The EFG has been groomed, rather carefully, to put a public face on this previously sequestered preparation. That is just a continuation of what I have been doing from day one in 1991. The Anderson article was a very significant early endorsement of this process. But now it will have to become more visible. I don't see the possibility of many more baby steps here. At some point it will have to be like jumping into the cold shower, but it will be more like a hot stove.
If the CF and Dan show was ever going anywhere, then this is it. He is riding shotgun, almost literally. I get the fun part. If I were God, this is how I would have planned it. This is the best possible rapture in the best possible world. I would be happy to argue this point with you and anyone else. That's my job!
Let us converse about this. But you do understand that this conversation will have to be expandable, sooner rather than later. The conversation starts with you and me, but it cannot end here, certainly not in my estimation. We will have to establish an expansion protocol ASAP. No?
I will be meeting with Steve Bassett this evening. My advice will be to caution about fighting against city hall. Among ufologists there is the presumption of connivance between the establishment and the bad aliens. There is the further presumption that the good guys will prevail.
This implies a very considerable myopia on the part of the bad guys. It implies that they are deliberately picking a fight with cosmic intelligence. Would this not be a very dumb move? How many people in the world, if given a clear choice, would side with the devil? This would be tantamount to nihilism. If there are nihilists in the world, you would not find them ensconced in the establishment. True, the establishment might attempt to resist an NWO, but not if it was a fait accompli. More likely, the smart money would out in front on any NWO. Capitalists are not genetically disposed to going down with the ship. They would not be where they are if they were. The visitors have the contrary problem of keeping their potential suitors at bay for as long as possible.
How do the visitors manage to remain incognito for an indefinite period? They can manage this only with an excellent rationale. It would be hard to imagine a more adequate rationale than that of preparation for an eschaton.
Permit me to use this space to compose a message to Jack.
I have to wonder, then, whether there are any limits that can be placed on the power of the mind.
Is there anything that could prevent intelligent beings (IBs) from manipulating the laws of physics. For instance, are there any reasons why an IB could not create a universe with an arbitrary set of physical principles and parameters?
Are there any limits on the robustness of a simulated world that an IB could create?
Is there any good reason to suppose that our world is not one of these created or simulated worlds?
Is there any a priori reason to suppose that Platonic worlds would be favored over Aristotelian worlds, using Max Tegmark's terminology. Physicists like to assume that we inhabit a Platonic world with Aristotelian appearances, but we do not know that it is not actually just the reverse.
One problem here is that we do not know what is the ground or source of existence.
On Tegmark's view, all of the above are possible and, therefore, probable, and equally so.
We would have then complete ontological neutrality: there is no distinction between possibility and actuality.
If there is no distinction between possibility and actuality, then there is no source of being. If there is only actuality, there is no possibility or potency, and so no source. This is not in accord with the inflationary model of cosmogenesis. It is in accord, though, if we take an trans-temporal perspective.
If there is, however, an actual source of being, that totipotency is susceptible to being co-opted by a principle of vitality. I suspect that is the case. It would be like the thermophiles living as close to the vent as possible, and thus potentially regulating that source.
Another avenue to the same conclusion is to adopt an observer principle: no unobservable worlds. There is then a vital selection principle attendant upon the Source.
Clearly your powers of imagination exceed those of Scott.
But the situation of Alien contact is a challenge that ought to truly stretch our powers of imagination to the utmost, assuming there are even any limits in that regard.
If there is ever going to be a motivation for us to think outside the box, then Alien contact ought surely to provide it.
This will certainly be the case if we are dealing with UTs rather than mere ETs. And we surely do not know yet which situation pertains. Are our visitors from Planet X or from Dimension X, or both or none of the above?
How do we know that they do not bring their own reality with them? How do we know that they are subject to our laws of physics, or to any laws at all?
Why is it that this situation, after all these years, is still being handled by intelligence officers and not by scientists?
