MAIL ME THIS POSTING!
MY E-MAIL ADDRESS:
For example: homer@lightlink.com

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 ((meaning
eternality)) 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 convince 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.

     But 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, hallucinations 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 personal agency.

     Formally we say consciousness is the thing which is described by

     I AM, I SEE, I KNOW, I WANT and I DO.

     Poetically we translate I WANT into I DESIRE, I CARE and I GIVE A
DAMN.

     We also translate I DO into I CAUSE.

     And I KNOW into I AM PERFECTLY CERTAIN OF.

     For the sake of this discussion the conscious unit is the
functional whole that is conscious-of, which perceives (sees,
experiences) and which is aware of being aware and which exercises
personal agency.

     Being conscious 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 (coming to know) 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
where ever 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 that in order to restructure 'a grand unified
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.

     A machine consists of a network of causal pathways consisting
of cause and effect separated from each other by space and time.

     CONSTITUENCY

     A machine has constituent parts, what it is made of, namely matter,
energy, space and time and force 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 or not.

     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 of its parts and the flow of necessity, or
necessary dependable followingness between them across space and time.

     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, independent of arrangement and process, 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 when there are
no parts at all?

     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 the parts may change, but as long as the arrangment
remains stable, then the process can continue.

     But that leads is right back to where we were, any destruction of
the arrangement means destruction of the process and which means the
permanent end of that conscious unit.

     So we reject any kind of immortality ((eternality)) 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 ((eternality)) 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."

     Which means outside of space and time, which is why we use the term
eternality which means forever outside of time rather than immortality
which means forever inside of time.

     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 ((eternality)) 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 they
are in different locations relative to each other along 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, quantum 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.

     Notice therefore that the density of an electron which is defined
as mass/cubic volume is undefined.

     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 four 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 9 to 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 ((eternality)) 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.

     We DEFINE SIZE as described by the vector of {x,y,z} which
states the length of the extension of the object in each dimension.

     We DEFNIE VOLUME as the product of the size.

     Thus a slab of wood that was {2x4x10} would have a size of 2' by 4'
by 10' and a volume of 80 cubic units of wood

     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 units.  That is SOME gold.

     But if we had a {2x2x0} piece of gold with a volume of 0 cubic
units, that would be NO gold.

     Notice however that the Flatlander might have a {2x2} piece of gold
with a volume of 4 square units, and that would also be SOME gold and
not no gold.

     So a {2x2x0} piece of 3 dimensional gold is no gold, but a {2x2}
piece of 2 dimensional gold is some (flatland) gold.

     From this we conclude that if an object has a dimension it must
have non zero extension in that dimension in order fr the whole object
to not be a nothing.

     That we call the First Law Of Dimensionality.

     Continuing the example down one 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 units, that would be SOME gold too!
 
     But if his gold piece had size {0}, then he would have NO gold.

     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!

     If a cubic slab of gold had a size of {2,2,0} then is volume
would be zero, and it would be a nothing made of NO gold.

     If a scalar slab of gold has a size of {}, then it HAS NO
VOLUME and would be made of SOME gold.

     Notice having a volume of 0 which produces a dimensional nothing,
it not at all the same thing has having NO volume, ie a volume of {}
which produces a nondimensional (scalar) something.

     Notice a 3 dimensional object 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.

     Asking for the volume of a scalar is a domain error!

     Scalars are not within the domain of things that have volume.

     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 with size {0x0x0}, and 0 dimensional
point of empty set volume with size {}.

     A 3 dimensional point is an object of size {0x0x0} and a volume of
0 cubic units.

     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.

     Scalarlanders love scalar gold just as much as cubelanders
love cubic 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.

     So one more point, an object with size {2,2,0} has shape
but zero volume, we call these things nothings with shape.

     One object might be {2,2,0} and another {2,0,3} or {2,0,0}
or {0,0,0}, and all of them would be different from each other
even thought all 3 are nothings with zero volume.

     There is one more kind of object which is neither
dimensional nor scalar, which is a true nothing.

     It not only doesn't have dimension, shape, or volume,
it also doesn't have a VALUE.

     A scalar has a value so it it isn't a nothing.

     A nothing with shape also doesn't have a value, but it does have
shape and so it isn't a total nothing, but neither it is a something in
the substantive sense.

     A true nothing would have no qualities at all, thus it's
quality set would be empty!

     Philosophically speaking there can only be one true nothing.

     If there were two different true nothings, their quality sets could
not be identical and thus one or both would not be empty.

     SUMMARY OF SCALAR, VECTOR, MATRIX and HYPECUBE

     The following is taken directly from APL, A Programming
Language invented by Kenneth Iverson of IBM, which was used to
design and build the first supercomputer, the IBM 360 in the early
1960's.

     We define the function RHO(X) which returns the shape of X.

     We abreviate RHO as little p, because it looks like the
greek letter rho.

