Hello, Cy, hello, OMF II

First topic message reminder :

Testing.......

Yes, it is working.

Congratulations to Cyrellys & Co.!

I will be continuing the BPWH blog from Compass Morainn, which was a continuation from the original OMF site on ProBoards, which is in the process of being re-archived from that site.



(cont.)

Especially, to the Others - unconditionally.

Happy Thanksgiving to all you American friends.

Yes Dan, we Canadians celebrate it a month before you.

As in America, the date has been changed through the last two centuries. In order to respect other celebration days that overlapped. During and after your Civil War, when many traveled to Canada to take refuge, we began to celebrate Thanksgiving on the same day as you. At another time moved it to November 11th. But then after WWI we made Nov 11th a Remembrance Day for fallen soldiers, and so had to pick another day for Thanksgiving. Since 1957, we have celebrated it on the 2nd monday of October. Our Harvest month. Our symbol for the day is the cornucopia. And like you, we also consume millions of Turkeys.

Hope you all have a nice day.

According to the BPWH, our world is not a speck of dust and slime, lost in space and time. Rather, we are a magic carpet, woven of a silver soul-thread and rocked in the bosom of Abraham..... but, hey, I could be wrong!

If this is us, in the vale of tears, what comes next? What are we supposed to do for an encore? Where do we get our just deserts?

When we do get to heaven, what will be the dress-code? Biology? Will it be optional? For how long will our egos still function? Also optional?

Perhaps our already having lived 10^10 lives will be considered sufficient. Does each ego get to interact with God? But we are God, so we interact with ourselves, which is kinda what we do now.



Noon (11/23)--------------

So you see my little problem....... How do we make heaven more material, and Earth less so?

I'm rather more concerned about the latter, than about the former. I don't doubt that heaven can take care of itself. It's just a question of the dog and its tail. I am suggesting that Creation is the dog, in the manger, and the Creator is the tail. Creation is the dynamo, Heaven is the Virgin. This may just be another BPWH blasphemy.

But, no, I wish to reposition most of our heavenly expectations into the Millennium. Is that ok? Hey, we can even make the Millennium a bit longer, if you like......... say 300 hundred years, instead of just 200. See how generous I am!

But if the Millennium is going to be so great, how will we ever get that 'righteous' remnant to give up the ghost?

I think they'll understand about rebooting the Creation and completing the circuit. The Rapture is still the Rapture, after all. Atonement is at-One-ment. That is what it's all about, in the End. Eternity is not to be gainsaid. The cosmic Monad is meant to blow our little egos right out of the water. It is still the Great Attractor. Be there, or be square. The Millennium is about the 72 virgins. The Monad is the big Virgin in the Sky. Commune with That!


1:50----------

So, for now, I'm not getting worried about metabolism in Heaven. I remain focused on a non-reductive rationalization of metabolism, down here. Along with this comes entropy, and its 'reversal' in the 'reboot' Gap.

Does the fact of embedding Creation in Eternity, as the 'Self-organized' Ouroboros, help with rationalizing metabolism and entropy? Does not the organic Pythagoreanism of the BPWH also help?




(cont.)

http://www.davidberlinski.org/

Watch his 2 minute clip.

The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

“Berlinski’s book is everything desirable: it is idiomatic, profound, brilliantly polemical, amusing, and of course vastly learned. I congratulate him.”
—William F. Buckley Jr.

Thanks, Jake,

With my iPad, I am only able to access David's hour-long video..... http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/204696-1 . I may not be able to finish it, but it does start out very well. Let me also check out the reviews of his book.

I like his agnostic stance..... it is most refreshing. Far too many agnostics genuflect to the Scientific Establishment. Bless his big heart.


If we permit Creation to be 'eternal', at least from the Creator's PoV, then why not fall back onto a mind-matter dualism? Well, for one thing, this would make our status as co-Creators more problematic, placing much more of the burden on the Creator.

If the recirculated cosmic soul makes up the 'warp' of Creation, then of what is the 'woof' composed? There's my rub. That is where I've tried to appeal to Bloch waves, amongst other possibilities and metaphors.

I can always hope that a more succinct statement of a metaphysical problem will help to elicit greater insight. As with many of my musings, this is a problem thay has been in the back of my mind for quite a while, but, due to embarrassment or procrastination, I don't believe that I have previously articulated it. It is a rather serious lacuna, obviously.

Cannot mathematics/logic be the woof? But the strongly inferred simultaneity of consciousness seems to demand a more robust/vital presence. I can, and have, appealed to ourselves as just being figments of God's imagination/dream.


4---------

I'm reading the first chapter of Devil's Delusion, free on Amazon, and finding it hard to put aside.

I would like to find a more naturalistic addenda to our just being figments of God's imagination.

Why, because I do strive to find an adequate bridge between nature and supernature. The intellect does abhor saltations, as it abhors a vacuum, not that neither exists. Which bridge would also serve to rejoin our intellects with the Divine, children of the Enlightment, which we all are, like it or not, as David is at pains to point out.

What is the presence that makes the present, present? This is the great mystery. This is the woof of Creation, the dog that wags every tail.


8:30----------

There is a presence that overrides time, which enables the present. There is an outside chance that it has something to do with the mutuality of love. What is love, if not a mutual presence? Also it is relationalism. To be is to be related. There are no island universes, despite the myriad appearances.......

A winter's day
In a deep and dark December;
I am alone,
Gazing from my window to the streets below
On a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

I've built walls,
A fortress deep and mighty,
That none may penetrate.
I have no need of friendship; friendship causes pain.
It's laughter and it's loving I disdain.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

From whence came this notion? Actually, come to think of it, it might have come from the J-man. It certainly became enshrined in the Protestant ethic. It was about the right stuff, and getting to the moon. Ask JD Rockefeller. Do we have to foreswear that identity? Was that just about ego? It must have gone deeper. That depth will be repositioned, if not repossessed. The river Jordan is wide and deep, but, at some point, Michael will row the boat ashore. The rock island becomes the monad.


(cont.)

You're welcome Dan
Yes, He has quite the linguistic talent. Thanks for the video link, I'll watch it later on.