Do you really suppose that the best minds in the world have not already been recruited to examining these data, probably being given more data than you or I have access to?
Do you suppose that Ron has not had to give briefings at the highest levels? Do you suppose that the possibility of a scientific explanation is not frequently raised?
I submit that the real data have a degree of strangeness that places them outside the physics box. As a physicalist, you may have difficulty countenancing that possibility. Can you not imagine a phenomenon sufficiently strange or anomalous to place it outside the physics box? It would only take one such event to blow your reality out of the water. Do really you want us to bet the future of our civilization on the possibility that not such event has or will occur?
MJ12 cannot afford to bring their biases and prejudices to their work. They cannot afford to be constrained by metaphysical prejudices such as your notion of physicalism. We pay them to consider all the possibilities, do we not? You are singularly unwilling to do that.
Is there no scientist in the world to whom you would be willing to submit your ideas and formulas? Is there no physicist in the world who could peer review your work?
If not, then what are the rest of us supposed to do? Are we supposed to turn over the control of MJ12 to you, just on your word. Imagine how much faith in you that would require of us. And I thought you said there was no place for faith!
What is left for us to do?
I am currently reading The Twilight of Atheism by Alister McGrath (2004). It is given only 17 mostly unenthusiastic reviews (sales rank 9,255). You may compare this with The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris ('04). This has 123 mostly enthusiastic reviews (sales rank 33). The reviewer for Salon, Laura Miller, writes:
There's something inadvertently eloquent about the fact that Alister McGrath's "The Twilight of Atheism" and Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" have been published within a month of each other, as they so perfectly illustrate the triumph of heat over light in this debate. The first book is a semi-disguised crowing session about the subsiding of godlessness in the Western world, the second is a 336-page fulmination on the evils of religion and the urgent need to crush it before it kills us all. [...] It's enough to make you suspect that it's no longer possible to have a real conversation about religion.
From the reader response one may gather that Atheism is not riding quietly into the sunset. There is a tone of stridency in the latter reviews, quite lacking in the former.
My quarrel with McGrath is in his disavowal of any evidentiary basis for either view. It then is a matter of taste. The problem is that the scientific understanding of facts is incommensurate with that of a metaphysical understanding. There are two types of evidence. Is the choice between these two paths also a matter of taste. I think not, simply because the metaphysical view can embrace the physical in a way that is not and cannot be reciprocated. The metaphysical or spiritual view is capable of much greater comprehension and coherence, than is the scientific. Science may be universal, but metaphysics is cosmic. Science works within a state of denial of anything metaphysical. That denial is the basis of its methodology. Spirit is all encompassing. Science presumes only efficient causes. Metaphysics accepts all causes. Immaterialism can comprehend materialism to a degree that cannot be reciprocated or even countenanced by materialism.
It is true, however, that I do still struggle to find a comfortable repose for efficient causes in the scheme of final causes. Jaegwon Kim suggests that final and efficient causes are incompatible in dealing with mental phenomena. I have yet to formulate an adequate response. I continue to nibble around the problem. I am not entirely confident that the elevation or reification of cyclical phenomena can measure up to the task.
Physics does not recognize causes, nor even the directionality of time except in the phenomenology of thermodynamics. In, general, science does not pinpoint causes except when dynamic equilibria are disturbed as in the phenomenology of disease, or in other catastrophic incidents. Storms are not given specific causes, but are seen as components of a complex dynamic system. In ecology, predators and prey are two components of a system and of an extended food chain.
Previously I have equated materialism with reductionism and so with atomism. Presumably atoms do not countenance final causes. Neither do the laws of physics. You may only ask if a sequence of events is lawful or not.
Atoms don't strictly exist for physics. They are hardly even theoretical entities. What exists practically are the mathematical methods for making predictions. The methodology only speaks directly to observables or measurements. Particles and fields are labels that, at best, may be attached to some symbols. The predictions are only probabilistic.