     Thus if X is a cubic object:

     {a,b,c} = p(X)      This called the SHAPE of X
     3       = p(p(X))   This is called the RANK of X.
     1       = p(p(p(X)))

     To save ink we write these as pX, ppX, and pppX with execution
order from right to left.

     The shape of X shows the size of each extension of X, one number
for each extension.

     The rank of X shows the number of extension or dimensions in X

     Notice that the RANK is the shape of the shape of X, and the shape
of the shape of the shape of X is always 1 regardless of what X is.

     This can be summarized by the following table:

     Object      pX          ppX   pppX   Kind
     ---------------------------------------------------------
     HYPERCUBE   {a,b,c,d}   4     1   Something or nothing with shape
     CUBE        {a,b,c}     3     1   Something or nothing with shape
     MATRIX      {a,b}       2     1   Something or nothing with shape
     VECTOR      {a}         1     1   Something or nothing with shape
     SCALAR      {}          0     1   Something only without shape.
     VALUE ERROR N/A        N/A   N/A  True nothing without shape.

     At this point in the lecture I can see the audience reaching for
their tomatoes.

     So let's take a rest, go get some rest and food, we will
continue this in part II.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     PART II

     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.

     And the flow of causal pathways is determined and described by the
space and time coordinates of the objects interacting.

     In the non local universe, location or position is never one of the
describing factors and not part of the causal continuum.

     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 directly.  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 repel 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 ((eternality)) of anything that is dimensional is
unlikely, because eveything dimensional is made of constituency,
arrangement and process.  Surely no arrangement or process will last
forever, thus immortality ((eternality)) 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 ((eternal)) by definition,
AND THE ONLY ONE.

     We don't mean immortal ((eternal)) 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 causative 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 probable 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 this
univefersal 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 and as proxy for cause, 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 conscious renditions of the physical universe is
created by consciousness, which then spends it's 'time' in dream time,
incarnated as objects in the virtual rendition of the physical universe,
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 become
the creature, the more you ARE again the Creator. 
 
     That is from a silly little religion called Adore, quotes
of which you can find at http://www.adore.com.))

     These ideas allow for consciousness to be immortal ((eternal)) not
because it lasts forever in time, but BECAUSE THERE IS NO TIME TO DIE
IN!

     INTO WHAT EVER ABYSS.

     "Man as a fallen angel would be ludicrous."

     From Man and His Gods by Homer William Smith (not me).
 
     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 (eternal), it won't be consciousness incarnated
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?

     Does virtual space and time take up actual space and 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 glow in the dark 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.

     ((Quantum mechanics confuses IMPRECISION of measurement with
UNCERTAINTY of existence.  Precision is not the same subject as perfect
certainty.))

     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?

     They aren't certain the two colors are DIFFERNT?

     They aren't certain that difference implies existence?

     They aren't certain that two objects can't BE different,
without at least one of the BEING?

     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

     Something of that was lost in the translation.

     What he really said was

     "I know I am, therefore I am forever." 

     But who would publish that?

     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!

     A machine can only see the 'shadows' of cause called effects, and
effects do not prove cause with perfect certainty.
 
     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.

     The very moment you say 'B is learning about A', you have said that
B is a different object that A.

     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 possible 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.

     That's why it is called SELF AWARENESS, get it?

     Only self awareness can produce perfect certainty between learner,
learned about, and learned.

     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.
 
     The changes the machine goes through in itself is merely evidence
for A.
 
     But only if you want to assert out of whole cloth that all effects
are caused by something else.

     A machine can not LEARN this, it can only be TAUGHT this by
its creator.

     Where the creator got the idea of effects actually having
causes is through conscious self awareness of its own causal
agency.

     The conscoius creator then anthropomorphizes the machine;s
learning into something similar when it couldn't be more different.

     Conscious learning takes place by direct pereption of CAUSE
and the effects that are caused.

     The conscious unit can see the cause, see the effect and
see that the cause caused the effect.  All with perfect certainty.

     Mechanical learning takes place only through indirect perception of
cause via those same effects.

     A machine can never see the cause, and can not prove that cause
even exists, and worse can't even prove that the effects in itself
happened at all!

     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, for 3rd graders doing jump rope:

     "If you can see something, then it is not 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!

     You see when people say they 'see a tree', what they are
really seeing is the conscious rendition of the tree, a full color,
3D surround sound picture of the tree, not the tree itself.

     The tree itself of course is out there in physical space,
if such exists, but what the person is seeing is not.  

     The tree out there in space which can not be directly
seen is called the original referent, and the conscious experience
of the tree which can be directly seen is called the symbol of
final authority.

     The person is trying to learn abut the referent which he
can not see and never will be able to see, by studying the
symbol in his consciousness.

     The tree looks green, but photons are not green.  However conscious
renditions of photons are green!

     And the process of seeing conscious renditions of photons does not
involve using photons as messenger waves.

