affirm the existence of an unobservable universe…… like those gazillions of Multiverses?  

Yes, maybe Dr Sam Johnson can refute the Bishop, but can he breathe life into the Multiverse?  

Yes, there is sapience and sentience.  

According to Science, one is merely a degree of the other.

Perhaps so, but chick is not buying it!  

Perhaps a chatbot is going to eat our lunch 🥪.  

chick is not buying it.  
……..


What is it with sapience?  

My humble claim is that sapience has a cosmic aspect.  

Sentience might, as well, but how would anyone know?  

Yes, there is anecdotal evidence that animals have a psychic sense

It might be suggested that a lifeless universe could be remotely viewed from our own universe, but such viewing requires some sort of coordinates or timeframe to grab on to.  

If our universe were to become lifeless…… if the Sun were to explode, what record would there be of our existence?  

Would our memories be retained in some Akashic record book?

How could it be argued that we ever existed in the first place?  

The question I’m pointing to is what is the basis for any sort of ontology?  

Ontology is nothing without a cosmic I Am.  

To be a here and now, it has to be rooted in The Monad.

Otherwise, everything is a will o’ the wisp.

A true modernist would say…… what else is new?  

But no, that’s not what is being said.

The mere fact that anything exists points to The Root of all existence.

This is the core story of immaterialism.
……..  


The basic idea is that in immaterialism, space and time are relative illusions.

There is no way to ultimately separate two immaterial realms.

There can only be one primordial I Am.

Everything else is subsumed.
………


We’ve come a long way from Freud and Skinner…….. well, many of us have.  

I’m speaking particularly in terms of altered states and the Transpersonal…… the allegedly collective aspects of mind.  

A fundamental supposition of personalism is that the depths of the psyche connect us to the cosmic Self.  

This fact points to the culmination of the BPW…… becoming one with the One.

It’s looking like we can begin to count the days.  

One (even semi-) public portal could well be our cosmic trigger.

Word will get around.  

The days of the Katechon will be numbered.

Keeping us down on the farm will become problematic…….. leading up to the final five days.  

Starting from that first (semi-public) portal, there is liable to be an exponential multiplication, up until we reach the magic number of 10^5.  

Well, getting from the first to the second is what’s liable to be the most time consuming.  

Once open, they will not be closed.  

That’s what seems most sensible, anyway.

That first one might even be submerged.

Any questions?  



(cont……..)

A central fact of the BPW is its monism……. in almost every sense of that word.  

I’ve never understood pluralism.

I don’t think anyone has, except to allay the radical consequences of monism.

Modernism has been defined by our adherence to scientific materialism.  

Postmodernism is defined as a reversion to pluralism.  

chick is sticking with coherence.

Coherence demands monism, of one sort or another.  

No, that doesn’t work…… it’s got to be a mind based monism.

And this is just what personalism is.

Everything else is a mystery wrapped in an enigma.  

Yes, we live in an unobstructed world.  

It will be transparent in the End.

That’s what being one with the One is about.

I cannot see the point of anything else.

The Katechon is all about keeping us in the dark.

The dawn is coming.  

Yes, this is a dramatic world…… and the drama is on us.

The drama is by us, for us and about us.



(cont……..)

Yes, scientific materialism/physicalism is a monism based on atoms swerving in the void.

Immaterialism is a monism based on cosmic consciousness.  

I was a physics student.  

One thing that struck me was the measurement problem.
………….


I’ve been googling to find a link between measurement and consciousness.  

No luck.
…………


Where you do find a discussion is with the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation…… consciousness causes collapse (CCC).

Be aware that Wigner has since disowned this interpretation.

Physicists have disowned the CCC interpretation.

Recent references depict the CCC as only historical interest.

chick is not a big fan of the Quantum, but I will not look a gift horse in the mouth……. particularly if the gift horse is the I Am.

And particularly if the gift is the BPW.  

I am suggesting that a person is a walking portal……. entangled crucially with the I Am.

Are we puppets on a string?  

Yes, if you recognize that we are each a jewel in Indra’s Net, reflecting all the other jewels.

The I Am may have a place of honor……. no more, no less.  

Indra’s net is the ultimate illustration of Pratityasamutpada.
……..  


The activity around the closed timelike curve that is Creation is monitored from an external vantage.

The monitoring is to maximize the balance and harmony while keeping the Telos in focus, along with the Alpha, Omega, Eschaton and Rapture, while minimizing the pain and suffering.

This all comes gratis, with the I Am, Pratityasamutpada and the Teleology.  

It can all be managed by persons sub specie aeternitatis.  

