For example:

Arthur C. Clarke 2/9                        ART MATRIX - LIGHTLINK           PO 880 Ithaca, NY 14851-0880
                                            (607) 277-0959      Voice
                                            (607) 277-8913      Fax
                                            (607) 277-5026      Modems

                                            01/27/07 12:34am

     "Because Cause causes via conception, Cause's conception of
Cause is critical." - Goober

     Dear Revered Sir,

     Thank you for offering to take the time to preview my work before
publishing.  This is the second of 9 parts that I will be sending to
you, as I write them.

     I am writing them specifically for you, rather than send you a
formal dissertation which would be both dry and boring.

     The formal dissertation for those that want it is at

     These letters to you are also public knowledge and have been shared
with a small circle of friends on the internet in

     Your responses, should there be any, will be kept private unless
you direct me otherwise.  I am sure the world would love to know what
you think.

     The material in these letters is a bit haphazard, written late at
night, in desperation to communicate this material to someone who can
'get it'.

     Thus it might serve you to read all of them before trying to
comment, some of the later letters may answer your questions to earlier

     There is no need for you to respond to any of them, unless you wish
to.  Comments at the end of the presentation are of course solicited.

     If you feel others of your peers would benefit from reading these
letters you are welcome to send them onto anyone you wish, I would be

     If at any time you wish no more, just say so.



01/19/07 Saturday 04:00am EST

     Dear Sir,

     I send this letter to you with great trepidation.

     This is a difficult and physically tortuous subject, at least it
has been for me.

     I had a crystal clear dream about you the other night.

     We were trying to discuss The Proof amongst a number of people who
kept interfering like little children who can't stand their parents
talking to anyone but them.

     You were tall, healthy and good looking, and I knew I was talking
to a person of stature, while I was very unsure of myself and didn't
know where to begin.

     Where does one begin to make a fool out one's self?

     I admit that the conclusions I draw from my own work are
emotionally untenable, even to myself: they are possible, even
desirable, but utterly unbelievable.
     If true, we have been so wrong about so many things, that almost
the opposite obtains on just about every matter of importance there is
in religion and science.

     The objective evidence is completely against me, every leaf in the
wind, every blade of grass, every basic tenet of science tells us that
consciousness is but chemistry bubbling away at 98.6, that we are multi
dimensional machines of matter, energy, space and time, and that further
truth is to be found in finding more dimensions, rather than less.

     Quantum mechanics has put uncertainty on a pedestal and proclaimed
it to be the greatest of wisdom.

     "I am uncertain if I am uncertain!"

     And right they are for a machine.

     So we know that machines can't be certain of anything, not even
that they exist, let alone that they have changed state, but the tiny
matter that we as conscious units can be certain of some things, escapes
us in the overwhelming onslaught of evidence that we are but incipient
dust in the wind.

     Particles put together that are destined to be busted apart, with
all functionality born of arrangement gone with them.

     We are apparently born to desire Eternality (above time) but
destined instead to live (in time) just long enough to know for sure
that although we exist now, we will never live again.

     Is there any greater loss?

     Have we ever had time enough for love?

     And into this wind, this hurricane of present day knowledge that
surrounds us, I am going to blithely proclaim that consciousness is not
a machine, not a space time process?

     That consciousness and conscious units are zero dimensional and
fundamentally eternal?

     Am I going to utterly ruin myself in front of the world by
proclaiming that consciousness may even be "God" in carnation?

     That He is Us, and We are Him?

     That space and time are but self luminous renderings in the non
dimensional substrate of a living and sentient AllThatIS?

     It couldn't be any other way could it?

     If God were himself an eternal dimensionless consciousness, (pre
space and time) and he made a universe out of space, time and dimension,
could he then make our own consciousness's out of that same space, time
and dimension, matter, energy and force, and the parts within?

     This does not make sense to me.
     Could there be an eternal dimensionless consciousness, and also a
temporal mechanical consciousness we call human that was somehow
a mere analogue of the creating eternal consciousness?

     Is the self awareness, self luminosity, of any consciousness
renderable in a mere mechanical process.  of matter, energy, space time
and force?

     Is will and motivation, love and shame, the same thing as force and
mass in motion?

     I think not.

     If God is dimensionless consciousness, and we are also
consciousness, then I would proffer that not only are we dimensionless,
we are that same God in carnation, that our consciousness IS God's
consciousness in carnation as dreams of matter, energy, space time and
force, for I doubt consciousness could be MADE by anyone out of

     Being made is a space time dimensionful concept.

     The best that God could do is render in his own dimensionless
substrate, self luminous visions of space and time to be perceived by
himself, individuated into the many beings that make up the High US.

