Best Possible World: Gateway to the Millennium and Eschaton

Download 4.74 Mb.
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size4.74 Mb.
1   ...   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   ...   90
The Creator is fascinated with her creatures. We, scientifically speaking, are fascinated with our cells and atoms. That fascination has temporarily blinded us to the presence of God, that is until we begin to stand back and ask the larger questions. At the height of our infatuation with matter, we were unable to see the forest for the trees. Now we have a carrot and a stick. The carrot is the anthropic principle, the stick is the mind-body problem. The universe is incredibly suited to life. The brain is credibly unsuited to mind. Then give these two facts a slight twist. Matter is deployed in the extrinsic support of intelligence, and yet matter by itself is intrinsically unsuited to that task.
Here we have a major conundrum. We get a small break with the quantum. It turns out that the process of observation is an essential feature of atomic reality. Combining this fact with the previous facts, we then have confront the following fateful question which speaks directly to the meaning of life. Is it the atoms that bring forth mind, or is it the mind that has brought forth the atoms?
This seems like a difficult question so let me make it easier for you. We have spent billions of dollars over the last half century building the most impressive machines on Earth, just to smash atoms. Talk about fascination! And what is so fascinating? Behind the atom we find another reality. This reality is composed of the improbably intricate symmetries of Pi, and the incredible complexity of the mathematical Monster Group. And then according to the prescriptions of 'Monstrous Moonshine', these two features of the sub-atomic reality are intimately related. To get a firm grip on these facts you would have to absorb many thousands of pages of mathematical proofs. It seems that virtually all of mathematics may be brought to bear upon the makeup of a single atom.
Am I making it easy for you? What is nature trying to tell us here? She is telling us in excruciating detail that atoms are nothing fundamental. What is fundamental to the existence of every atom are the most abstruse and complex structures that the human mind has been able to produce. There is just one remaining question. Which came first, God or the Monster? This is a question with which I have struggled. Here is my best answer, as of today. Neither one. The Matrix came first.
Then came the ouroboric bootstrap consisting mainly of creator and creation intermixed in zodiacal, MPD/DID fashion. The problem we then have is to be fruitful and multiply. We will need to be able to do combinatorics, and in the process we will maximize the diversity of creation by pushing our symmetry breaking of the Matrix to its logical, coherent limit. We deploy the chain or network of being to its fullest extent. At the far end of that chain, at the fourth level of being, is our fascinatingly abstruse atom. That atom is the phenomenological stand-in for the Monster. This bootstrap is indeed looking ouroboric. Creator and Monster are two aspects of the head of the serpent. The MG allows the ouroboros to swallow its atomic tail. It is how the cosmic circuit is completed by minding the P&Q. If X is the Creator, then the MG is the anti-X, almost eschatological. This is how the Anthropic Principle works. Mathematics is naturally anthropic. It is necessarily a bio-logic, and the only logic is the dia-Logos. Mathematics can exist only as a formalization of language. It does not arise ex nihilo. It is a social game par excellence. The MG is the fulcrum by which the world is able to turn itself inside out. As in Communion, we end up swallowing God.
The mathematical syzygys help to give away this game. They are where chance meets necessity, and where subjectivity meets objectivity. This is a role that was formerly reserved to the quantum and the work of art. Those syzygys are our own footprints on that distant shore. They are our monogram. The combinatorics of our life game is played to the max. Therein resides 10^10. The BPW rests in the balance. 10^10 is an aesthetic limit, and the MG enforces that limit anthropically. The vital essence of the MG is visible mainly on this scale. Its relational existence is a crucial part of the larger picture. Mathematics is as essentially holographic and coherent as is the world in general.

Pelican remains upbeat about the Aquarium, but insists that it acquire a new name. We're open to suggestions. How about 'Fusion' in honor of our oriental restaurant venue near I & 17th where the Pelican's Geo broke down on the way to the Zoo? That would make us the fuses, trying to prevent short circuits, or something. Is this good enough for government work?