Where atoms figure more directly is in the phenomenon of evaporation. How is an immaterialist meant to cope with this? Do we merely need to point to the hydro cycle? Elsewhere I have fallen back on the archetypes in the scheme of AZO/X/QRP. Given the hydro cycle and this scheme, something resembling water molecules ought to fall out or emerge without too much difficulty. Does this credibly spell the end of materialism? Optimistically, sure. Without a backup team, this ought to pass first muster. It should be suggestive of further research. Presently I feel no pressure to extend this scheme by myself.
It is one thing to have atoms emerge archetypically, it may be another thing to have them behave properly in all their multiplicity. Do we need to confer upon them a substantial individuality? Particles in physics actually have no individual identity. They are perfectly exchangeable. Identity, then, is something metaphysical. It is this (and only this?) something extra that seems to cause the conceptual difficulty with immaterialism.
From whence comes identity? Does it not come from introspection? Can that, or must that introspection be applied to pebbles and grains of sand? Do they have any self-identity, or is it only conferred by sentience and memory? When does a rock become a 'pet rock'? A point to keep in mind here is that all identity is only ever probable, it is never absolute. No identity is immune from loss or theft. As something purely relational, actual identity cannot underwrite the necessarily absolute and metaphysical claims of materialism.
My further claim is that physicalism, without the metaphysics of materialism, has no metaphysical basis of its own. It is just a useful methodology as noted above. Without its assumed objective materiality or physicality it is merely a mental construct that would be appropriately susceptible to a teleological override. Need we argue this? The least action premise of physicalism is well situated within our best possible world.
The Creator, X, conspires to break the symmetry of Z. Alpha becomes the primordial game of Pokatok, and the Omega goes back to X again in an ouroboric manner. The A to O is spanned by the QRP archetypes, the metabolic cycles, R, being the principal of these. The ball court is part of a Jurassic Parc. The primordial physical object is the ball itself. I'm not sure what would be the most effective way to introduce the reproductive cycle, but it could be patterned after the ouroboros. The Zodiacal cycle is the seed that grows into the A/O ouroboric cosmic circuit, as part of the dialectic bootstrap. Seed production is a key step that remains obscure to me. The archetype of Pi may come into play here in the form of e^i*pi. Here we have a logic circuit, of sorts.
Is there any way to rationalize the origin of the DNA code? Science does not accept such a challenge. It can show us a sequence of steps and say this is how it happened. We are left to wonder about other possibilities.
To introduce teleology is easier said than done. Can a DNA code be worked out after the fact of reproduction, or must it be plugged into the process at the start? How can we relieve the creator of the burden of complexity? In some sense I am attempting to naturalize Creation with a reasonable use of teleology. The Telos is in the details.
We may wonder as to the limits of complexity. Perhaps these limits are to be realized only in the Eschaton. That seems to be the way we are headed. This complexity will be tantamount to organicity. Speaking of which, we me wonder how biological complexity relates to social complexity. The biological is likely a reflection of the social.
Is there an optimal complexity? Is complexity good? Is it a case that everything that can go wrong will go wrong? The greater the complexity the more we must rely upon the invisible hand to maintain the organic functionality.
We might also wonder if the Monster Group will define the limits of mathematical complexity. The Riemann Hypothesis may go beyond that limit. But the RH also speaks to mathematical organicity, whose source still eludes us.
We have also noted the physical complexity to be found in the static limit of the infrared catastrophe. Every particle in every galaxy must contribute to the local fields. Does this not place too great a burden on the ontology of physicalism, pointing us back toward teleology? May we anticipate the complexity of a GUT?
We might also wonder about the role of computers in augmenting or alleviating social complexity. Could computers ever contribute to our organicity, to our Gemeinschaft? Consider also the role of capitalism in that regard. The two problems may be closely related. Whither economics in these end times?