What is it that holds the present together, and keeps it moving forward? There is nothing in physiscs that adresses this issue. I had heard mention of this problem, many years ago, but it did not sink in until rather recently.

When I first heard of it, I thought of as just being a trick question, almost a play on words. If anyone had pressed me on the matter, I would have just smiled and waved them away. But, wait, maybe there was someone I knew of, who did take it seriously...... I'm thinking of Ernst Cassirer. But, no, I'm unable to find any reference by Ernst to a 'shining present'. Nonetheless, I do see that parallels have been drawn between Ernst and Owen. We do have another modern idealist on our hands.

What is it that affords such an extreme privilege to the present? It cannot just be individual consciousness, because, then, how would you and I know that we were inhabiting the same present, that we could ever be mutually present? I can think of no better argument for the presence of a cosmic mind, and, so, of a cosmic consciousness, which field is our mutual abode.

This cosmic consciousness, then, is the woof of our Creation. Does this woof then diminish the significance of the warp of our individual soul trajectories? How might we keep the warp and woof in balance?


11am---------

And I have to be careful that my reliance upon a recycled cosmic soul does not degenerate into a Leibnizian pluralistic idealism .

The mere fact of the present indicates that time cannot be objective, despite our heroic attempts to objectify it. Clearly, time cannot be grasped outside of its essential subjective component. We like to suppose that space may be objectified, despite its here and there aspects, similar to time's now and then.


noon-----------

And, if time is not objectifiable, then neither can be space. What then of the objectivity of motion, of leaves being blown across the lawn? It is God and the leaves that stitch together our monadic subjectivities. God, the great harmonizer, is woof of Creation. This is the God of the gaps, on steroids.

But isn't this putting an awfully big burden on one poor little guy? Can we not provide a quasi-natural account of the woof? I mean, we could also call it the universal glue, or love, if you will. Is love unnatural? What else is it that might bind us to the present? And what happens to that glue, when we partake of eternity? That is a sobering question.

When we partake of eternity, we must do so as more integral components of the cosmic persona, lest we be spun off, well beyond any pale. We must hang on for dear life. Increasingly, we would, per force, identify with the great attractor. It would be a mind meld.

IMHO, we are already rather further into that mind-meld than our naive, Newtonian, views of space-time allow us to comprehend. We never truly did leave the big Meld, but do labor under the illusion of having done so. This has to do with our naive distinctions between Eternity and the Millennium. Well, there is a distinction, but it will turn out to be something rather more subtle that we might objectively suppose.


2pm--------

Hanging on for dear life......? I don't think this conveys a proper view. This seems to threaten a second death.

IMHO, the only second death is in our mind meld with God. That is the only way to transcend our egos. Otherwise, we will be stuck with our egos, indefinitely. Pity us! But we can never actually transgress beyond God's pale. It is logically impossible.

But is there no true chaos? Is there no way that God can be blindsided? Conspired against, even? The question is not whether God plays dice with the universe. The question is whether it would be possible for God to play dice, at all. God owns time. It is not easy to blindside the owner of time. Could the warp-enabled creatures not conspire to steal time from God? Could they not foment a demiurge? Perhaps that was how we were created, with God playing Tom Sawyer. I don't lay awake nights worrying that someone's gonna put something over on the old geezer.


4-------

Each of us is a demiurge, or God allows us to think that. The better we get at playing that role, the closer we get back to God. Avoiding God, in the End, is well-nigh impossible, but that will not dissuade some from trying. What will they get for their pains......? An honest to goodness death. Perhaps that is where God goes to retire.

But I still don't get the connection between God and the wayward leaves. Is the devil in the details? Together they form the woof of Creation. Clearly this gives the leaves too much ontological status. Should the peripatetic leaves be more of a problem than peripatetic seeds? Blame the wind? The wind may be blamed on atoms and entropy.



(cont.)

So how does God manage to be present and eternal, at the same time? Are we that, also? We must be both, to some extent. Our eidetic memories make us half eternal.

If all existence is relational, then we must afford some existence to atoms. Should that be any problem for an immaterialist? What is the status of atoms in distant star systems, or a billion years ago? Can there not be an ontology in the saving of the appearances? Can we not materialize pink elephants, particularly after the last gray one has been slaughtered? The laws of physics can only ever be expressed in terms of conditionals, which are kind of like intentionals. Yes, I definitely believe in conditionally intentioned atoms. They are my favorite kind. But can they be blown across the lawn?

What exactly am I perceiving, when I see a leaf so blowing, in the wind, presumably? Am I perceiving the wind? Ocean currents have a similar function. But I don't really know how relational existence works, nor what is the role of mathematics, therein.

In point of fact, mathematics enters the picture only through the conditionals as expressed in the formalism of fields, particularly as quantum fields, wherein the mathematical apparatus of symmetries prevail.

When we see the world, are seeing God through the lens of the mathematical symmetries.....

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

Take away that lens, and what is left? You and I are projections of that same lens. We are even a part of that lens, mutually active, part of the woof, as well.

Are we generated by the symmetries, or are we also the generators? We could ask the same of the brots in the Mandelbrot.



(cont.)

My concern about the blowing of leaves may largely be subsumed under the rubric of weathering and erosion, the Grand Canyon being a prime example thereof. Leaves and tumbleweed happen to be amongst the most visible signs of the actual process, which mainly involves water and pebbles or sand.

The problem with aging and entropy is where or how to draw a line between its foreground and the background. Or, in 'theological' terminology, where to draw the line between an actual young Earth and an apparently old Earth. IOW, how do we keep our ancestors from getting mixed up with the dinosaurs, as has been depicted in more than one Creationist museum, or is there only one, out there?

While contemplating this, last night, I was attempting to subsume aging within the Ouroboric cosmology, which is mainly teleological, with the final cause having precedence over the efficient cause, and in which the world is a waking-up dream, into the Telos or Omega.

I would like to balance that, with a similar process occurring wrt the Alpha. Such is the process by which we might construct a suspension bridge, starting from both ends, where the initial and final dreamtimes are the buttresses. The suspension cables are the recycled trajectories of the cosmic soul, constituting the 'warp' of the creation tapestry or magic carpet. I have refered to Nature as the 'woof' of this tapestry, but one may also think of God/love/gravity in the role of holding the suspension cables in place.

