DREAM OR AWAKE? The Machine (Un)Certainty Theorem revisisted. So lets say I see a light 20 feet away. I take my light meter and I go up to the light and I measure its output, and the meter reads etc. I touch the light and feel the heat, I throw the switch and it turns off and back on again etc. Then I wake up. Then I see an identical light 20 feet away and I do the same experiments on it with the same results. So how am I to know which one is the dream (virtual reality) and which one is actual? MY EXPERIENCE OF BOTH ARE IDENTICAL. Is there any instrument in the dream scene which would tell me it was a dream and not actual? Is there any instrument in the waking scene that could measure the light in the dream scene? Where would it find that light? 10 feet away or 'inside my head somewhere?' Konchok has the idea that an object must have non zero dimension to be actual. This is an arbitrary, there is no philosophical or even scientific reason to assert this. He says 'show me something that is zero dimensional!' Well everything you are looking at, because all of it is zero dimensional. He says but it LOOKS like it is dimensional! Yes it does. Things that LOOK like what they are not are called illusions. He says well prove it they aren't dimensional. So I say prove they are. The idea that things have dimension just because they LOOK like they have dimension is the exceptional idea, so those that promulgate such nonsense must show evidence! :) Prove you aren't dreaming right now. You can't, because it can't be done. There IS no difference between the dream and waking states, and thus both must be considered either dreams or waking. I meet a girl in a dream and have a wonderful time, I cry when the dream ends. I meet a girl whild awake and have a wonderful time, I cry when it ends. What's the difference? Who is to say one girl is actual and the other merely real? If one can admit that dreams are illusions of dimension in our mind's eye, then we should be able to admit that the waking state might be the same thing. Hubbard called it 'viewpoint of dimension'. The Proof proves that the Looker and the Looked AT are one and the same, so there is no space/time distance between the I that is aware and the color forms that it is aware of. If A and B are not separated by an actual space/time distance, then they are on the same 'point'. That point could be a {0x0x0} 3 dimensional point or it could be a {} zero dimensional point. Which is more likely? How much *ACTUAL* space/time distance is there between that which sees red and that which is seen to be red? It is an important question, because it leads directly to the notion that consciousness is completely and utterly non Newtonian in nature. Consciousness doesn't work via space/time laws of cause and effect, it CANT because if it did, it could never be certain of what it was seeing or perceiving. Where ever you have space/time objects learning about each other, they can only do so by being the effect of each other. If A has qualities about it that do not affect how it affects B, then B can never learn about those qualities in A. The ONLY qualities B can learn about in A are those qualities that have to do with how A affects B, namely A's causal qualities. B learns about A by changing state in response to cause coming from A. All B knows is its own change in state. That's called learning by being an effect. B's changes in state IS its learning about A. If you are learning by being an effect, you can ONLY learn about cause. But the joke is, receiving an effect does not absolutely imply cause, correlation does not imply causation, so learning by being an effect at best gives you a theory about cause never a certainty about cause. Any real scientist will tell you this. A machine that learns merely by being an effect of causes can never prove there ARE causes because it can't prove from effects that every effect is caused! (An effect is any change in state in the machine). Since the Looker can be certain about cause between itself and the Looked AT, the Looker can not be learning about the Looked AT by being an effect. If it were, it could never be certain of the Looked AT. It would never even SEE the looked at, only the effects the alleged looked at incurred in the looker. "I changed state here, so there must be something out there." No, the Looker can SEE its looked-ats out there, directly. The looker is learning by looking at CAUSE, not by looking at EFFECT. Learning by looking at cause can't happen across a space/time dimension, thus the looker/looked-at system we call a conscious unit doesn't have any space/time dimension. It's scalar. Since it is scalar, and all the evidence it ever had of external dimensionality were looked-at *EXPERIENCES* that were in fact scalar themselves, there really is no evidence at all that there exists anything that is dimensional. We can suppose it, but how would you prove it? All the evidence you will ever have comes through your looker/looked-at unit, which is scalar! Looking through a scalar TV will never give you evidence that a non scalar world exists out there even though pretty holoraphic images of non scalar objects are written all over the scalar TV screen. Homer ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com