Arthur C. Clarke 5/9 ART MATRIX - LIGHTLINK
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof PO 880 Ithaca, NY 14851-0880
(607) 277-0959 Voice
(607) 277-8913 Fax
(607) 277-5026 Modems
homer@lightlink.com E-mail
jes@lightlink.com E-mail
07/07/07 6:53pm
Dear Esteemed Sir,
I write for three reasons.
First to inquire as to your present health, whether declining,
stable, or improving.
Secondly to inform you as a matter of interest that Lightlink
will be pursuing the installation of a 12000 core super computer in
the near future. We hope to be running 4000 cores by next year.
Super computer time will be sold on a real time bidding basis to the
international community.
Thirdly I wish to express my apologies for not sending on the
material I first contacted you about many months ago, and which you so
graciously consented to review before publication.
I am in fact confounded by my utter unwillingness to send you any
of what I have written up, even that which was intended specifically
for you. (Although if you are reading this, you have in fact received
the prior material).
The issue has to do with religion and immortality of the
conscious unit, subjects apparently embarassing to the scientist in
me, and probably in you also.
I used to be of the belief that consciousness was a process in
the brain, and when that process died the conscious unit died with it.
Surely the brain dies, so surely does the conscious unit.
Now I find myself in the odd position of having convinced myself
that there is serious reason to believe that the conscious unit may
survive body death.
First I should clarify what I mean by consciousness and conscious
unit. Many people have their own definitions which will confuse
things.
Thus we DEFINE consciousness as follows for the purposes of these
letters.
Consciousness has two basic functions, perception and cognition.
Perception is the connection between the sensory input from the
alleged physical universe to our color-form-surround-sound-3D view of
the world. It includes, color, sound, taste, smell, and touch.
Perception also includes perception of self, agency, emotion,
desire, pain and pleasure, love and shame, and everything else that a
being can be conscious-of.
Cognition is everything else that is not perception, mostly what
the conscious being, driven by desire, does with those perceptions,
including memory, thoughts, goals, creativity, humor etc.
It should be noted that because consciouness is self relfexive in
nature (self aware), many of the processes of cognition are easily
perceived by direct observation just as color is.
There are other cognitive processes however that are not
perceivable and which may either be 'sub conscious' parts of the
conscious unit, or result from the alleged underlying mechanical
chemistry of the brain to which the conscious unit is allegedly
connected.
First and foremost consciousness is consciousness-of, awareness
of, perception of.
Put two pieces of paper on your desk, one red and one green.
Consciousness first and foremost is the perception of red and
green, and the other colors, and sounds like middle C, and tastes and
smells etc.
We call red a conscious experience, and redness is the quality of
a conscious experience, meaning only a conscious experience can be
'red'.
Red for example is not a quality of photons, it is a quality of
conscious experience. Redness can exist without photons, as in our
imagination, and dreams, and there is no red or green in the brain.
The conscious unit is that which perceives red, and perceives
that it is perceiving red. The conscious unit is the I AM, the
awareness of awareness unit, that which perceives and is aware that it
perceives and engages in desire and thought and personal agency.
For the sake of this discussion the conscious unit is the
functional whole that is conscious-of, which perceives and which is
aware of being aware and which exercises personal agency.
Consciousness is the state of being aware and perceiving.
Only a conscious unit can be conscious and have consciousness,
and anything that is conscious and has consciousness is a conscious
unit.
The defining mark of consciousness is the function of conscious
awareness called learning with perfect certainty. No one has ever
said that before that I know of.
All consciousness-of is certainty-of, and all certainty-of is
consciousness-of. Without consciousness-of there can be no perfect
certainty-of, and whereever there is perfect certainty-of, there must
be consciousness-of and a conscious unit.
Beyond simple awareness-of the conscious unit seems to have many
abilities such as memory, feelings, rational thought, desire, goals,
morals, and sensitivity to other conscious units etc. All of which
are add ons to the basic "I see two different colors and know it.".
The process of seeing red. and seeing that I see red, is the
basic process of perfect certainty. If I see red and green, there is
no possibility of error in the matter that I am seeing two different
colors.
Where there is the experience of red and green there is
consciousness and a conscious unit perceiving such.
Let's go back to those two pieces of paper on your desk, one red
and one green.
Do you see two different colors?
Are you sure?
Would you bet your eternity in hell that you see two different
colors?
Would you bet everyone else's eternity in hell that you see two
different colors?
Yes? Then you are perfectly certain you see two different
colors.
A machine can't do that.