I have been hanging out on the Sarfatti list. There was a useful exchange with KG, but that cannot go further without input from RP.
Jack's fringe physics folks are in a logical trap. They are forced to use UFOs to justify their questionable physics. But then they have to explain why the visitors are not cooperating with us in a technology transfer. They end up supposing that the visitors are largely of hostile intent. But then where are the good guys? Why aren't they protecting us?
The best way to explain the standoffishness of the visitors is by supposing that they are preparing us for some public event. This event would focus on the dissemination of non-technical information, presumably concerning our future. It's content would be perceived by many as disturbing, and it could be socially disruptive if not transmitted cautiously. This is where a 'fusion' group would come in handy.
Any further advance of physics into the paranormal domain raises the issue of mind over matter. There is the question of whether the laws of physics are unreasonably conducive to technical advancement. At what point must we consider a cosmic teleology? At some point we must consider a mentally bootstrapped cosmos. This is where the weak goes over to the strong anthropic principle. This transition is the point of my impasse with Jack & Co. This is what stands between here and eternity. Why don't I go back on the list and pursue this issue?
[('misanthropic') WAP -> SAP]
It is not clear to me why Jack and the others here are so hesitant to embrace the Strong Anthropic Principle, in contrast to its weak sister. Jack seems to hold Tipler and Wheeler in high regard, and they certainly embraced the idea.
The visitor phenomenon would be much easier to understand on the basis of the SAP rather than the WAP.
Everyone here subscribes to teleology and time warps. Why then can we not allow there to be teleology and a time warp on the cosmic scale? Would this not be the logical venue for such constructs, in the first place? Would not a teleological bootstrap be more scientific than having to posit an infinity of worlds? Would it not force us to look for explanations, rather than hide our ignorance behind an Infinity of Worlds Hypothesis?
Come on guys and gals, let's show some intestinal fortitude. The IWH is the end of thought. A dynamical bootstrap is a launch pad for further inquiry. Why not the dynamical model instead of a statistical model? Is not dynamics the whole point of physics?
Who's afraid of the SAP?
The SAP does not preclude the possibility of parallel universes. Not at all. It just means that we don't lean upon that unobservable infinity as an explanation for every last resort. Think of poor Occam!
And finally think of your fellow humans. Does not the SAP lend meaning to our lives, by the same token that the WAP robs us of significance? This should be a no-brainer for us!
Yes, this is a critical issue, alright.
Of course, the SAP is my stalking horse for immaterialism. Do these physics types subliminally sense that? It is for a similar reason that Jack abandons his Bohmian determinism on the cosmic scale.
Clearly the good guys, the Federation, the cosmic intelligence is going to participate in the bootstrap. They are it.
If I can get my foot in the SAP door, I'll be off and running with the 'Fusion' vision. Just wait.
[Berkant:] Sufi tales say there are seven earths and seven heaven..
I don't know what they exactly mean with seven earths.. maybe you have an idea to share with us..
IMHO some of the unfriendly "ETs" are from the "underworld".. so they are "earthly" not heavenly beings.
I would definitely prefer this sort of 'interdimensional' model for the ETs. Even if they lived in this dimension, they would need to travel via the others.
I have no problem with multiple worlds, as long as they are not redundant, i.e. as long as their existence functionally supports and enhances the organic whole. Our Earth would almost certainly be the main one. This would be the focus of the cosmic action. The ETs could be from heaven and hell, or the under-earth and over-earth. They are the supporting actors, are they not?
Also this interdimensional cosmology is much more in accord with an SAP-bootstrapped reality. Are there others here who share this POV??