There is also the frame to consider. The frame consists of several parts or aspects. The twelve 'houses' of the zodiac with the corresponding twelve initial megalithic sites, and the twelve final megalopolitan cities, are parts of the geodesic frame. The four points of the compass are the A, O, X and Telos, forming and 'X' or T-square in the Ouroboric or Glactic circle, very roughly speaking. In particular, the X refers to the X-event.

That event defines the outer limit of God's love. It is the death of God. That is the Pale of Creation. It defines the magnitude, and frames the woof, of our tapestry. Look, sports fans, this is not a lesson in Euclidean geometry. This is a kind of Riemannian geometry of the spirit, so don't get out your slide-rule or your T-square, or get your knickers in a knot. And, yes, Creation is geocentric, Christocentric and, finally, anthropocentric. This is the one coherent response to the Anthropic principle and to the mind-body paradox.


10:40---------

This is the state of the art of my ability to frame the cosmos, to square the circle, and to fill in around the edges. Just think of me as Tom Sawyer, with a sewing needle and a dream of the Bayeux tapestry.

How do we get from today's leaves blowing across the lawn and yesterday's rain-gully on the hillside, to the Grand Canyon, without invoking some seriously deep time, or without turning God into a terra-forming hydraulic engineer?

I think I will invoke the craters on the moon........ It was those lunar craters that started the process of bringing Heaven down around our sublunary ears, a process, which, as Chicken Little, I am bound to complete.

What were we to make of those lunar blemishes, compounded by Galileo's solar acne? How could we lay up our treasure in Heaven, if the same mundane, corrupting processes were at work, up there? What of our glorified/celestial bodies?

But recall that other transgressor of the lunar barrier, Pythagoras, who brought the celestial harmonies to our ears. As Robert Frost would point out..... something there is that doesn't love a wall..... celestial or otherwise.

And here I wish to build a wall between the young and old Earths? Not in my dreams, I don't.

And what of those wandering and shooting stars? How were we to save those appearances?

Was the iron that fell out of the sky, not considered sacred? Meant for ritual implements.... for carving that little sacrificial chicken? Am I hemming or hawing?

Without much apology, I see the moon as our stepping stone to the Heavens, in every way but Sunday, pace NASA! It anchored the Sky, marked our mundane affairs, and spun a thousand yarns? It was the rarest of the Rare Earth components. And who was that man in the Moon, consorting with Selene?

And what if we had gotten to the Moon, and found that it consisted of green cheese, or that our heads were filled with sawdust? Would we not rightfully suppose that God was being perverse? How may God eschew perversity? How may God ensure that Moondust is, indeed, dusty? If these sound like silly questions, perhaps you are just a bit too wise to play this game. Suffer the little children to come unto me....... they come from Heaven, trailing clouds of glory.

One obvious way is for the old Geezer to bone-up on his mathematics...... Noetherian symmetries, Mandelbrots and all that. And then simply to be the best monadic Self-concealer, this side of the Great Attractor.

Am I saying that there was no late bombardment, no Lunar catastrophe? Golly, it sure looks like there was. How else is a body to save those appearances?


12:45------------

I could say that the Cloud did it....... or it could be the Big Cloud in the Sky, also known as our collective uCs...... hey, whichever's faster. We could knock out that simulation in a few seconds.

But when the meteorologist simulates a rainstorm, she doesn't bring her umbrella, now, does she? But suppose, further, that we are simulating the simulation, of the Lunar catastrophe. Or that God is simulating our simulation? In that case, we might wish to bring an umbrella to the moon, or, at least, a dust pan. If not, then, at least bring a cheese knife.

What more can I tell you about the birds and the bees, and about the Grand Canyon and Moondust? God, with anthropics and some silicon, made Titan possible.

And made it possible for Chicken Little to spin one last yarn.

Titan, the Internet and the Moon, are ontological stepping stones to the cosmic Mind/Self, between the micro and macro-cosms. We are God's distributed intelligence, just about to get our act together, ready to storm the gates of Heaven. Are we sticking our necks out too far, like Tom turkey? Are we due for a pratfall or a Tribulation? Or is God waiting patiently, with her sewing needle, and her machine code? How can we find out which end is up? Are her lips sealed? Where did I leave that darned umbrella?

Now, do we understand why and how the leaves blow across the lawn, and why it takes most of a day to hike the Bright Angel trail to the Phantom ranch, and three days to get to the Moon?

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."

Well, perhaps. But, quite frankly, I wouldn't want God to be losing sleep over every tree in every quad. In this age of tree-hugging, it seems to me that if a Stanford ecology coed were to wake and miss the Tree, there would be hell to pay. In which cosmic simulation do the trees of Birnam wood come to high Dunsinane? Can't we leave that simulation to Willy?

When the leaves blow across my lawn, should they disappear on the Neighbor's, who happens to be away, sipping a painkiller at the Soggy Dollar? How do we invoke the Least Action Principle? Where is Emmy, when we need her? How can blowing leaves be conserved, while allowing flying saucers to materialize? Did Emmy put that in her computer?


3:30---------

A watched pot never boils. But can an unwitnessed saucer materialize? Ask Ingo.


4:35---------

It may not be a brute force materialization. It might be more a question of navigation, using your neighborhood psychic as the Vortac beacon. No wonder that witches got the torch. I mean who wanted those little buggers snooping around?

But still, we are dealing with a very considerable discontinuity, in this navigation between worlds. Angels come and rescue folks. Is it psychokinesis? Ingo was a big-time RV person. It works both ways. Saucers have direct access to our shared psychic spaces. We have direct perception, usually more passive. Whatever they do, they don't seem to rule this roost. They would much rather play hide and seek. They take after the old Guy, naturally.

They stoop, but don't quite conquer. They don't have the gift of the gab, unless you wish to count the Urantia book, wherein brevity is not the soul of its wit. Does it not seem witless?

You can't fly a craft without the critter. Crafts and critters are wont to transgress our form of matter, but they don't mind drinking our water, when it suits. Or a draught of bovine blood. They may be vampires of our emotions...... they being the virgins and we the dynamo, or is it the other way?




(cont.)

I woke up last night worrying about the umbrella problem.......