A problem arises in that in order to restructure 'a theory of
everything' so that consciousness might in fact survive body death, it
seems one must turn modern day physics totally upside down, something
not done blithely by responsible minds.
Modern day physics models the universe as a machine, a system of
parts interacting via cause and effect across a space time distance.
A watch is a machine, a brain is a machine, the whole cosmos is a
machine marching along in time.
A machine has 3 broad qualities.
CONSTITUENCY
A machine has constituent parts, what it is made of, namely
matter, energy, space and time which is considered the primary 'stuff'
of things.
ARRANGEMENT
A machine also has arrangement (structure), which is the
particular location of those parts at any given time resulting in
their causal interconnectedness.
PROCESS
And lastly a machine has process, which is the change in state of
those parts and their arrangement over space and time because of that
causal connectedness.
It is quite clear that any process in a machine depends on the
arrangment at any given time. Should the arrangement be lost or
destroyed, surely the process can not continue by definition.
For example if we take a watch apart and scramble all its parts
into a pile on the table, the process of time telling will no longer
work as that process was dependent on a particular arrangement of
those parts which no longer exists.
The parts are all there, but the arrangement is not, and the
process depends on the arrangement, so the process is no longer there
either.
As there are more ways to arrange parts that do not work than do,
the continued existence of any given process is fragilely dependant on
a very few of those possible arrangements where the process can
continue to proceed.
Thus if consciousness is merely a process in the brain, surely
its existence past brain death is impossible as all possible
arrangements pertinent to the process of consciousness would no longer
exist.
It is also quite clear that stability of arrangement is ephemeral
at best, non existent at worst.
Thus if consciousness is merely arrangement of parts, it's
existence is in peril should that arrangement change, which it surely
does at brain death.
Thus from the physics point of view the only hope consciousness
could have of surviving body death is being the constituent parts of
the brain itself, which parts presumably can change form but never
disappear into absolute nothing again, because, as they say, energy,
stuff, must be conserved.
But ascribing consciousness to the mere parts of the brain,
regardless of arrangement or process, seems ludicrous at best, nuts at
worst, and not fruitful for further investigation.
For any kind of 'my' consciousness to survive death into another
body, all the same parts of the brain would have to be in the new
brain. And where would my consciousness be between bodies?
And besides doesn't the body replace most of its atomic and
molecular constituents every 7 years anyhow? Yet I am still me during
this process.
So we reject any kind of immortality based on physical process,
arrangement or constituency of the brain.
Although we have been talking about the brain specifically, the
above applies to ANY physical object whatsoever, any system of parts
interacting via cause and effect across a space time distance,
including the cosmos as a whole.
The problem therefore is not the brain per se, but mechanality
(mech-a-nal-i-ty) itself, namely the nature of being a machine.
Thus if we would seek the immortality of the conscious unit, we
would have to seek its nature outside of the realm of mechanics, which
means out side of "parts interacting via cause and effect across a
space time distance."
Since doing away with parts, leaves us only space and time, that
too seems an unlikely venue in which to find our immortal
consciousness. Maybe space and time are immortal, but surely there is
more to consciousness than BARE space and time.
Thus we are left to seek the immortality of consciousness outside
of space and time themselves.
Since both space and time are rightfully called dimensions, we
might well replace the concept of mechanality with dimensionality.
A dimension is a series of things that are all the same except
that they are in different locations relative to each other long that
dimension. Thus every point in space is the same as every other point
in space except they live at different points in space!
Same for time.
Because we have defined a mechanism to be parts interacting via
cause and effect across a space time distance, all things that are
mechanical in nature consist of dimensional constituents, and all
things which are dimensional in nature consist of mechanical
constituents.
However this raises the question of what the nature of a non
dimensional, non mechanical something would be, and how could it even
exist?
Doesn't existence mean it has at least one or more dimensions?
How can something exist which has no dimensions?
Isn't a pure mathematical point effectively a nothing?
SCALARS, VECTORS, MATRICIES AND BEYOND
In math zero dimensional objects are called scalars, like the
number 6 or PI. They are distinguished from vectors, matrices, cubes,
hypercubes and on up, which have one or more dimensions.
For example mass is a scalar, it takes only one number to express
it, as are charge, spin, color and charm. Although most things with
volume have mass, it is conceivable that something could have mass and
no volume. Present day physics claims the electron is such an item.
Velocity however is a 1 dimensional two element vector, it has
both speed and direction.
Position is a 4 dimensional hypercube with coordinates x,y,z,t.
Notice that although position (spacetime) itself is a 4
dimensional object, it only takes a 1 dimensional 4 element vector
(x,y,z,t) to describe it, one number for each dimension.
