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