It is easy enough to embed avatars/zombies in a simulation, but that is not to suppose that they could also function as perceivers of the simulation. Attached to most simulations is a display device whereby an external observer is able to visualize, or otherwise make sense of, the simulation.

The notion or model that I was starting from was that of a dream, wherein at least one observer is 'automatically' embedded. If this happens automatically in the brain's simulation, why not suppose that it can happen in the computer's simulation? Well, this is one strong indication of a conceptual difference, one that gives rise to the homunculus problem.

Many game simulations necessarily attach artificial intelligence to their avatars, such that it may not be easy to tell if the avatar is being controlled online of offline. For the proponent of Strong AI, there need be no real differenc..... the one thing that is impossible to simulate is consciousness..... it can only be emulated, from their PoV, and in accord with the Turing test. It occurs to me that this avatar problem may provide and additional argument against Strong AI. OTOH, it might also provide some ammunition for immaterialism....... killing two birds with one stone? That seems unlikely.

Let me try to rationalize this last piece of intuition...... I was attempting to look at the homunculus problem from the perspective of a game designer. When it comes to the intelligence of the offline avatar, there is no there, there. That intelligence is simply a part of the overall game design, particularly on the 'perceiving' end of it. But then is occurs to me that this is also how the BPWH is supposed to work. There is but one mastermind, of which we creatures are the pale reflections. Distributed intelligence? Well, that is just part of the illusion. This is just another statement of monism, if not monotheism.

But how does this mastermind hypothesis fit in with the idea of the recirculated soul, and of our status as co-Creators? Am I defeating my own purpose? Or perhaps this is just a stronger version of co-Creation. Perhaps it is the recirculated soul that must be revisited. But that is supposed to be the very fabric of this creative tapestry. Where is my mastermind, when I need it? Am I trying to have my cake and eat it, too? Well, that's supposed to be the point, after all.

But in what sense are game avatars not also functioning as recirculated souls? Isn't that how the object oriented programming (OOP) is supposed to work? But that would be panpsychism with a vengeance. Hey, it might even be a panpsychic catastrophe. I'm reminded of Harman's Quadruple Object, perhaps. OOO, object oriented ontology, is supposedly the opposite of immaterialism, but maybe not. Hmmm........

Does OOO not necessarily lead to reductionism? In a game the avatars do actually share the same 'soul'. So do the chairs and tables, each after their own kind. That's how the ontological hierarchy or 'class inheritance' is supposed to work. And there are any number of ontologies. Perhaps I've been too dismissive, owing to the context. I did certainly take to Smalltalk, back in the day.

In the article about the new supercomputer, Titan, it was noted that one of the most recalcitrant phenomena to being simulated is the car crash. Crash dummies unite! Nonetheless, the cosmic mind doesn't crash when your car crashes. The car just goes right ahead and does its crunchy thing. Is this the defeater of immaterialism?


11:25----------

I'm listening to Ray Kurzweil on Diane Rhem. He is touting his new book, How to Create a Mind.

I am surprised that Ray gives obeisance to the anthropic principle on the first page of his introduction. And now, on the radio, he is also touting consciousness as a real problem. Wisdom is often hard to deny, in one's maturity. Some of our very youthful, heroic compartmentalization inevitably becomes eroded.

One thing I have noted is that the Transhumanists tend to ignore the ETH. If they're so smart, the ET's, why aren't they here? If they are here, why are they avoiding us?

Ray mentions Peter Diamandis' book, Abundance. I'll have to see where he is wrt the ETH. They are cofounders of the Singularity University.


12:35-----------

I'm wondering if we can't bootstrap the car-crash....... This is like in mathematics, when one does first and second approximations to a function, by expanding it in a Taylor series, or some such strategy.

I have presumed that the BPW, along with it's Creator is bootstrapped, wherein the soul trajectories or the warp is the strap. Most creations involve some sort of iterative process. In its first iteration, the car would be difficult to distinguish from the donkey-cart. Everything is low-res. As the soul keeps looping, we build up an increasingly hi-res library of phenomena, ontologies. This seems awfully contrived, I'll readily admit.

God has, bless her heart, contrived to make Creation appear to be terribly uncontrived. All to what end? To deceive us? You and I are the straps. God/love is the buckle. In the Nth approximation, do we not end up with real atoms, or how do we avoid such? How is individuality maintained, along with the ontologies? Does this not also depend on the objectification of space-time? But atoms are anything but individual. Their functionality follows directly from their lack of individuality. They are the interchangeable parts, par excellence.


1:40 (11')------- A is to meet with PB re: Kashmiri liberation, and the founding of a model girl's school on a yet to be designated Aegean island. Gregory Benford may write a presentation. R is still looking for the venue of Larry's UFO meeting, supposedly at an old NASA centrifuge site in Philadelphia.



I wonder if there could be a generic car crash that could, somehow, be individuated, on a case by case basis, without invoking individual atoms? How contrived should an immaterial car-crash be? There is no such thing as a best possible or ideal car-crash. No archetype. This is the problem with most entropic processes. It is the entropy which individuates us, although memory generally seems to be anti-entropic.

How does a car-crash differ from a photograph, in terms of its being a computer or memory problem? It is a question of TMI wrt to immaterialism. But how much information is too much, or too little? Does a photo create information, or merely relocate or reallocate it?

The vast majority of information is merely potentially so, even when digitally photographed and stored. But cannot that potentiality be actualized through random or spontaneous testing. There are no observable gaps in nature, so, naturally, we suppose there are none. Is information constantly filling-in around us, like a shadow? And why should I be afraid of TMI?

Am I afraid of trees falling in the forest? Would it not be more worrisome if they didn't fall? Are there trees in heaven? Do they fall? Is there a heaven? It is the reductivism associated with TMI, particularly that portion that is entropy induced, that an immaterialist is likely to find worrisome. There is also the associated problem of indirect perception, which lends credence to brain/mind identity.

The main goal of immaterialism is to explain the world w/o resorting to matter...... to explain phenomena w/o resorting to atoms. Lessening the amount of data to be explained makes our job that much easier. TMI, OTOH, seems to make atoms indispensable as the ultimate place holders of information.