Present day physics claims in string theory that the physical
universe consists of 11 dimensions of space and time. But this is
just more machine, more guaranteed mortality via process demise in 11
dimensions rather than 4.
Buddha said on his death bed, 'Death and decay are inherent in
all compound things, seek ye diligently therefore thy salvation.'
Compound merely means dimensional, and death happens to
everything that is dependent on arrangement or process, for its
continuance.
So more dimensions, is just more of the same, and does not help
us in the quest for immortality of the conscious unit.
However present day theoretical physics almost entirely avoids
the subject of zero dimensional actualities.
First we have to be very careful what we mean by a zero
dimensional actuality.
Remember Flatland? In Flatland everything is 2 dimensional, and
pieces of gold were actual, but just 2 dimensional.
So in the 3 dimensional world we might have a {2x2x2} piece of
gold with a volume of 8 cubic measures. That is SOME gold.
But if we had a {2x2x0} piece of gold with a volume of 0 cubic
measures, that would be NO gold.
Notice however that the Flatlander might have a {2x2} piece of
gold with a volume of 4 square measures, and that would also be SOME
gold not no gold.
So a {2x2x0} piece of 3 dimensional gold is no gold, but a {2x2}
piece of 2 dimensional gold is some gold.
From this we conclude that if an object has a dimension it must
have non zero extension in that dimension in order to not be a
nothing.
Continuing the example down a dimension, along with Flatland,
there is also Lineland where there is only 1 dimension. Linelanders
also have gold but it only has one dimension.
Thus a Linelander might have a piece of gold with size {2} and a
volume of 2 linear measures, that would be SOME gold too! But if his
gold piece had size {0}, then he would have no gold at all.
Now here is where no one seems to want to go.
There is also Scalarland. In Scalarland, there are no dimensions
at all, and thus no directions in which to have extension.
Let's summarize to this point
Cubelander 3 dimensional gold of size {2x2x2} of volume 8
Flatlander 2 dimensional gold of size {2x2} of volume 4
Linelander 1 dimensional gold of size {2} of volume 2
Scalarlander 0 dimensional gold of size {} of volume {}
Volume is the product of the numbers in the size. If the size is
the empty set, then there are no numbers to multiply leaving a volume
that is also the empty set, NOT ZERO!
A volume of 0 is a nothing, and volume of {} is a something!
Notice a 3 dimensional objects has 3 numbers in its size, one for
each direction. Each number represents the extension along that
dimension, the length of it.
Notice a 0 dimensional object has 0 numbers in its size, as it
has no directions.
So a Scalarlander can have a 0 dimensional piece of gold of size
{emptyset}. Emptyset means there is nothing between the brackets.
A scalarland object HAS NO SIZE, that's not the same as ZERO
SIZE! Zero size is small, no size is neither small nor big.
Because there are no dimensions to his piece of gold, there are
also no extensions, and thus no volume. Notice that no volume doesn't
mean 0 volume, it means volume is not applicable at all.
Something of 0 volume would be a nothing no matter how many
dimensions it had, something of {} volume is still a something even
though it has only 0 dimensions.
Notice futher that if a 3 dimensional object has 0 length in any
direction, the whole object must be a nothing of 0 volume.
But a 0 dimensional object doesn't have any directions in which
to have 0 length, so it has to be a something even if volume doesn't
apply.
0 volume in any number of dimensions would be no gold.
But {empty set} volume in 0 dimensions means SOME GOLD, albeit
scalar gold.
Thus when we are talking about a zero dimensional object or
universe we need to be very careful to distinguish between a 3
dimensional point of 0 volume such as size {0x0x0}, and 0 dimensional point
of empty set volume such as size {}.
A 3 dimensional point is an object of size {0x0x0} and a volume
of 0 cubic measures.
A 0 dimensional point is an object of size {} and a volume of {}.
The first is an effective nothing, 0x0x0 of 3 dimensional gold is
no gold with volume 0.
The second is a something, a scalar piece gold is still some
gold, even though its volume is the empty set and it isn't 3
dimensional gold.
It is important to understand that if an object has a dimension,
then it must have non zero extension in that dimension to not be a
nothing of volume 0.
But since a scalar doesn't have any dimensions, it also doesn't
have any extensions, thus volume is irrelvant to its nature, and it is
still a something not a nothing.
Thus only a multi dimensional object can have volume of 0 and
thus be a nothing, while a a zero dimensional object can not have a
volume of any measure, and must therefore always be a something if it
exists at all.
At this point in the lecture I can see the audience reaching for
their tomatoes.