[Jack:] There is no contradiction between SAP and WAP. You can have SAP in SOME of the WAP Universes - no problem! WAP does not preclude SAP. Some WAP Universes are God-Universes others are not.
God means IJ Good's "GOD(D)" or Stapledon's "Star Maker". God need not be a Moral God, but can be.
There may be War of The Gods across different Universes in Hyperspace.
The Devil is also there if God is. It's Milton's Paradise Lost!
Hold on, Jack. Let's think about this. Being a Creator is a major responsibility. No Creator worthy of the name is going to start picking fights with other Creators out there in Hyperspace, thereby jeopardizing her own Creation, would she?
It would be the height of folly for there not to a Federation of Creators, would it not? Why must we always anthropomorphize our Gods by projecting the worst of our follies onto them??
Furthermore, I see no reason to suppose that being a creature would be involuntary. If you and I were going to be creatures, would we not want as our Creator a moral, loving God who would be a good citizen of the Federation of Creators??
Sure, there might be amoral Gods out there, but imagine how much trouble they would have recruiting their creatures. Don't you believe in the all volunteer Creation?
I understand the entertainment value of science fiction, but need we make it into a philosophy and a religion? I hope not.
What most amazes me about the sampling of Sci-Fi that comes my way, is the incredible lack of metaphysical imagination that is generally manifested, present company excepted, of course. Instead of a horse opera, we have a space opera.
The WAP is the Mis-Anthropic Principle. This is the metaphysics of the space opera. What you never see in any space opera is the Strong Anthropic Principle. Frank Tipler, however, felt compelled to limit his SAP model universe to pure materialism, a limitation that should be obviously oxymoronic in this context.
Any self-consistent, coherent application of the SAP will have to include a mind-field as its essential element. Jack makes a stab at this with his psi-field, but then he retreats from the full challenge it presents.
Some of us will take up this challenge. It is the only way we will ever be able to explain the mystery of our phenomenal world. I grapple with this challenge on my website, and in this forum.
Rather than plunge into the daunting metaphysics of the 'spontaneous' symmetry breaking of the cosmic mind field, which I shamelessly call the Matrix, let me revert to the more familiar ground of cosmic politics, just one level removed from our beloved Space Opera:::
When I last had Jack on the line, we were discussing Jack's notion of Creator Wars in Hyperspace. I have a problem with this notion. Why should we model the Cosmos on Dodge City? Aren't there any better models? Need a better model be less exciting? I think not, but let's see.
The Gods, after spending a few Aeons of bashing each other's creations, get tired of all the cosmic mayhem, and decide to cooperate, even if only for once in their lives. This new found cooperation was not just their own idea. The creatures were getting tired of being hockey pucks on the cosmic ice rink. A Creator has a major problem when she decides to have a Creation and no creatures show up. The show gets cancelled for lack of participation.
The SAP, unlike the WAP, demands participation. Its implied bootstrap is made up of its co-creator creatures, they are just chips off the pantheonic block, after all. The Creator now become orchestra conductor, cum motivational consultant.
OK, so the Creators and Creatures finally get smart and put their collective heads together and decide to outdo themselves. They will make the best darned creation that can possibly be made.
To make a long story short, and not to give away the plot of my website, that's where we are.
But wait, you say, there must be some mistake. This can't possibly be the best possible world! A short answer to that is, you ain't seen nuthin' yet. A more thoughtful answer is: the best possible world will be chock full of diversity and surmountable adversity, a diversity that we are challenged to transform thru adversity into an organic unity: pantheon -> theon. The co-creator bit is no joke!
And then the visitors appear from stage-left. There is a rolling of the drums..........