5:40-----------

How much info in a wrecked car? In a dilapidated house..... in a rotting tree? More or less info than in the uncorrupted object? As entropy increases, does the information do likewise? Well, theoretically it does, but even the definition of 'theoretical', in this context, is highly problematic. Information always must be defined within a arbitrary horizon, whereas entropy can be more general.

What about the entropy or info contained in a steady-state cyclical system, as the universe might be? Is it truly impossible for information to be erased or disappear?



(cont.)

I have to thank you, anyone, for being patient with my excursus into blowing leaves and car wrecks. If we're lucky, it might help to shed some light on a particular kind of thought process, which has something to do with the devil being in the details. But, since I'm not a dualist, I hope to use certain extreme details as a means of triangulating God's love. I wrestle with the details until I have forgotten how I got to them, and then see if I can extricate myself. It's kind of like spelunking without a string. You never know when you may see the light of day, again.

What tidbits do I bring back from the junkyard and leaf pile? How about..... don't sweat the details? Well, that's easier said than done. It's mostly a question of figuring out what is good enough for 'gummint' work..... or how to keep the immaterial ball in play, despite the odds. I have only to get enough of the details right in order to make it possible for someone to continue exploring this Plato's cave.

It's also a useful exercise in how to see the light at the end of a inordinately long and twisting tunnel. Where is the love in a car wreck? It has to do with customization and individuation. These were two notions about which the father of western philosophy was, quite evidently, clueless, asleep at the switch, and 2400 years before his time. It has to with the Athens-Jerusalem axis. How do we finally see them in perspective, in the perspective of postmodernity, say?

Memory is the great individuator for us sapients, from wherever it and we may come. There are ample details in our NDE life reviews, and all the other details be damned. What else is the point? Many a car wreck is to be found in our NDE's, bless their poignancy. After that they are headed back to the smelter and the glue factory. Sayonara..... hasta la vista.

So, do I get my gold star? Well, what about the uTube in the Sky, the akashic record? That record is virtually synonymous with our ouroboric, young/old Earth.

Love is about mind over matter. Where there is a will, there is a way. It is also, very much about what is personal. That is why we have to consider that ancient axis of wisdom. How are love and perfection to be balanced? That, dear friends, is precisely what the BPW is for. It is the fulcrum of that balance. Give me that fulcrum and I will, and already have moved the world, even though its denizens think they are wandering..... lost in space. How far can you get lost into space, into the cave, into the forest..... only half way.

The X-event was both our fulcrum and our halfway point, our PoNR. God entirely poured herself into that event, and you can take that to the bank.

I stepped out to the car, checking its post-Irenic 'bilge', and caught a few seconds of NPR...... There had been an anti-LDS demo in Moscow, just before the election. Why, they wondered. Why LDS, I have wondered. It has to do with the axis of wisdom. LDS and Islam got lost in Plato's cave. They didn't have a long enough string. How do the prisoners turn around to see the light? Hey, it's kind of a personal thing. My job is to point to..... to rationalize the Person. You have to spend three days and nights wandering in the junkyard in order to get that...... and to make it good enough for gummint work.

As John Wheeler used to say, the only real phenomenon is an observed phenomenon. See, that's just what I'm driving at...... Once we understand how and why observation is a personal thing, we will have the key to Creation. I think I caught a glimpse of that in the junkyard, and I've come back to try to explain it, even just to myself.

It has something to do with weak measurements and the pilot wave, and what is the optimal way to assign the details to the Devil or to the junkyard. If only I could remember where that junkyard was.

It's not inside a black hole, although that might be a first approximation. And guess where I'll be at 12:12 on 12/12/12? Be there or be (times) Square..... and, yes, Greenwich, village/NYU, that is!

And speaking of the times....... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/world/middleeast/sunni-leaders-gaining-clout-in-mideast.html?hp Yes, there is also the Istanbul-Athens-Rome axis. That makes a T-square, right about at the cave. And A is headed to Rome, I believe. That should pretty much cover the waterfront. What are the Spratlies, when compared with (rose) K?


10:45-------------

It is in the NDE/Akashic/Cloud that the meaningful info ends up, which could be something of a black hole, if we're not careful. What is left over are the mega-Geodesics of the Ouroboric/CTC/AxO circuit. Well, not to mention the 4M/K/SoT/X2-event.

And, hey, everything else will turn out to have been...... how do they call it...... an illusion. And, yes, you can take that to the big Junkyard/Leaf-pile in the Sky. Maybe that's what they use to run the A/C, up there.

But, yes, you do see that poor old Heaven is getting the old squeeze play, caught between the BPW Creation, the Millennium and the Creator. The angels may just have to do their own choir practicing.

How much energy will it take to erase the Cloud? Well, after it has been optimally encoded and compressed, all that will be left, other than a very random looking matrix, will be an optimal (PGP) 100-digit prime-number key, written on a piece of paper. It will then take only one match to clean up our act. Poof! Same goes for completing our AxO/CTC..... the reset time button is built-into Noah's ark.



11:50----------

And/or the Cloud could also serve as our Sarfatti/Davis event horizon, if properly (quantum) reformatted. And maybe it already has been, which is what our retroactive NDE's are about.


But wait...... if the quantum Cloud is the event horizon of our CTC, then it is also our AxO hologram. It is the grin on our Schrodinger/Cheshire cat. How else would anyone construct a BPW/CTC? The code-key then might just be the first hundred digits of pi, sort of like the ten thunders. That would also be the key to Saint Peter's gate, into the heavenly Millennium. And it's not so much the code itself, as it is the idea of the code.


Speaking of which, I'm heading out to see the Life of Pi..........




(cont.)

With regards to an hypothesis, when a fundamental premise is flawed, no matter how compelling, no manner of reasoning can congeal it.

Dan, if all is interconnected and panpsychism is a realism, then why are there no other great minds collaborating in your hypothesis?

Now, there's a loaded question........


BTW, Life of Pi is an excellent movie. The metaphysics is subtle enough. Do try to catch the 3D version....... Stunning......


Why just me, Lord........?

1.) The BPWH is all wet.

2.) One vision, one visionary. Too many cooks spoil the broth. It was designed this way.

3.) Being left alone, to my own devices is a surprising, surpassing luxury/necessity.