There is a small vocal group of quantum guys who have done
experiments they claim prove that more and more dimensions to space
and time can not account for some of the weird phenomenon they are
observing.
They dare to postulate a non dimensional universe above space and
time that actually orchestrates all events in space time. They call
this higher universe the 'non local' universe, not because it isn't
local to space time, but because objects in it are not defined in
terms of locality, no location or measurement in space or time.
In the local universes of space and time, location or position is
always one of the describing factors to every object in that universe.
In the non local universe, location or position is never one of
the describing factors.
The non local universe is zero dimensional in other words.
THE NON LOCAL UNIVERSE
This brings up the highly heretical idea that cause and effect
are NOT between objects in the physical universe, but are between
objects in the non local universe, the results of which are then
projected into the space time universe as a rendered result.
It is common to consider that causation takes place between
objects in space and time. Most people consider that cause doesn't
leave the universe or enter it from outside.
Thus when you bounce a ball off a wall, there is a DIRECT
interaction between the ball and wall such that a bounce takes place.
These quantum guys say this is wrong. The ball and the wall in
space time are graphic renderings, if you will, of the true objects in
the non local universe. The interaction then is between the ball and
wall in the non local universe, and the results are rendered in space
and time for our viewing pleasure.
One of the odd things that can happen then is that one object in
the non local universe can have TWO OR MORE renderings in the space
time universe. Both renderings are identical but in different
locations in space and time.
Thus you have two electrons separated by a distance, and you kick
one and the other complains instantly, faster than the speed of light
between them.
This is because they are the same electron, just two different
projections in space and time of the one electron in the non local
causal universe.
Further this theory posits that there is no cause at all between
objects in space and time, as all space time objects are like pictures
on a TV set, mere renderings of a higher universe.
In other words two electrons do not repell each other because
there is a force actually between them, but because both are
projections in space time, shadows if you will, of true entities in
the non local universe that are interacting with each other.
As the two zero dimensional entities in the non local universe
interact with each other, the results are rendered in space time as
electrons moving around.
From this point of view there is no actual cause inside of space
time at all as it is merely a rendering medium for what is going on in
the higher non local universe.
It remains open to question however if cause can travel from
space and time back to the non local universe as a kind of feed back.
But in any case most people would consider most of the above
absurd.
Occam's Razor immediately asks why bother adding in a whole new
level of causality when we were doing just fine with simple space time
mechanics, but as I said these quantum guys have indicated a need for
the greater complexity to explain certain things.
Although many do not know this, Goedel wrote a paper claiming
that if Einstein was right about special relativity, then time must
not exist at all no matter how much it looks like it does.
So it's not just a couple of quantum guys talking about this
stuff in the present day, Goedel wrote this YEARS ago, but no one paid
any attention.
Now here is the magic that no one is really talking about.
Immortality of anything that is dimensional is unlikely, because
eveything dimensional is arrangement and process. Surely no
arrangement or process will last forever, thus immortality in the
dimensional world is not possible except maybe as raw constituent.
However conservation of 'stuff' gives little consolation if one
day you are a bowl of jello, and the next day a mud pie in some kid's
hands.
But in a non dimensional world, there is no space or time, and
thus there is no space to be in arrangement and more importantly no
time to be in process.
There is no space or time in which for things to come and go.
Further more, and pardon me for exceeding my invite to this
lecture, if space and time are mere renderings from the zero
dimensional non local universe, and in fact do not exist except as
mere renderings in our consciousness, then there is no actual space or
time in which to put MORE THAN ONE NON LOCAL UNIVERSE.
Thus although there may be many rendered arenas of space and
time, there can only be one non local universe, rendering them all.
And further, since in this theory, space and time are mere
renderings from the non local universe, renderings of space and time
themselves DO NOT TAKE UP ANY SPACE AND TIME!
You are never going to put actual space and time inside something
that has no space or time!
So all this suggests with great force that anything that was
truely zero dimensional in nature MUST be immortal by definition, AND
THE ONLY ONE.
We don't mean immortal in that it lasts forever IN time, but that
it just IS forever because there is no time.
"Immortality" inside of time is not the same thing as eternality
outside of time.
The door, or slippery slope, is now open to find an immortal
(eternal) spot for consciousness in that zero dimensional non local
universe.
But this is only possible if the conscious unit is non
dimensional itself and thus rightly resides in the higher non local
universe, perhaps even as a causitive factor in the creation of the
space time universes in which it later pretends to reside as creature.