Will there have to be any phase changes in the above systems in order to clear the way to the Eschaton? Would we be able to view such phase changes as other than catastrophic, except in retrospect? For instance, it might require a breakdown in the external infrastructure in order to jump-start its internal analog, such as from telephony to telepathy. Any such sudden transition would likely entail enormous loss of life, and so be unlikely in my estimation, as not compatible with the BPWH. We may anticipate the terrorist threat to remain mainly a threat, where it may well contribute to cohesion. The nihilists contribute to social cohesion, the way a vaccine contributes to the immune system.
Let me refer you to Andy Denis' 'The Invisible Hand of God in Adam Smith' (2005):
Adam Smith is revered as the father of modern economics. Analysis of his writings, however, reveals a profoundly medieval outlook. Smith is preoccupied with the need to preserve order in society. His scientific methodology emphasises reconciliation with the world we live in rather than investigation of it. He invokes a version of natural law in which the universe is a harmonious machine administered by a providential deity. Nobody is uncared for and, in real happiness, we are all substantially equal. No action is without its appropriate reward - in this life or the next. The social desirability of individual self-seeking activity is ensured by the ‘invisible hand’, that is, the hand of a god who has moulded us so to behave, that the quantity of happiness in the world is always maximised.
Shades of the BPWH! Also note Andy's thesis wherein he treats holism vs. reductionism in economics, Collective and Individual Rationality.
There are a number of remarkable passages and quotations in these works.
At the level of appearances, Smith says, the world throws up phenomena which appear incoherent and therefore inflame the imagination. This inflammation is to be regarded as a disagreeable sensation. ‘When we first encounter anything that is nor familiar or expected, Smith argues, we are struck by the feelings we call Surprise and Wonder. These are not welcome feelings.’ (Heilbroner, 1986: 15) The job of a science is to soothe the imagination by suggesting connections between things, and by tracing the unknown back to the familiar, so that the observer may regain his tranquillity.....
[...]Or, more pithily, ‘it is the end of Philosophy, to allay that wonder, which either the unusual or seemingly disjointed appearances of nature excite’ (Astronomy IV.34). We do not understand what we seek to explain by science, ‘but by categorizing things we come to be at peace with them … We draw the venom of Wonder by applying the poultice of familiarity’ (Heilbroner, 1986: 16).
For Smith, therefore, it is just irrelevant to talk about the truth or otherwise of the findings of a science - what matters is its success or otherwise in ‘smoothing the passage of the imagination betwixt .... seemingly disjointed objects’ (ibid), it is this criterion alone which we should bear in mind when considering the sequence of schools of thought in a science such as astronomy:
Modernists would deny all such allegations. Postmodernists would likely nod in agreement.
(As an aside: it may be that my cycles and Descartes vortices are not unrelated.)
A challenge is pointed to here: finding a way to reconcile Panglossian or Stoic conservatism with interventionist liberalism. I suppose they may only be reconciled in the eschatological context. Our participatory eschaton will be an enlightened intervention based on holism. Wanting to take charge is ingrained in human nature. That is a necessary ingredient of our apokatastasis. Of course, it is the conservative entrepreneurs who are the most interventionist of all.
I would like to get back to dealing with the origin of complexity per se. Certainly diversity has intrinsic value, and there is a strong correlation between diversity and complexity. The principles of relationalism and coherence render the complexity organic.
But there are limits to diversity, particularly within species. Evidently there is also a value to group identity. This is particularly true for self-propagation and mutual protection. This is the case for both organisms and cells.
One explanation for the invisible hand that can operate on multiple levels is 'morphic resonance' as introduced by Rupert Sheldrake in A New Science of Life (1981). It is similar to Waddington's notion of the chreode, a canalized pathway in epigenetic space. His morphic fields entail only a cosmic memory and limited teleology or downward causation, but not intelligence. They would operate in conjunction with evolutionary forces in the biological and psychological realms. It is a frankly dualistic model on the biological level, the morphic fields being non-physical.