4.) God outdid himself in covering his immaterial tracks, and in giving our theological imaginations a free reign. God walks softly and carries a big stick, which is the Telos. And he knows us much better than we know ourselves.

5.) Didn't he say that he would come like a thief in the night?



(cont.)

dan wrote:Now, there's a loaded question........

Yes, and I see you are unable to answer it.

5.) Didn't he say that he would come like a thief in the night?

Only to those who who maintain false premises.

1 Thess 5:2-4 "But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief."

Thanks for mentioning that scripture Jake. I've always wondered how different Protestant and non-denominational Christian factions will prophesize that the world is going to end on such and such date even though, at least as far as I knew, it says in the Bible that Jesus said that we will never know.

I wonder what Jesus' direct statement on this matter is? If He said that we will never know but Paul is saying that some in fact WILL know, then I would be more apt to place more weight on Jesus' statement on that... of course.

All I DO know is that it seems like the general consensus in mainstream Christianity supports what Dan just said about it in his last post which is interpreted as 'we will never know' and without exception.

Jake,

Well, if the false premise in question happens to include the falsity of materialism, then Christians will be in the same boat as every other modern-minded Millie.

To my fellow Christians...... keep your seat belts fastened, and just remember that it is Jesus who saves, not the Bible..... nor the Koran.

Thief in the night........? I cannot prove that Jesus will come back like a thief in the night, nor can you prove that he won't.

Plausibility, Ellie, plausibility.........


99,

We will never know.........? Never know what, pray tell? Is God not omniscient and omnipotent? Are we not far on our way to becoming One with God? Or am I all wet?



So what about that sky Cloud..... the super-duper computer in the Sky? Where does it plug in? And where does all that silicon come from? Silicon Valley?


10:30----------

But back to Jake, for one minute......... Do I imply that you are in the Darkness.... not in the Light?

Love is always a surprise. It never grows old, especially not Agape, or cosmic love. IOW, we cannot always be in love, but we can always be ready to be surprised by love. I think, if you look again at Corinthians, you will see that this is the gist of Paul's letter.



Computer in the Sky........?

If we know how to bootstrap Creation, do we also know how to bootstrap the Computer? I have suggested that our minds work like networked pc's, with the cosmic programs running in the background, in our uCs. The leaf-pile and car-wreck are being computed in our collective uCs.

Well, this is only a very inadequate analogy, in a space where even inadequate analogies are few and far between.

Should we be concerned that even a super-computer cannot compute a car-wreck? But even a super-computer cannot compute our simplest intention. And is there such a thing as a non-intentional thought? Does, or can(!), our uCs harbor anything that is non-intentional? OTOH, is there anything in our minds that is composed purely of logic or quantity?

But what are the qualities and intentionalities of a car-wreck? And how might they differ from those of an unobserved volcano on an unobservable planet? Yet, we are able to super-compute all the observations of eruptions on the most distant of neutron stars.



(cont.)

99 wrote:
All I DO know is that it seems like the general consensus in mainstream Christianity supports what Dan just said about it in his last post which is interpreted as 'we will never know' and without exception.

Yes, all virtually Christianity believes "we will never know" the time of His return. And so do I.

This might get a bit confusing as you may not understand Dan's view. The point of my response to Dan, was not concerning the timing of the "Return of Christ". Nor was Apostle Paul referring to the 'timing'. And Nor was Dan!

Dan does not believe there will be a "return of Christ" that all Christianity is expecting. There is no "return of Christ" in the BPWH. Dan IS the 'return'. The BPWH to Dan, is the WORD of the Spirit of God.

You'll notice in Dan's post immediately above, that he does not talk about the "Return of Christ", but only about "becoming one with God". This is because there isn't going to be a return of Christ, like Christianity expects as per the scriptures. In Dan's view, He has already arrived! like a thief in the night.

I know this about Dan's view and so I was responding to his context.

I asked Dan:

Dan, if all is interconnected and panpsychism is a realism, then why are there no other great minds collaborating in your hypothesis?"

He responded:

Why just me, Lord........?

1.) The BPWH is all wet.

2.) One vision, one visionary. Too many cooks spoil the broth. It was designed this way.

3.) Being left alone, to my own devices is a surprising, surpassing luxury/necessity.

4.) God outdid himself in covering his immaterial tracks, and in giving our theological imaginations a free reign. God walks softly and carries a big stick, which is the Telos. And he knows us much better than we know ourselves.

5.) Didn't he say that he would come like a thief in the night?

You see, it's all about him and the BPWH. He/it being the "one vision" and "one visionary".

Dan concludes with #5, as he believes He is like a thief in the night, that no one is expecting.

He explicitly believes that there will be NO 'return of Christ" as foretold by 'Jesus' and the Bible. But rather that all that Jesus said about his return, is to be interpreted symbolically. And the "surprise" unexpected "return of Christ", is the surprise that the BPWH is it, and Dan is the prophesied "Spirit of Truth" revealing it.

Dan believes when people realize that the BPWH/Chicken Little is the Final Truth, they will experience it symbolically like the "return of Christ".

And so having said all that....

I showed him what Paul said.- "But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief."

This is because Christians know the truth and Christ's return will not "overtake them" like an unexpected thief, as they are prepared in their heart for Him.

But Dan however thinks that even all Christians will be surprised and caught off guard when they realize there isn't going to be any Return of Christ as believed, but that Dan's BPWH revelation has taken its place.

I call these views of Dan - false premises.

And that's why he has no adherents. Not even panpsychism can attract other minds to collaborate with Dan's hypothesis. If Dan was correct, the Spirit of God would move others toward him. If God inspired Dan, in 30 years God would have attracted countless people to hear Dan's teaching of the WORD of God. His BPWH.

So the point of my dialog with Dan above, was that the very premises of his own hypothesis, prove it to be incoherent.

His fundamental premises of his hypothesis are flawed, and no manner of reasoning can congeal it. I said that to Dan, because he is struggling over certain aspects of creation, (atoms, photons, blowing leaves and car wrecks,etc) and trying to figure out how to interpret how God is working creation and how to fit them into his BPWH.

I'm pointing out to Dan, that he will never be able to congeal it, without first changing his premises.