The quantum guys have been saying for years that the space time
universe exists only as a wave function of probabilities until some
event *OBSERVES* the wave function thus 'collapsing' it into a
specific yes or no event.
But they have had a hard time wrapping their wits around exactly
what it is that is doing the observation.
If one considers that consciousness is a process in the brain,
then clearly the brain has to exist before any consciousness could
observe anything, and thus something else must be observing and
precipitating the brain into existence in order for consciousness to
exist.
However if consciousness is itself part of the non local universe
and NOT a process in the brain, then it becomes feasible again to
postulate that consciousness itself is the observer and the
precipitator of final authority, and suddenly quantum mechanics
becomes very simple and begins to make sense.
But this presumes that consciousness and conscious units existed
PRIOR to the brain and to the formation of the space time universe,
and are only apparently residing in brains as a fair chosen
convenience rather than out of necessity born of fundamental nature.
Fair chosen?
"Homer you are quite mad, for I do not remember such a choice!"
Having gotten our toes wet with a theory so heretical that people
only discuss it in whispers lest they be burned at the stake, or worse
kicked out of academentia, we might as well go all the way and ask a
few more questions.
First we have to ask if consciousness is merely another part of
this higher non dimensional universe among many, or if consciousness
is THE fundamental nature of the higher universe which is then made
ONLY of spaceless timeless consciousness itself.
At this point we can go ballistic, way over the edge and into the
abyss of irreason never to return, by asking is all of life merely
consciousness in carnation?
Giodano Bruno was burned at the stake in February 1600 in part
for his assertions that the lights in the sky were stars with planets
around them.
And so we might as well also light the match and throw it on our
own stake by observing:
It would appear that everything that exists in the non local
universe is the opposite of what is in the local universe.
The local universe has (apparencies of) matter, energy, space and
time, the non local universe does not.
The local universe has multiple different parts or constituents,
the non local universe does not.
The local universe has spatial arrangement and temporal process,
the non local universe does not.
Is it possible that the various renderings in space and time are,
every one, simply what is not in the non local universe?
In other words 'Source sources what source is not.'
Or 'The unnameable dreams the nameable.'
At this point we have the mind boggling assertion that the non
local universe and the local universe are dichotomies of a sort, one
eternal, the other temporal, one changeless, the other nothing but
change, one immortal, the other ephemeral, one made of consciousness,
desire and will, the other made of apparencies of stone cold force and
mass.
Could we fan the flames of our own stake and say the non local
universe is actuality, and the local universe is virtual reality?
(Actuality is defined as what is true, reality is defined as what
we think is true, what is real to us.)
If so then we have the possibility again of a fully integrated
theory of existence where in consciousness is not created by the
physical universe, but the physical universe is created by
consciousness, which then spends it's 'time' in dream time, enjoying
the fruits of that creation, believing itself to be the creature, when
in fact it is the creator.
And the great quantum precipitator of its many possible futures.
(A lower level insanity mimicks and mocks the truth when the
creature comes to believe it is God again while still obviously a
creature.
You can't just go about acting like a Creator while still a
creature. But you can start practicing being a Creator by practicing
becoming the Creature! The more you are able and willing to
to become the creature, the more you ARE again the Creator.)
This allows for consciousness to be immortal, not because it
lasts forever in time, but BECAUSE THERE IS NO TIME TO DIE IN!
Ok, climbing out of the abyss and the ashes now, trying to get a
footing on firm ground again, we have to ask ourselves is there any
single shred of evidence whatsoever that consciousness or conscious
units are a non mechanical zero dimensional phenomenon?
If they aren't then this whole discussion is dust in the wind,
and whatever may be immortal, it won't be consciousness as chemistry
bubbling away at 98.6.
If however there is any evidence at all that consciousness is a
zero dimensional phenomenon, then we have a serious science aborning
here.
The consciousness experience of the world I see around me sure
LOOKS like it is 3 dimensional.
But does the fact that I SEE space, mean there IS space?
Does the fact that I experience time, mean there IS time?
Does the fact that I see dimension mean there IS dimension?
What does it mean to say that space and time are mere graphic
representations of items in the non local universe. Does a graphic
representation of space need to take up space? Does a graphic
representation of time need to take up time?
Would it be possible for a zero dimensional entity, that had no
space or time in its own nature, to none the less experience pictures,
illusions, holograms or conscious renditions of space and time
projected in this own zero dimensional substrate?
How much space does a conscious picture of space take up?
How much time does a conscious picture of time take up?
PERFECT CERTAINTY
And here is where I am a lone voice, afraid to speak, afraid to
be made a fool of in the world wide court of professional opinion.