     Thus I conclude, the universe is the body of God glowing in the
dark of the void.
     The one caveat being that God is not the great I-AM,
     God is the great WE ARE.  God is a Multi I-AM being, composed of an
infinite number of infinite souls.

     Thus there is nothing made, nothing destroyed, just a shift of
color form in His/Our experience as we proceed through time.

     The High US and all life for that matter is thus God in carnation.

     In any case, what the Proof says about God is if God and Soul are
two different objects they will never be able to know about each other
with perfect certainty.  
     They will forever remain a theory to each other.

     We have all been taught that consciousness is a function of
biological life, of chemistry and space time, matter, energy and force.

     Are we ready even for a moment to consider that life, chemistry and
space time mechanics are instead a function of consciousness?

     A function of the dimensionless dreaming of dimension?

     Of the unnameable dreaming of the nameable?

     A God dreaming of what God is not?

     Electrons do not repel each other and are attracted to protons
because they feel pain or pleasure, they do not respond to each other
because of will and motivation, but because of force.

     Can pain and pleasure be made of force and mass in motion?
     We have been taught that the very livingness of consciousness is no
more than the same livingness of biological life, which is a contraption
made of dead things, electrons, protons, neutrons etc.
     Can a contraption of made of dead things, be self aware of its own

     We are taught that consciousness exists in and arose from the
universe at large.

     Is it possible that the universe at large exists in and arose from
     Absurd isn't it?

     At best doubtful.

     At worst preposterous.




     Would it even be possible to have a dream of space time mechanics
in a non space time, non dimensional, substrate?

     How can a dream of space and time itself take up no space or time?

     Can a 0 dimensional actuality project 3, 4 or 11 dimensions of
holographic illusion in its own 0 dimensional fabric?

     If our experience of space and time is an illusion of reality, how
much space or time does that illusion take up in actuality?

     Mankind has grown up through the 4 Big Lies of the universe, and
considers that it finally has a mature view of the universe.  Certainly
a sobering one.

     The first lie was that the Earth was flat.

     The second lie was that the Earth was the center of the universe.

     The third lie is that the Earth is the only planet with life on it.

     The fourth lie is that this universe is the only universe there is.

     Is it possible that the 5th lie, yet to be understood, is that
consciousness is not chemistry?
     Not a space time gizmo?

     That the universe and universe of universe above it is conscious,
sentient, caring and has an intent or purpose?

     Even if that purpose is too scary to contemplate?

     Is it possible that one can not build a non spacetime thing
(consciousness) out of spacetime things (quarks, atoms, molecules)?

     Is it possible that Creatures are Creator in carnation?

     Prove it!  Prove it, I can hear them say.  The extraordinary claim
bears the burden of proof!

     Extraordinary indeed.  Who would dare?

     Well some things can not be proven by us to another, they have to
be directly experienced by themselves.
     I can not prove to another that they can be certain they exist,
although I can prod them until they admit they can be.

     Talk about exhaustion...

     But anyone can prove that IF they are certain they exist, they
aren't a space time machine.

     That proof is what all this is about.

     In that one awareness of perfect certainty of self existence, and
of knowing, wanting, caring and doing, they have transcended any form of
dimensional space time process whatsoever.

     Force is not desire.

     Even the quantum boys who are uncertain of everything, will be
certain of that!

     This is why finding causation in the physical universe is so
hopeless, nay impossible.  
     One can observe the dependable followingness between two events,
but never observe the NECESSARINESS of that followingness.
     One is always left with a theory, and a bet that the dependable
followingness of yesterday is the dependable followingness of tomorrow.

     When two electrons repel each other, are they cause over each

     Or is time cause over them both, by giving them room in time to
     If time didn't move forward, the electrons couldn't repel as they
would have no time to move in.

     Without time, would there be any cause at all in the physical
     Time gives cause room to move things.

     Time gives cause room to CHANGE.

     Does movement of electrons cause time, or does time cause movement?

     When electrons repel each other, does that CAUSE time to move?

     Or does time moving cause the electrons to repel?

     Or does the real cause merely need time in which to produce

     Does cause need time?  Does time need cause?

     Consciousness however can be directly aware of the necessariness
between its desires and its agency, and between its agency and its
     Consciousness can be perfectly certain of the truth of its own
existence, perceptions, and personal agency over those desires and

     It can know it exists and is agent, and can't be wrong about it.

     I exist, I am and I know it, and there is no possibility of my
being wrong about that.

     A space time machine can not do this.

     There may be illusions of dimension, but there can not be illusions
of necessariness.  
     Our sense of causation, personal agency, is actual.