[What price innocence?]

Yes, Jack, this evidently is a political and not a physical question, so I guess I'll have to handle it.
I see in these environs many protestations of innocence in regard to many aspects of Creation. I see a great reluctance to accept the designation of co-Creator. Who, in their right mind, would wish to take responsibility for this mess? Politicians always get to blame the previous administration for the mess, up until the next election. As co-Creators we would not even be afforded that luxury.
I'm the bad guy, I'm here to dole out the responsibility. Shoot me, I'm a co-Creator!
Clearly you all cherish your precious innocence. How precious is it, and will we ever be willing to give it up?
Innocence must be precious indeed, because we have been willing to pay a very great price for it.
Now do you understand why the Visitors remain in hiding? Now do you see why they were so desperate to find another messenger to deliver this bit of bad news? Was I the biggest sucker to walk in the door, or what?
Yes, Jack, you have met the Aliens, you have met Satan. Look in the mirror, He is yours and ours, soon to be lost, innocence.
Surely you all have heard of that famous river, the River Lethe. Did you never wonder why it existed, and why all of us mortals must cross it to get to these shores?
This has to be something that is worth contemplating.
Mortality in the mantle we don to participate in Creation. It is also our innocence. Beneath that innocence is our immortality.
Every time we cross that great river, that great divide, we are granted the priceless privilege of being allowed and being able to reinvent ourselves. In fact, my friends, we have just hit upon the core purpose of Creation. We are just the means for God's self-reinvention.
For every Gandhi there is a Hitler? It seems that God has been willing to try everything once. The envelope of possibility has been pushed to its limits. Here in this garden of eden, in this vale of tears, God has played hide and seek with herself. But like all good games, even this one, the greatest game that will ever be played, must come to an end. Ole, ole, infree!
Sorry 'bout that, guys and gals. It's time for us to move on.
From: Jack Sarfatti []
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 11:35 AM
To: Dan Smith
Subject: Re: What Price Innocence?
Dan is mainly concerned with theology and morality. Fine. I am focused on the "how", the physics, not the "why." The planet is warming. Bush is ignoring that fact. The rank amateurism and incompetent post-invasion management of Afghanistan and Iraq of the Neo Con Cabal inside The Pentagon has not helped. I do note, however, that the rate of suicide bombing in Israel has gone down dramatically at a cost of almost 1000 American lives and at least 5000 American wounded out of a force of ~ 130,000. Eco-catastrophe is almost inevitable. I am Noah. It seem obvious that billions of people now living on this planet will die in a virtual Apocalypse. We have too many people on too small a planet. Only if we can make star gates for massive population transport to virgin Earths in the Universes Next Door in hyperspace do any of these people, including your children and their children have a chance of surviving.
Well, are we making any progress in integrating the how and the why, the science and the spirit?
If there is an essential moral component to the UFO phenomenon, then, at the very least you may have to install a plastic Buddha on the dashboard. It may be mandatory, and there may be more.
What I do notice is that you and most of your colleagues have rushed to a negative judgment of Alien morals, and then you use this judgment to justify your own disregard of all things moral and spiritual concerning you own proposed conquest of the Cosmos. It's might makes right, and to hell with the Golden Rule!
[If you will refer to my first message: we labor on these shores in the privileged state of cosmic amnesia, thanks to the waters of Lethe. I suspect that the visitors have no such privilege. They do, however, have a solemn duty to monitor our well-being. Furthermore, they are under a moral obligation not to disturb our amnesiac slumber. Thus must they refrain from the usual mundane formalities of informed consent, which otherwise I am sure we would not hesitate to grant. Perhaps, in their stead, it is I who has been granted the sublime honor of serving as your cosmic alarm clock. But do I detect just a tad of the 'Mondays', viz. 'Office Space' w/ Jennifer Aniston?]
I am not terribly concerned about this [disregard] because I have reasons to have faith in the moral character of the Cosmos. I am confident that the Federation will not tolerate your 'shoot first and ask questions later' methodology. Nor will they stand by while you or anyone else sets out to pillage and plunder. If there were not such safeguards, we would have been eliminated long ago.
What concerns me is that your one-dimensional, physicalist mind-set may be hindering a broader based approach to understanding what is almost certainly a multi-dimensional phenomenon. It may be that the visitors have a much less dualistic view about the world than you do. Your own formulas, you claim, demonstrate the unity of mind, body and spirit. But when it comes to implementing them, you act as if these dimensions have no connection. It's full speed ahead and damn the spirits.
But rather than sit here and argue about this, why don't we do an experiment? Why don't we see if a more unified approach to the UFO phenomenon will yield more information about it?
I'm thinking that we might be able to perform this experiment without leaving our chairs.
P.S. I have been hesitating to xmit this missive. What I imply at the end here is what Scott seems now to be insisting upon, i.e. dredging up old business. I am not the only ufologist or avian to have mixed feelings about any such dredging. But, if this has not been attempted in the last few years, perhaps we owe this much to posterity. Evidently there remain many loose ends.
Unfortunately, this puts the ball back in my court. I will have to take my own incautious suggestion under further advisement.
To go further than this with Jack & Co., I'll need some additional input of the avian variety to better resolve either the Rick Doty or the 'phenomenology' problem. I'm waiting now to get word back on this request.
Persistent Transient Failure: Delivery time expired - Delivery last attempted at 16 Jun 2004 14:33:20 +0000
And so it goes............