The one subject that is utterly lacking in all of science from
the dawn of history all the way up to the present day is the subject
of perfect certainty.
Quantum mechanics has rendered uncertainty god, and no one will
even talk about perfect certainty any more.
They will say "Oh its dangerous to be certain of anything, you
could always be wrong!" "I used to think I was certain of everything,
then I found out I was wrong!"
They aren't certain they exist?
They aren't certain they hurt, care, give a damn?
They aren't certain they are conscious?
They aren't certain they are agent and thus responsible for their
own actions?
They aren't certain they see two colors out there, red and green?
Do they doubt that they doubt?
Certainty of doubt is the first perfect certainty.
"Uncertainty exists, to doubt it to prove it."
"I doubt I am, therefore I am!" - Descartes
"I know I am, therefore I am forever." - Homer
You ask them, do you see those two colors over there?
They will say "Oh sure, but I could always be hallucinating!"
"OK that is true, but is the hallucination a hallucination?"
They will eventually say "Oh well yes, I do see the
hallucination, I do see red and green, that I am SURE of."
Bingo, a machine can't do that. A machine can't SEE anything.
A machine is forever dark, forever blind.
There is no light of conscious certainty in a machine.
A machine can be poked by an object creating a moment of indirect
perception and thus come to know in theory the nature of the object
that poked it, but the machine can NEVER see the object directly and
know for certain what it looks like or that it is even out there.
THE MACHINE CAN NOT DIRECTLY SEE WHAT IT IS ALLEGEDLY
'PERCEIVING' BY INDIRECT PERCEPTION!
DIRECT AND INDIRECT PERCEPTION.
Let's take a simple example. Say there is a star many light
years away that emits a photon that is finally received here on earth
by a sensor.
The scientist has no direct access to the star, he can never see
nor perceive the star directly, he can only look at his sensor.
The star is A, the sensor is B and the photon between them is C,
the causal messenger wave that communicates the nature of A to B.
Formally, B is evidence for A, A is a model for the changes in B,
and A, B and C plus considerations of a causal pathway between them,
form a theory.
The reason the scientist can not directly perceive A is because
he is not A. Where ever there is separation, distance or dimension of
any kind between A and B, then it must be true that A and B are two
different objects.
Thus the only way that B can learn about A is to be the effect of
A.
We call this learning by being an effect or INDIRECT PERCEPTION.
Because the changes in B are merely evidence for A, the existence
and postulated nature of A are merely a model for why the changes
happened in B.
Thus all we have is a theory, not a perfect certainty about A or
anything between A and B.
Dimension, distance, separation or 'two-ness', between any two
objects precludes direct perception of either object by the other.
Where there is dimension there is no direct perception, only
indirect perception.
And where there is only indirect perception there is only
evidence, model and theory, never perfect certainty.
And where there is direct perception, there can be no dimension
separating the two objects. This means an object can only learn about
itself with perfect certainty because the only thing an object could
ever directly perceive is itself.
A machine can't see what it is looking at, because a machine is
always seeing A by looking at B, namely changes in itself brought on
by A. A is a model to B, the machine, and the changes the machine
went through in itself is evidence for A.
Machines are theory engines, they can never deal with anything
other than theory.
Consciousness can see what it is looking at, (red and green),
that just isn't possible across a distance of space or time between
looker and looked at.
If the red and green were really out there on your desk where
they look like they are, you couldn't ever see them! Just as the
machine can never see A.
Thus we have a simple but idiotic little theorem that says:
If you can see something with perfect certainty, and it looks
like it is out there, then for sure it must exist or else you wouldn't
be seeing it, but for sure it is not out there, because if it were out
there, where it looks like it is, you couldn't ever see it.
Let me say it again, edited down.
"If you can see something, and it looks like it is out there,
then it can't be out there, because if it were out there, you couldn't
see it!"
"Well where is it then?"
"It's where you are, you and what you see are the same object!"
Consciousness is like a mirror. You stand 3 feet in front of a
mirror, and you see your image in the mirror.
It looks like you are 3 feet in back of the mirror. But it is
only yourself you are seeing in the mirror which is really right where
you are! Thus the world we see around us is what we look like in the
mirror of consciousness. There is however no '3 feet in front of' or
'3 feet in back of' with consciousness, it is all in one zero
dimensional place, looker and looked at are one.
The spaceiness we see and feel in the conscious picture that
surrounds us is holographic in nature, it looks like there is space
out there, but in fact the hologram and its substrate are completely
space and time free.
"Source creates images of what Source is not."