     The joke is that the conscious unit is using strictly
processes of direct perception that he can see to render a world
of strictly indirect perception which he can not see.

     The original referent out there can only be indirectly perceived
via the direct perception of the symbol of final authority, his green
consciousness.

     The green consciousness looks like it is out there, so he
thinks what is out there IS GREEN.

     And that folks, is a whopper of a lie.

     If green were out there, he wouldn't be able to see it at all, and
since he can see it, the green can't be out there, but has to BE him
instead.

     Everything that can be actually seen is self aware via self
luminousness.

     The reason these ideas make a person sick and spin with vertigo is
because of the sudden back rush of letting go of the dramatization of
pretending what is seen is actually out there
just because it looks like it is.

     Dimension is an illusion.

     Believing that dimension is actual beyond the illusion of it, is
delusion.

     Most life for most people consists of operating within that
delusion about illusion.

     It's called non lucid dreaming, that is dreaming and not knowing
you are dreaming.

     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.
 
     We can only be aware of ourselves, even if we are red and green,
and look like a tree.

     The tree is just our glow in the dark skin of the moment.

     There is however no '3 feet in front of' nor '3 feet in back of'
with consciousness, it is all in one zero dimensional place, looker and
looked at are one.

     The space-iness 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." - Adore
 
     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 changes in itself 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 wouldn't be a certainty in the first place.

     Being certain of something is not a belief or an attitude about
one's knowledge, certainty is a TRUTH that is directly perceivable.

     If everything could be wrong, then there could be no certainties no
matter how 'certain' we pretended to our self we are.

     Thus if there is a certainty that is right, ie can not be wrong by
its very nature, how would we know one if we ran into it?

     You can't be certain that certainties don't exist, as that is an
execreable self denying ludicrosity, and indicates SEVERE mental
retardation.

     We call it Mind Broke.
 
     Thus the best you can assert is that certainties may or may not
exist and you are PREFECTLY CERTAIN you are UNCERTAIN about it.
 
     But then if perfect certainties exist, how would you know one when
you ran into one?

     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 applicability.

     Actually the idea of a 'true model' a domain error, for models and
theories are not in the domain of things that can be 'true.'

     They are only in the domain things that can be workable or not.
 
     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 indirect 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 certainty that they were never really perfectly certain of the
thing in the first place.

     Regardless of what conceits they postured about their knowledge.

     And they have a serious personal integrity problem that they
claimed certainty for something that COULDN'T have been certain in the
first place, because certainty wasn't even relevant to the process of
learning by being an effect that they were using,

     And they could have known this at the time had they looked a bit
closer.

     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 that allegedly
'caused' the change in itself a moment later.

     How can one learn about A then by looking at B now?

     How can on learn about A now 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, as 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.

     A machinee can not prove with perfect certainty that its present
state was preceeded by a different prior state, thus it can't prove that
has CHANGED state, thus it can't prove that it has any reason to suspect
the existence of a prior cause.

     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 in that time.

     A machine can not prove with perfect certainty that it itself
actually exists, EVEN IF IT IS THE EFFECT OF 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.

     Or if the machine did make the claim that the claim was
the CAUSAL result of the machine's prior existence.

     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 it is impossible to prove with perfect certainty the existence
of the causal relation between the existence of the machine and its
claim that it exists, 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...  Maybe I am someone else's hallucination!"

     WHY a machine can't be certain of anything is because it is trying
to learn across a difference, a difference in space and time, the
difference between when it at first doesn't know if it exists, and then
second when it has interacted with itself as cause, observed the effect
it had on itself and thus reported the effect as evidence that it
exists.

     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 physically objective red apple,
but it does mean you are your conscious picture 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.

     Why would an actuality virtualize a virtual reality?

     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!
 
     No middle men, no messenger waves, no space or time.

     The process of direct perception by necessity involves no time.

     It is a timeless process.

     Timeless process is an oxymoron.

     The ability to verify with perfect certainty what you
see and that you see is a timeless moment of looking and seeing,.

     By the time a machine sees what it is looking at, what it is
looking at is long gone a moment before, thus a machine can never verify
with perfect certainty that what it saw was really what was there to be
seen the moment before.

     When a consciousness gets the idea 'yeah two different colors'
it can compare that to the red and the green that it is seeing now!

     The fundamental theorems of all great theories are oxymorons.

     Genius is the ability to persue the idiotic to fruition.

     It may be that direct perception can not be 'understood' via the
Newtonian cause-and-effect-with-time-inbetween mind we are presently
using to understand the virtual physical universe.

     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.

     Operating scalars are not in the domain of things which are
'mechanisms'.

     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, as perfect certainty of ANYTHING implies
zero dimenionality.
 
     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?

     This leads to the absurdity that perception of time and change can
only be had by a zero dimensional perceiver which has no time or change
itself.

     How can something that has no time or change project a holographic
illusion of time and change?

     If time exists, you could never know it.

     If you can know time, time can't exist.

     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