     Over the years of introspection, this certainty of existence and
causation in myself and my perceptions lead me away from space time
mechanics into a world as yet unfathomable, incomprehensible, but
certainly dimension free.

     That is the one thing that can be said with certainty about
certainty, the process of learning with perfect certainty must be
dimension free.

     "Learning with certainty across distance is impossible."

     Distance includes space or time distance.

     For learning across a space time distance implies learning by being
an effect, and effect does not prove cause, thus learning by being an
effect can not produce learning with certainty about cause.

     One can thus conclude what we call the Machine Certainty Theorem
(The Proof), namely that a machine that learns only by being an effect
can never prove there is cause.

     If a machine can't prove it changed state, and can't prove that the
change which might have occurred was caused, what can a machine prove

     The joke is absolutely everyone will agree with that last
     What they have missed is that *THEY* CAN learn with certainty about
themselves and causation within themselves, and thus that particular
process of learning can not be across a distance, and thus must be
dimension free.

     Self awareness is not just awareness of "I AM", but awareness of
agency, "I CAUSE", "I AM AGENT".
     All sense of responsibility, accountability and culpability
arise from this awareness.

     "Mea culpa, I did it, I know I did it, and if you don't
leave me alone I will do it again!"

     Since all consciousness-of is certainty-of, all consciousness-of
must be dimension free.

     If you can see something, and it looks like it is out there, it
does exist, but can't be out there, because if it were out there you
couldn't see it directly!

     We are talking about conscious experiences of color in the world
around us, not the objects in the physical universe we assume they
represent, which can never be been seen at all except indirectly via

     Thus conscious color experiences exist, but their implied
'out-thereness' is an illusion.

     A machine can receive effects and change state accordingly, but it
can never see itself seeing with certainty, and it can never see what
caused those effects across a distance.

     A machine can never see itself as it IS, it can only theorize
from how it is now about how it WAS before it changed state from
how it was to how it is now.

     That change in state from how it WAS to how it IS, is the only
evidence it has that there is cause out there that had an affect
on the machine.

     But the machine doesn't yet know how it IS, if is merely
using how it is to theorize about how it was.  
     So at best a machine can never know how it is, but only theorize
how it WAS using how it IS as its only evidence of how it was.

     The machine is using the change from how it was to how it is
as evidence for the existence of the causal agent that caused
the change to take place.

     But since the machine can't be certain of how it is, let alone that
it changed state at all, it can't be certain of any theory it formulates
about the existence of nature of the causal agent that might have caused
that change.

     So let's return to the simplest possible statement of the proof.

     If you can see something, it can't be out there, because if
it were out there, you wouldn't be able to see it.

     Thus learning with certainty across a distance is impossible.

     And thus if you are learning with certainty, there is no
distance between the learner and the learned about.

     There may be something out there, the physical universe may
actually exist as represented in our consciousness of it, but then I get
to demand "Prove It!".

     What we see is only our conscious representation of the world out
there, our personal dream of it, and from this we assume that because we
see something that looks like it is out there, there must really be
something out there.

     We think that because we 'see space', there must BE space!

     But if the Proof is correct, our conscious representations of out
thereness ARE NOT OUT THERE, no matter how much they look like they are.
     They are more a hologram of 'out there' than anything else.

     For whatever we are certain of has to be one and the same object
with what is certain of it, and the process of learning with certainty
about existence and cause has to be spaceless and timeless, and
dimension free.

     Can a dimension full world give rise to a dimension free

     Can matter, energy, space and time give rise to perfect certainty
within a conscious unit?

     If yes, then chemistry can give rise to perfect certainty, and we
may yet be dust in the wind.

     But dimension free includes TIME FREE, so we are asking of space
and time to give rise to something (consciousness) without space or
time, for either one of space or time separating two things from each
other precludes their ever knowing about each other with perfect

     Thus perfect certain implies dimension free learning, which implies
space and time free learning.

     If the conscious looker were truly separate from the conscious red
or green 'out there on the wall', he would never be able to see it

     What you would SEE would be merely a theory not a perfect

     Can a dimension free world give rise to a dimension full world of
space and time?

     I would have to guess not, because this is too close to creating
something from nothing.  
     If you don't yourself have any space or time, how are you going to
create some?
     Where and when are you going to put it?

     Can a dimension free world give rise to illusions (dreams) of a
dimension full world of space and time, rendered in the self luminous
light of its own dimension free self aware fabric?

     Does one ask this question in public?

     I would hate to be the guy that went down in history as the guy who
thought he was dreaming when he wasn't.  :)

     Your faithful servant,

     Homer Wilson Smith
     Jane Elizabeth Staller

Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty

Fri Aug 10 01:10:32 EDT 2007
05/05/16 Thursday 4:03pm EST