Remember we are talking about seeing our conscious experiences
now, not some alleged object in the alleged physical universe, via our
conscious experiences.
The fact that I can see what I am looking at means there can be
no space time distance between the see-er and the seen.
No distance between the LOOKER and the LOOKED AT.
Within the conscious unit, the LOOKED THROUGH IS AN ILLUSION OF
SPACE AND TIME.
The mechanics of space and time are not sufficient to witness
with perfect certainty the mechanics of space and time.
This is because the mechanics of space and time FORBID ONE FROM
LOOKING DIRECTLY AT ANYTHING, neither the two events in a causal
pathway nor the alleged causation between them.
So of course a machine can't see anything, it can only guess from
alleged causal impacts on itself.
All consciousness-of is perfect certainty-of.
A perfect certainty is one that can't be wrong because if it
COULD be wrong, it couldn't be a certainty in the first place.
The only time a conclusion can be wrong is if it is based on
indirect perception of evidence and not direct perception of the fact
in question.
Generally people use evidence to provide them with truths.
Using evidence to learn about something is like learning about A
by looking at B. A remains a theory, A is in fact a *MODEL* for why B
changed state.
There is no certainty of any kind in either a theory or a model.
In fact *TRUTH* is not relevant to evidence or models, only
workability is relevant.
For example physicists for a long time modeled gravity as force
lines between the sun and the earth, and the model worked.
But was the model true?
Then Einstein came along and said there weren't any force lines,
space and time were curved, and that model worked better.
But was the model true?
There is good philosophical reason to assume that models deal
only in workability and not truth at all. A 'true model' is an
oxymoron, something that is self irrelevant, a fundamental N/A, not
applicable.
Thus indirect perception through use of evidence will only
produce possibly workable models, never truths, and thus NEVER
CERTAINTY, for certainty refers to truth and not to models.
Thus when people claim they were certain of something and it
turned out wrong, they were 1.) using evidence to determine the truth
of something, and therefore 2.) couldn't possibly have been certain of
their conclusions in the first place, because evidence does not
provide certainty of any kind, let alone the perfect certainty of
direct perception.
If a person finds out a certainty turned out wrong, we can state
with great certainty that they were never really perfectly certain of
the thing in the first place.
And they have a serious personal integrity problem that they
claimed certainty for something that COULDN'T have been certain,
because certainty wasn't even relevant to the process of learning by
being an effect they were using,
And they could have known this at the time had they looked a bit
closer.
It is unfortunate but by declaring a MORAL opposition to being
certain of anything they have declared a moral opposition to being
conscious of anything, because ALL consciousness-of is perfect
certainty-of.
I see and I know I see. And not only would I bet my own eternity
in hell on it, I would bet every one else's eternity in hell on it too.
Now any physicist will tell you a machine can't be certain of
anything, and that is because a machine learns by being an effect.
The machine looks at changes in itself in order to 'know' about
something that happened prior out in space and time.
How can one learn about A by looking at B later?
Well if we ASSUME that there is a dependable causal pathway
between A and B, then we can assume that B will contain a causal
imprint on itself, in its new state, that relates back to the nature
of A, namely how A affected B.
However this is not a pefect certainty, this is mere theory.
A more detailed analysis of this problem, leads to the following
consclusions which every man of knowledge and reason will agree to.
A machine can not prove with perfect certainty that effects are
caused.
In other words it is impossible to build a machine that learns
only by looking at effects in itself, that can prove with perfect
certainty that any of those effects was caused at all, let alone
assign that cause to its proper source with perfect certainty.
A machine can not prove with perfect certainty that space or time
exist.
A machine can not prove with perfect certainty that it has
changed state or that anything else has changed state.
The state that any machine is in contains no perfectly certain
data that it was ever in any other state.
Present state does not prove prior state.
If a machine can't prove it has changed state, how can it tell it
has learned anything? All learning involves a change of state, if
there is no change of state, then there is no learning. If there is
no certainty of change of state, then there is no certainty of
learning.
Time is a change of state. Inability to tell if one has changed
state, is an inability to tell if time exists. No machine can ever
prove that time exists, nor that it has changed state.
A machine can not prove with perfect certainty that it itself
actually exists, EVEN IF IT OBSERVES ITS OWN CLAIM THAT IT DOES.
A machine can be programmed to CLAIM that it exists, and it is
fair of OTHERS to say that if the machine claims it exists, it must
exist, because otherwise it couldn't claim it did. But we dare others
to prove with perfect certainty that the machine made the claim.
And a machine could just as easily claim it did not exist, and
others could still take that claim as proof that it did exist.