We can think of the atom with its boundary conditions as a miniature CTC.

Just as every atom is connected to the laws of physics through the Quantum, so are we connected to the Logos through our collective unconscious.



(cont…….)

The ontology of Monism stems partly from the idea of the fine tuning.  

The laws and parameters of physics are coordinated around the existence of life.  

More apropos, I would say, is the idea of the self.

Science is terminally flummoxed by the existence of the self….. with its psyche, self awareness, memories, etc……

Atoms swerving in the void……. my *ss!  

What was Charlie D thinking?

Yet, his materialist stamp is engraved upon every academy.  

But I keep forgetting that his seal is what holds the Katechon together.  

Where would we be without the Katechon?  

We sure wouldn’t be be here!

We would all be sipping our margaritas in Margaritaville!  

Everything in its place and time.  
……..


If I were a materialist this late in the game, I think I’d be ashamed.  

It’s hard for me to get my head around the fact that they are doing God’s work.

But, trust me, they are.  

Theirs is the core piece of the Setup.  

It wasn’t easy for God to place all of those fossils.  

Well, she managed to convince the paleontologists to do that dirty work for her…… quite unbeknownst to themselves, of course.  
………..


The evidence for deep space and deep time is both celestial and terrestrial.  

Having a celestial frame of reference, as with Mach’s Principle, does provide a simple rationale for those appearances.

So far, I have no alternative rationale for fossils and mountains, beyond what is provided by science.

Well, terrestrial appearances do need to complement the celestial appearances, otherwise, the latter would simply be incoherent.

Yes, God must love Nature, otherwise she wouldn’t have created so much of it.

But, with personalism, we are just doing a very good job of deceiving ourselves.  

Nature does give us a singular path into participation…….. being fruitful and multiplying.  

If we were going to get into the reproduction business in any serious fashion, we were going to have to be expelled from the Garden.

Or the Garden was going to have to be made to appear to be
much more spontaneous…….. rather than ad hoc.  



(cont……..)

Look, I understand that in the age of materialism, an immaterialist has a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.

We (former) materialists like to think we have everything figured out.

Ha, ha…….. if only we knew.  

The first thing we might try to explain is why there is something rather than nothing.  

Which would you rather have to do……..

Explain atoms from consciousness…… or explain consciousness from atoms?  

Let’s start with what is simple.

But right there you have many assumptions to grapple with.

As a test case, let’s explain fire .  

One might start with the Psychoanalysis of Fire by Gaston Bachelard.  

I like Gaston, but I can’t get ‘Fire’ on line, so we’ll settle for the Poetics of Space so that you can get the flavor.

Here is from the forward to Poetics…..

Discovery—not “hostile space”—concerns Bachelard. In the same way that Steve Erickson’s Days Between Stations and Thomas Pynchon’s Against the Day revive the sands of time as a medium intent on voyage, Bachelard gently addresses those settings we live in, and finally die in, with the lightness of why we live in the first place. Suddenly a chapter on miniatures offers a reflection on a hermit who while “watching his hour-glass without praying . . . heard the catastrophe of time.” The matter of prayer seems incidental to the anecdote, and yet throughout these pages there arises something meditative. Call it a calculus of emotional continuity or a music that only the grieving can know because they chose to carry on: what warms the hearth long after catastrophe has razed both hearth and home.

Do you get the idea?  Reality is the art seduction, or, as RAW would say…… Reality is whatever we get away with…… in the End…… chick .

Of course, sometimes nothing more can mean so much more. And these pages offer just that. After all, here is a thinker who urges the reader to discover an excess of association: “And how should one receive an exaggerated image, if not by exaggerating it a little more, by personalizing the exaggeration? . . . in prolonging exaggeration, we may have the good fortune to avoid the habits of reduction.” At every turn Bachelard encourages personal engagement: “A house that has been experienced is not an inert box. Inhabited space transcends geometrical space.” Or here: “Sometimes the house grows and spreads so that, in order to live in it, greater elasticity of daydreaming, a daydream that is less clearly outlined, are needed.” What would that have been like? To have had such a teacher who applauded you for letting your thoughts run wild? Encouraged you to live beyond gutters and margins, frames and apps, the limits of map and page? Well, this is that education.

………  


So, Gaston is trying to tell that the world works by imagination.

This is what Eric was trying to tell us, also.  

As a (former) physicist, it’s my job to prove it.  

This is what relativity is all about.

There are no objects…….. there are relations.  

By definition, relations are mental.

Are they thereby imaginary?  

Well, they exist only in mind space.