Jake,

I do appreciate that you do not mince your words, and do not beat around the bush. And it is entirely possible that everything you have said is God's own truth. Nay, if anyone were to say that they disbelieved what you have just said, then I would suggest that they might wish to consult with a psychiatrist.

What you do fail to grasp is the subtle distinction between belief and plausibility. And, yes, wrt the BPWH, you do well to maintain a plausible deniability, and so should everyone else.

Do I so maintain? Sure, I do, because, hey, I do also try to maintain a modicum of sanity, despite all appearances to the contrary!

But, just so long as there is a finite probability that the BPWH is correct, then is it wrong for me to continue to pursue it? Am I not even morally obliged to do so?

Would God condemn me for doing what I believe to be right? Should any of us have the slightest desire to align ourselves with anyone who does not encourage us to be guided, first and foremost, by our own conscience?


3:10----------

Back to the heavy metal in the sky, and how can intentions help us to compute a car-wreck.......? How do intentions help us to fill in our own blind spots?

Well, they don't, but they can. If I'm looking at someone, slightly askance, I may notice that they appear headless. This does not bode well for the notion of direct perception. Should I not, therefore, believe in the objectivity of photons? Isn't God trying to tell me, gently, that the BPWH is all wet? Why do I have to be so stubborn about this silliness? Why can't I believe my own eyes? If my eyes offend me, shouldn't I pluck them out? I'm sure Jake would agree.

Look, I'm pretty good at rationalization..... as even my critics might concur. I'm pretty good at finding gaps and loopholes in materialism. But who wants a Philadelphia lawyer to be their savior? I do need to take the high road, and it's not always easy to find.



(cont.)

Ok Dan here's the deal. And why I don't simply class you as another Anti-Christ want-a-be and toss you to the wolves on a cold dark night in the thick of winter.

I've said this numerous times before, but it's been awhile, so recap...

I think your philosophical hypothesis concerning the disillusion of scientific materialism - is Brilliant!

If you simply stuck to that, you'd be a guest speaker on TED, and Robert Lawrence Kuhn would request several interviews with you, and Ron might even invite you to attend a JASON meeting.

But your religious views destroy any chance of you being anything other than an also-ran failure. Your life work will be tossed in the shredder. What a waste!

You were inspired to see immateralism, and gifted on how to argue your hypothesis against the standard view of Science.

But you err in presuming that your understanding of immateralism somehow resolves all religious philosophy. Which it doesn't even come close to doing that.

You need to separate the two, or you fail God.

And I doubt he'll be all hunky dory about that! He bakes a cake, gives it to you to share, and then you gobble it all up. Leaving nothing but a messy face, and shame.

Stick to the first mission - Immateralism and how Disclosure changes everything. Discard your religious gobbly-goop. It doesn't cohere. Sure, you can tell people you have some religious beliefs, but they are not as important as the major errors in the Standard Scientific Model.

You can still call it the Best Possible World Hypothesis, because for mankind's purposes this IS the Best Possible World. But you being the "Spirit of Truth"!? With this, you slam the door in your own face. What good is an inspiration that will not be shared? There is no revelation without recipients!

Who has spent more time writing about and correcting the errs of scientific materialism? Who reads it? What impact is it making? What signs are there that give any indication your writing will ever see the light of day?

You ponder if God would forgive you for this waste. Would you forgive you if you were God?

The clock is ticking



edit to fix spelling errors

Good one, Jake!

And what you are saying makes a great deal of sense, but if God had wanted a sensible person to debunk materialism, then he came to the wrong guy, way back there on a cold winter's night, in 1977. So maybe it was the Devil, but also I feel bound to follow the advice of my third-grade baseball coach....... if you're going to make a mistake, you might as well make it a big one. Does that sound perverse? Yes, in many cases it would be, but not if you're holding the ball, with two outs, and the bases are loaded! Which is kinda where I think we are, just now.

We who hesitate are lost. We are playing for the highest possible stakes. This is not a game for the feint hearted. And since when is an ounce of truth worth less than a ton of opinions?

Truth is a package deal. Either I am a logical part of that package, or I'm all wet.

You commit the error of objectivism, if you suppose the truth is not personal. I happen to take the truth very personally....... far too personally, most sane people would say. But I'm not most people, and, very likely, I'm not sane, either. Hey, I have a certificate to prove it!


The only thing standing between us and a potentially very large truth is an an uncomputably wrecked car. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit still for that. It is a personal affront!

Where is the intentionality in a junk heap? Sure, there is a cosmic intentionality in the third law of thermodynamics, but, as usual, the devil is in the details.


5:10----------

I am suggesting that the same sort of teleology present in the decaying tree may also be found in the car wreck. That would be a rather indirect from of intentionality.

Trees end up as rotten logs, and cars end up on the scrap heap, one way or another. Both cycles may be expected to run to completion, the details being long forgotten. So, need I not worry about the 'Irenic'-induced leak in my Toyota? Is it somehow less real than........ what? Than agape?

The leak in the rear window frame of the Toyota is personal, and, so, it is relative to my personhood. It is a significant part of my personal space. Once it departs from my space, it will have a scant purchase on reality. Is there some way to quantify this ontological relativity? I only wish.

But pretty soon, the leak will exist only in my memory. In whose memory will I exist? Well, isn't that kind of what Theism is about? I exist in the mind of the Creator, perhaps, and the Creator exists in perpetuity, perhaps. The reality of my leaky Toyota is quite secondary, even tertiary, in that case. It's like three degrees of separation. Hey, there's a quantity..... 3!

How can I prove this? Only by the coherence theory of truth (CohTT). I have to prove that all truth is relative to love. But is this implausible? Or is it the only thing that is plausible, in the End?

The leaky window might get my feet wet, and it might cause the floor of the car to rust an fall out. The leaky window screen might afford entry to a mosquito bearing the West Nile virus that is the death of me. The devil is in the details.



(cont.)

dan wrote:Good one, Jake!

And what you are saying makes a great deal of sense, but if God had wanted a sensible person to debunk materialism, then he came to the wrong guy, way back there on a cold winter's night, in 1977. So maybe it was the Devil, but also I feel bound to follow the advice of my third-grade baseball coach....... if you're going to make a mistake, you might as well make it a big one. Does that sound perverse? Yes, in many cases it would be, but not if you're holding the ball, with two outs, and the bases are loaded! Which is kinda where I think we are, just now.