I've been reviewing my recent pages, preparing to get back to the blog.

Previous examples of how the BPW is supposed to work:::
* We, operating as psychically connected units, stabilize the phenomenal world in a manner analogous to how our interconnected neurons are able to stabilize our individual perceptual worlds.

* Jurassic Parc + Pokatok Court = Garden of Eden (Mayan Parc) (and see Heliotropism)

* The vital, archetypal equation for the BPW

* Atoms compared with currency, numbers, letters.

* Ouroboric bootstrap [siteSearch] model for our self-organizing, self-creating cosmos

* Teleology and Telos [siteSearch] and dream causality

* Upward vs. downward causation [siteSearch]

* Cycles, memes, normativity [s/S], functionalism [s/S]

* Network of being (see Relationalism and [siteSearch])

* Spontaneous symmetry breaking of the Matrix (MPD/DID) (Zodiacal circuit [s/S])

* WAP -> SAP (Anthropic Principles)

* Direct realism (anti-representationalism [s/S]) and telephones, photos, etc.

* Organicity [s/S] of mathematics, Mandelbrot

* Leibniz' PSR, II & BPW [s/S]

* Filling in the blind-spot

* Synthesis of theism, pantheism and telic science

* (note the last recap)

It might be a useful exercise to try combining these items into a single exposition.

Sometime soon I should attempt another recapitulation of the BPW and how it works. Before that, I need to assess the plausibility of the BPW hypothesis. What are its weakest links? Where is the explanatory coverage the thinnest? What are the most difficult areas to justify?
Stars, atoms, fossils and computers remain especially problematic. Each of these concerns the problem of upward causation in its particular context. My strategy for incorporating upward causation into immaterialism is to employ distributed intelligence in the form of archetypes and cycles. This is a latter-day version of animism or panpsychism, and it fits in with the notions of relationalism, organicity and functionalism. Mathematics, games and language provide examples of such schemes. In each of these examples it is normativity which provides the stabilizing factor. It is in this light that I compare the operation of normativity with physics. The cycles and archetypes are rooted in the emergence of the primal Zodiacal circuit along with the Mayan/Jurassic Parc. Linear time may result from a sudden, purely phenomenal 'pole shifting' or celestial symmetry breaking, but only very gradually does it disrupt the cyclical time frame and begin to accelerate us toward the eschaton.
Naturalism is the primary rival of theism. Naturalism may be accounted for in the following manner. There are two epochs of processes that take us past the aboriginal confines of the M/JPc platform. First there is an animist version of Lamarckism, which is attenuated through history. Much later the scientific enterprise fills in the remaining phenomenological gaps with the projected normativity of its techno-logic. This latter occurs mainly in the microscopic, astronomical and geological domains. Finally a teleologically mediated metabolic and alchemical bridge spans both epochs. Scientific instruments greatly extend the range of our phenomenal world. That there is a coherent infilling of the resulting phenomenal gaps is a further outworking of anthropic coherence and Leibniz' PSR.
Note that there is no explicit invocation of deity. God must be invoked mainly to ensure the proper closure of the ouroboric bootstrap, and that is no mean feat. The Matrix may supply the necessary condition for closure, but it is God who finally suffices, or, should we say, 'satisfices'. There is a great deal riding on coherence, but that is just the manifestation of our monistic idealism. God is the ultimate arbiter of meaning and being, but the emphasis is on arbitration. Leibniz is wont to keep God on a short leash. It is the X archetype that is the cosmic pivot. That is a very short leash. That is also the root of Pi, the cipher of closure.

1   ...   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   ...   90

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page