Could this be explained to someone being burned at the stake?  

That would be a tough audience!  

Can you convince your teacher that the cat ‍ ate your homework ?

I think we’ve got space figured out, so let’s try fire .  

There are anecdotal accounts of folks laughing while on the stake.

We do know the story of Shadrach, Meshack and Abednego.

The point is that death is a portal or it isn’t.

How can we prove that it is?  
……..


Which is closer to the truth…… physics or poesy?

When I was a junior in high school, there was no doubt in my mind.  

But what was truth?  

Again, no doubt….. whatever made the world go around.

That’s how I might have phrased it then.  

Stephen H had a better question…… what breathes fire into the equations?  

Heidegger went one better……. why is there something?  

Quora asks if nonexistence can exist?

Answer…….. no, because the concept exists.  

I like that one.  

It’s a little tricky.

It’s similar to asking if nothing can exist.

I think folks are getting a little tired of having the Big Bang be the answer for everything.  

Consider the Quora answer……… by way of the concept of an unobserable universe.  

The Quantum has taken from us the objectivity of nothingness.

Nothingness cannot logically exist.  

A physicalist would tell you that a vacuum cannot exist due to vacuum fluctuations.  

What then is the least thing that can exist?  

The least thing that can exist is an observer.

But what sort of observer?  

It would have to be an observer relative to some sort of absolute……

According to Hegel, being is ultimately comprehensible only as an all-inclusive whole (das Absolute). Hegel asserted that in order for the thinking subject (human reason or consciousness) to be able to know its object (the world) at all, there must be in some sense an identity of thought and being.

This is strongly reminiscent of the Parmenidian One.

We’ve spent the last two centuries wandering in the desert.  

Science was the gift horse that we were afraid to look in the mouth of.  

Now we have seen into the Abyss……… and it is Ours.  

If you want to know what the JWST is going to see……. well, now you know.  

Is this a terrible anticlimax?  

If that’s what you think, you have not been doing your metaphysical homework.  

You have been sleepwalking in the garden of materialism…….

All of [the] activities here have a surreptitious end-of-the-world feel to them:... these joggers sleepwalking in the mist like shadow's who have escaped from Plato's cave

(cont…….)

Entanglement explains everything.

This is just a statement of Relationalism.

These relations are necessarily conceptual.  

But there have to be things to become entangled.

Well, persons are that.

But persons are ontologically interpersonal.

We are necessarily relational beings.

If the buck had to stop somewhere, it would be with the Source.

But the Creator cannot exist without Creation.

Where might fire fit into this entanglement?  

Fire is a central feature of civilization.

Our propensity to reproduce is another such feature.

The taming of fire has been our principal challenge.

I include all our sources of energy in this challenge…….. possibly excluding metabolic sources.

When fire is under our control, we often fail to notice its presence, such as with electricity and internal combustion.  

Except in war zones, the chance of fire deaths has considerably decreased in the last century or so.

If fire didn’t exist, we’d have to create it.  

This is said in acknowledgment of our status as co-Creators.

Is fire just incidental to our own existence?  

Let’s say that it is instrumental.

For instance, did the Anthropic Principle have to be especially tuned to include or to enhance the possibility of fire ?  

That’s a definite maybe!  

Ok, how do we make fire without atoms ?  

Well, the same way we make persons without atoms.  

Yes, both persons and fires exist on metabolism.

Can we explain metabolism without atoms?  

Let me give it a shot……..

Do atoms exist the way the tree on the quad exists…….. in the mind of God?  

They exist when we need them……. like magic.

With fire, we want to say that 2H + O ==> H2O + photon, more or less.

If we go hunting for the atoms and photons, we’ll find them……. just like we find the tree on the Quad at midnight.  

Logically, if any were missing, there would be a hullabaloo.

The world functions by minimizing hullabaloos.  

This is the skinny on personalism.  

I’m not terribly proud of this explanation, but it might get us through the night.  

A watched pot never boils….. well, something like that.  

Coherence is the entanglement of 10^10 minds.

Is that how airplanes fly?  
……….


It’s not that atoms don’t exist.  

Stars don’t exist…….. not like the Sun.

And the Sun doesn’t exist…… not like the Earth.

Atoms don’t exist…….  not like you and me.

Let’s say that atoms have a history…… not so different from you and me.  

Atoms are contextual……. like you and me.

What makes a substance when atoms aren’t around?  

Our memories.  

Atoms are the logic buried in our memories.

Are atoms different from numbers, in that respect?  

Atoms are embedded in space and time.

But are they?  

Space and time are qualia to us.