We who hesitate are lost. We are playing for the highest possible stakes. This is not a game for the feint hearted. And since when is an ounce of truth worth less than a ton of opinions?

Right! So all the more reason to make it work. You crafted the snow ball, and you have to kick it down the hill. So that it can naturally grow into an avalanche.

You don't have to become a conference speaker. Like Einstein or Galileo, that's not required of you. Maybe a couple times here and there.

But you have to kick the ball off. Only you can do it. Only you know which hill to stand on, and how much a nudge it needs, and which direction it should point. Gravity will do the rest.

Truth is a package deal. Either I am a logical part of that package, or I'm all wet.

You commit the error of objectivism, if you suppose the truth is not personal. I happen to take the truth very personally....... far too personally, most sane people would say. But I'm not most people, and, very likely, I'm not sane, either. Hey, I have a certificate to prove it!

I truly understand this. And yes there is a package deal. In fact (your fact as well) we're all in that package deal. But you need to make a decision about what comes first, the chicken or the egg. Scientific Immateralism or Eschaton? You know the answer to that. So why put the eschaton first? That's like asking Johnny to peddle fast, while he's still only eying the bike.

Immateralism first. Disclosure second. Eschaton third.

When you pitch "Eschaton et Moi" as your door opener, it becomes your door slammer. Can you blame them?

So then Science doesn't even discuss it. Not even Science Philosophers will give it a inch.

Defeated from the get-go.

And if you are sure of your religious interpretation of your philosophy, it doesn't matter one hoot. You yourself close the gates of heaven, just like the Pharisees did. If 'Jesus' was peeved by that, wouldn't his Father be, too? But 'Jesus' didn't close the door. He took it on the road. And kicked that snowball down the hill.

I keep pointing out that I'm just a one-trick pony. If God wanted me to do PR, he could send me a PR agent. I just don't have the patience for it. I have all the time in the world to explain a leaky window, but no time to make phone calls. That's just how it is. Chalk it up to my insanity.

It was only a few weeks ago that Ron told me I was grandstanding, and that was just a couple of weeks before he told me to quit blogging. Look, if God is not my PR agent, then I am way up a lonely creek. You don't have to tell me that!

I also keep saying that this is all about the timing, and I'm going to be in Time's Square, at 12:12 on 12/12/12, but, no, I won't be wearing a placard. Being right here, and kicking this same little can down this same lonely road is the only thing that has ever floated my boat. If God wants to kick a snowball down the hill, well, my only job is to make sure he has the best little snowball in Creation.

And, so, Jake, I have to make sure that this snowball is as round as possible. Half of a snowball is not going to roll. This is what the CohTT is about. It is a package deal, a nice round little package, at that. And when she rolls, she ain't gonna stop for nothing. This is also our Glory Train, or it's not the whole truth, and I'm all wet.

I know that you and a lot of folks would like for there to be more baby steps. And maybe God will arrange for that. But that's not what I signed up for, God knows!

You want to teach me a new Trick? Well, let's wait 'til I finish this one, and then see.

.

Ok, fair enough, Dan. I just get the impression that you work to make a change on a Godly scale. A history changer. At least, that is the context in which you apparently communicate yourself.

As you know, to Ron, you are merely an Intel tool, and perhaps entertainment from time to time. The splattering of craziness helps make it more effective.

If your dollar a year is worth your life, then let it be. To each their own. And you might even make a small difference in some OP from time to time. This is good. To some. Perhaps your work will even make as much a difference as one of the thousands of others who worked for man's world, while thinking they were paramount in saving all humanity.

I just think that would be a waste for your toils, Dan. That's all. Whatever floats your boat.

God's measuring stick isn't fashioned nor interpreted like man's.

So your choice is ... onward Eschaton and slammed doors.

Oy vey, I need a glass of wine.

God's measuring stick isn't fashioned nor interpreted like man's.

This is so incredibly true, Jake.

I agree with you Jake that Dan has some concepts which are indeed brilliant and yes on the one you named. I will add one more to the list...where Dan noted that mankind is akin to computers which are all networked together. This is true. But broaden it to include all lifeforms to make it more accurate.

@ Dan, yes Truth is a package deal. It is both real and tangible. And you are a part of logical part of the package same as Ron is and everyone else is. It is only how you see and understand the package which differs. That does not make you intrinsically all wet but at the same time it does not make the whole of your concept Truth.

I support your efforts because in striving for Truth you are participating in the learning process and being intelligent, intuitive, and diligent you can't help but make discoveries as Jake has acknowledged your more obvious accomplishments. This does not mean I subscribe to any particular part in the way you present it. It means I recognize your capacity and successes and spirit of the chase. This is what the Creative Source loves most about mankind, it's spirit which so mirrors its own and has the capacity to reach forward toward it in ways so many others have not yet grasped. While you and I disagree on many points I can see the strides and the potential at hand here.

Jake mentioned there is a lack of other minds to collaborate with...

Not even panpsychism can attract other minds to collaborate with Dan's hypothesis.

Not precisely true. What stands as collaboration is probably not being noticed as such. It is here. I have weighed in on occasion as I do now. Like you have said Jake, Dan's life's work is not wholly without value. There is much to be valued in many of his wanderings and then there is also the necessity to respect inequity. If one is to learn from mistakes then the mistakes must first be made or traveled; that ground must also be covered. Time and the Creative Source's Synchronicity will encourage the learning and string out the pieces of value.

This is Dan's Journey and where his intersects with ours do not all present benefit from considerate introspection instigated by his pondering...thus there is a value even if it is not the epitome of Truth or only contains pieces of Truth as so many other ideas and doctrines do.

@ Ron, I don't I don't think Dan's difficulties warrant his ceasing blogging...even if it makes you and your group uncomfortable...be mindful that in an interconnected reality there is no such thing as secrets. There is only Time which is the Measured Journey of the traveler between two points of expression and has nothing to do with Knowing.

Mind is not limited by Time, Space (Distance), and Place - Triad. Where are you?

Cyrellys