To the extent possible, I wish to off-load the details of Creation onto the creatures. The complexity uncovered by science may be attributable in part to the scientific enterprise itself, using a robust form of teleology. I attempt to provide a plausible narrative for this process. Molecular biology presents a major challenge. The evolutionary appearances must be saved by all means available. Evolution is the rationale for biological coherence. Lamarckian processes could certainly be employed under the aegis of teleology. I'm skeptical about using Lamarck on the cellular scale. This would require a robust cellular intentionality, but this may ultimately be what the doctor orders. The fact that I cannot imagine such a consciousness, should not be a real obstacle. Are there suitable metaphors for molecular systems? Could there not be molecular elementals? We would end up with a molecular version of pokatok. The elementals would represent the collective intentionality of the scientists as projected onto each component. We are lacking a relational matrix. Elementals may be a version of Leibniz' monads or Descartes vortices. With or without windows?
I would like to be able to ascribe an elemental intentionality to the biological proto-cycles, as a way to jump start the biological details. Anything to avoid material atoms and aeons of evolutionary time.
With molecular biology, we have a problem similar to that posed by Berkeley's 'tree on the quad'. What prevents the tree from walking away in the middle of the night? The problem is exacerbated in the case of a person attempting to return from a sojourn through a portal.
With immaterialism, is there not the constant threat of dematerialization? I am disposed to employ the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Once the tree has been conjured, there is no good reason for it not to stay conjured. If the tree is imaginary, then why would it not bee fleeting like our imaginal images usually are? Or are they. We can commit images to a long term memory, where they may always be recalled in context, and it is not even possible to remove them from a given context. There is an inherent stability.
I would like to push the PSR into a more proactive role, as in the filling of our blind spots. In case in question, our blind spot is microbiology. The blind spot is filled in gradually and logically or reasonably in the course of our researches. The logical process of this particular filling in is context dependent to an elaborate degree, in particular it carries us back to the logic of Greek atomism and the necessities of metabolism.
A counter case might be drawn with regard to Mars, and the observations of Percival Lowell. Where did his canals come from and where did they go? Certainly the Moon played a mediating role here. Were there not similar episodes in the case of our microscopic 'discoveries'? There may have been, but they cannot ultimately withstand the pervasive logic of naturalism. The alchemists certainly had a fun time with alchemy, until the logic of chemistry gradually prevailed. Eventually all of the dots have to connect. But, with the Green Door, we are invited to step into another, presumably less natural, scheme of logic. My question entails the problem of stepping back through the door. How does the inter-logic function? Those two dots are not easy to connect. There must, however, be a path of minimal disturbance of the two logics. Separation between realms is unnatural, it requires artifice.
Another meeting is in the offing. My concern now is with the reticence. Do we understand the reason for it? Is it permanent or is there a sunset provision? Where did Jimmy Carter sit with this? What about Dick D'Amato? Is there no money trail? Yellow book? Eschaton? Appointment? Help or hinder? Are we waiting for additional information or confirmation? And my correspondent, where does he sit? Who is responsible for reticence, or is it universal consent? Can we dismiss BJ info, unless we have a better source? That's what RD thinks. Why are we concerned with Davenport? Anything about which we are not skeptical? I can only see two justifications for reticence. The common one and mine, and they are not completely unrelated. Am I missing a possibility? Is it just embarrassment? We think that is why the AF covered for RD? Covering misdeeds and/or incompetence. That would not explain universality. Bill thinks that AID was involved. Funny stuff in Brazil. Even if it was all disinfo, there still have to be reasons. Is there no problem with materialism? Could it not become a crisis? Might it not relate to other crises? Has everyone done due diligence on all these matters? Why did we change our mind about RD & GN? How can I help? What about Israel & Iran? Oil reserves? Any trend in popular sentiment? Popular desire to let this dog sleep? Just the occasional titillation? Will this remain a political issue? Do we decide it?