Deep space and time are our logical decorations.

Atoms aren’t even decoration.

Our memories are subject to modifications.

Is atomic physics subject to modification?  

No, no more than the theorems of mathematics.



(cont………)

Ok, sports fans, chick thinks he’s lost enough sleep over atoms.  

It’s just more entanglement.

Did someone say that the world runs on entanglement?  

Well, it does.  

In fact, the world loves entanglement.

And love is what makes the world go around.

After that, all you have to understand is Mach, Olber, Democritus, Bachelard, Wigner, Parmenides, Wheeler, Barfield, Heidegger…….

Have I left anyone out?  

Yes, we have.  

We left out the jguy.  

How could we have done that…….. chick ?!

That’s just about it.  

After chick……. it’s the portals .  

Is there going to be time for Disclosure?

Not really…… except there will be all the time in the world.  

That ought to be plenty.  

I think we should give a shout out to Geoffrey Chew……. Mr Bootsrap.

You understand that you can’t do metaphysics without the physics.

And you can’t really do physics without the metaphysics.

Well, you can, but then it’s just a joke…….. chick.

Did someone say…..  portals?  

chick doesn’t believe in portals.  

chick believes in porosity……. which is just really entangled portals……. really entangled….. kinda like atoms and stars ……. kinda like the bootstrap…… in reverse ……, dontcha know!  

Teilhard de Chardin fits in there…… somewhere.  

You gotta love his Noosphere……. that’s the Big One.  

Parmenides would be proud!  

NASA didn’t do its homework…….. but they weren’t paid to do any homework ……. chickie.  

ChatGPT……. my *ss!!  

I just mentioned to someone that the Hive = the Noosphere.

Keep in mind that Being There is being here.

Being and Time……

Being is time and time is finite, it comes to an end with our death.

Well, almost……. just substitute Eschaton for death……. and that’s not the end of being……. that’s the Beginning!!
……..  


The bomb is brought up as possibly part of a cosmic trigger.

That’s possible……. anything is possible…… a portal actuator?  

That shows a lack of understanding of how the Noosphere operates.  

That’s like walking around with a dynamite vest and calling yourself a portal actuator.  

Thanks, but no thanks.  
……..  


If this side is mostly about quantity, the other side is about quality.  

One has to be very careful about discussing quality in the context of personalism.  

Keep in mind that there is really only one person on other side.  

The only reason for going over is to become one with the One.

There is not going to be a traffic jam on the other side.  

It is a single lane country path winding through the hills.  

There will be stretches where you will see no one, more like the Appalachian Trail than the Bronx Thruway.

How does this work?  

If I can’t explain atoms, how am I going to explain the Pearly gates?  

It’s taken us several thousand years to reach 10^10.

On the return journey, space and time will hardly figure.

On the other side we will have great minds, and great minds think alike.  

Our glorified bodies will be rather flexible……. like the world around us, they’ll be rather porous.  

Our minds will be sponges.

If you would prefer a crowded day at the beach ️…….. I’m sure that can be arranged.  

Hitchhikers Guide……?  

I don’t think we’ll be using bulldozers.  

How much wandering and meandering is involved is pretty much up to the ‘individual’.  

I’m not anticipating much complaining, over there.

We’ll be much too busy for that.
………..


Gee, once we got stars out the way, everything else pretty much fell into place.

Atoms?  

They just don’t seem to be such a great obstacle, keeping in mind that the Noosphere depends on social media…… to a considerable extent.

Teilhard thought it would take a million years to build the internet!

Yes, there are sincere folks who are concerned about depopulation.

Yes, there’s going to be an implosion…….. chick !  

Yes, I used to lay awake at night worrying about the population explosion!  

Little did we know…….

Yes, atoms were a pretty clever idea.

Don’t we teach about atoms in first grade?

There may not be much time to revise the curriculum before the portals open.

And I don’t think curricula will be a big problem….. on the other side.
……….  


Do understand that we’re doing a reverse Mach.

A lot of things were done backwards.  

That’s a big part of the Katechon.  
………


If we wanted to get fancy, we could worry about the center of the Earth…….. magnetic 🧲 fields, pole shifts and all that.  

It’s very much epiphenomenal, but it does keep folks busy.  

We can leave that as an exercise for the reader.
…………


It may require a global financial meltdown to trigger the portals.

Such a meltdown could result in more suffering than a couple of strategically placed WMD.

Both scenarios could presage an ELE.

But it’s hard for me to imagine that a Rapture would require such a horrific inauguration.

This could put any imagined Tribulation to shame.



(cont……..)