What we want to know is if the machine's claim that it exists is
actually causally related to the fact that it exists, or whether it
just happened to claim it existed, when it could just as easily
claimed it didn't exist.
But proving with perfect certainty the existence of the causal
relation between the existence of the machine and its claim that it
exists, is impossible, just as proving the causal relation between any
two events is impossible in the dimensioned physical universe.
Bottom line is a machine can not know with perfect certainty
whether it exists or not. Nor whether anything else exists or not.
However any conscious unit can observe with perfect certainty
that it itself exists, although many are in a semi somnambulistic
state of refusing to admit this.
Try to get a person to admit they are perfectly certain of
anything sometime. It's hard.
"Tell me something you are perfectly certain of."
"Uh, er, well, hey I learned a long time ago never to think I am
certain of anything..."
WHY a machine can't be certain of anything is because it is
trying to learn across a difference, two different objects can not
learn about the other with perfect certainty, because the only way
they can learn is by being the effect of the other, and effect does
not prove cause.
Thus ANY system of parts interacting via cause and effect across
ANY separative dimensional substrate can not produce a perfect
cerainty of anything.
The only way an object can learn anything with perfect certainty
is if the object is learning about itself! A can only learn about A
with perfect certainty. B can never learn about A except in theory.
The issue then is dimension, for dimension produces two different
objects in a way that a zero dimensional causal universe does not.
Thus the fact that conscious CAN provide perfect certainties on
many things about itself, indicates that it certainly is not
dimensional in nature, and therefore must be non dimensional in
nature.
You ARE what you can see, know and learn about with perfect
certainty.
Now that's a steep one. Let me say it again just so we know what
is being said.
You ARE what you can see.
That doesn't mean you are Joe or a red apple, but it does
mean you are your conscious picture of of Joe and the apple.
If you were separate from what you were looking at, you wouldn't
be able to see it.
Distance and separation = total blindness.
Seeing is truth. Blindness is theory.
Learning with certainty across a distance is impossible.
Perfect certainty implies non dimensionality.
This is the result we were looking for that would allow
consciousness either to be a part of or BE the higher nonlocal
universe that creates the space time panadream in which we find
consciousness presently lost.
What better reason for a nonlocal universe to create a local
universe (space time) other than to experience locality for its own
entertainment and edification.
I am sure you can see why I prefer to bite my tongue rather than
speak openly.
There are a number of problems with the above that refuse
analysis to my limited intelligence.
The first is the obvious question, well if I am not learning
about A by looking at B, how the hell am I learning about A?
In other words how does direct perception work? I can see it
working, I see myself seeing red and green, but I can't for life of me
figure out 'how it works'.
We all understand indirect perception, but no one understands
direct perception. Yet there it is, avaialable for anyone to directly
perceive!
There it is, red and green. I can see them directly, that's what
conscious seeing IS!
It may very well be that the conscious mind is not presently in a
state in which it can understand the 'mechanism' of zero dimensional
functionality.
A zero dimensional 'mechanism' is another oxymoron, the two items
are irrelevant to each other.
Another question arises.
If we have two universes, one zero dimensional and one multi
dimensional spacetime, is the multidimensional universe actual or
merely an illusion in the substrate of the zero dimensional universe?
Could a zero dimensional universe create an ACTUAL multi
dimensional universe? Where would it put it?
One childish but cute analogy suggests that all that exists is
the zero dimensional universe, that consciousness is God, and that
everything in space time are holographic self luminous glow in the
dark tatoos on the body (substrate) of God.
Thus when we look at the world around us, we are seeing God
itself, namely us, glowing in the dark of the void. The sun doesn't
light anything in our consciousness, any more than the sun lights
things in a dream or in our imagination.
Consciousness is self luminious, self symbolizing. Observer and
observed, B and A, are one and the same object. The referent and the
symbol, the model and evidence, are one.
We have concluded that one of our evidences for consciousness
being zero dimensional is its ability to be perfectly certain of
change in time, which a machine can not. But how can something which
HAS NO TIME, perceive a change in time, even holographically?
If there is no time, there is no time. How then can there be any
change at all?
The problem is that perfect certainty of change in time then
implies a zero dimensional perceiver which has no time itself.
So is time actual or merely virtual reality?
These questions have no answer to me, and I have spent years
thinking about them. However the certainty that certainty is
impossible across a dimension, keeps me hoping that one day we will
resolve this issue of which came first, consciousness or space time.
In the meanwhile I am left,
Your (exhausted) faithful servant,
Homer Wilson Smith
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Mon Aug 13 02:14:37 EDT 2007