ADORE115 (fwd)

Homer Wilson Smith HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Wed Apr 19 06:56:01 EDT 2017


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

      WHERE DID THE PROOF COME FROM?

CB Willis (cbwillis at adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Homer Wilson Smith (homer at lightlink.com) wrote:
>>     Now I knew I could not prove I was not dreaming (sleep dreaming)
>>at any single moment of time, but it didn't seem reasonable that the
>>world it self was a dream, until I saw that *SPACE* was an illusion.
>>Once I saw that, then it all made sense and shortly thereafter, along
>>with a lot of visionary experiences, The Proof came forward.

>How did it occur to you that space is an illusion, what do you mean by
>that, what else can you say about this?

      Well I had had lots of dreams where I thought I was awake, only to
find out I was dreaming when I woke up.  Then I woke up again.  Then
again.  I did that 7 levels once.

      When I am in dreams, I often think "hey is this a dream?" and
conclude no.  Then I 'wake up' and go "OH Christ it was a dream what a
dupe, thank God I am awake now." Then I wake up again.

      Other times I know I am dreaming cuz I can remember what the waking
state is like.  But I have a number of waking states that all seem valid
when I am in them, even though they are very different, and if I get
into one of those, I conclude I am wake even though I am still sleeping.

      Since I lucid dream almost every night, these kinds of shenanigans
go on all the time.  After a while the whole idea of 'is this the real
waking state' becomes meaningless, as what is going on in front of me is
just as real as any other state, girls are warm and sexy, bugs bite,
demons are impossible to fend off (without NOTS), you name it.

      So it became clear to me that conscious pictures of space, time,
matter and energy were not in themselves evidence of an external
material universe.

      Just because we SEE space, doesn't there IS space, as the seeing of
space itself does not take up any space, because it did you wouldn't
be able to see it!  :)

      The fact that you can see your conscious renditions of space and
color form around you means there is no distance between seer and seen.

      http://www.lightlink.com/theproof

      So anyhow,

      I mean I have a dream of a piano, and I sit down and play it, then
poof I wake up, what happened to the piano in my dream?

      The goofballs, er I mean meatballs would claim it was just a mental
image picture, a referent to nothing actual.  Just as we can mockup a
piano while we are awake, there is no MATERIAL creation during such a
mockup, it is 'in our minds eye only'.

      You see to the meatball, conscious experiences are NOTHING,
and implied matter, energy, space and time are SOMETHING.

      I can see all the pianos I want 'out there' in my minds eye, but no
scientific instrument would ever pick up actual matter in the physical
universe out there, because the image in my mind's eye is not the same
as a real piano out there and can not create such, in their view.

      The Scientists know this, they know we only see our own conscious
color forms and we then use them as a symbol to refer to the implied
external universe which we can never see directly.  They know that the
external universe is only a theory to explain the consistency and
existence of our conscious experiences.

      But I saw I had no evidence of the 'actual' piano even when I was
awake, and that in fact I couldn't actually prove to myself I was awake
and not in a sleep dream.

      The theory I was playing with was that mental mockups were being
projected into space even while awake and thus the world was a dream
state just like dreaming, except there were other co dreamers also
projecting into the same space I was.

      But I still considered the SPACE real, because I couldn't concieve
of a zero dimensional actuality.  So existence had to have at least 3 or
more dimensions, so space had to be actual even if the pictures of MEST
projected into it were 'mere' mental mockups.

      When I finally saw that actuality was zero dimensional and that
space was a holographic projection also, then it all became possible to
me.

      Then I saw that all beings were on the same 'spot', each looking
'outward' into their own version of virtual reality, but since we were
all connected 'inside between us', we could create links amongst us so
that when I moved my version of the ball, your version moved also.

      That way we could create the illusion of space between us and that
there was in fact only one real ball that we were both looking at from
different viewpoints.

      Hubbard said somewhere long since erased from his writings

      "People think they are looking at the same object from different
viewpoints, when in fact they are looking at different objects from the
same viewpoint."

      Its like a bunch of players sitting at their play stations playing
star trek over the net.  The Enterprise you see and the one I see are
two different projections on two different screens, yours and mine, but
the central computer (Source) that links the two of us allows us to
pretend that we are both looking at the same space ship.  When it blows
up, it blows up for both of us.  That's called a link, more technically
a resonant link, because our two dreams are resonating with each other
to a point where they are locked on to each other, a change in one
becomes instantly a change in the other.

      The difference with the real world is that all the players are
facets of the One Great Multi I AM being called the AllThatIs, which
exists in a zero dimensional scalar non space/time so there is no
dimensional separation between players at all.  The dimensional
separation that exists, exists only in their virtual view screens that
look into the virtual world of holographic projected dimensional
space/time.

      Life is a Holodeck.

      Then I spent a long time studying all the 'evidence' and reasons
why I had bought into the idea that the alleged external universe was
actual.  I saw one by one that all my reasons were false, false
'certainties' so to speak, they were more convictions based on terror,
impact, and emotional preposterousness that the world was a dream.  Why
would God create me in a dream state and not let me know about it?  It
was just too cruel etc.

      Finally I came across perfect certainties, those that can't be
wrong.  From this I saw all other things as mere 'bets', not certainties
but probabilities, and most of them pretty poor.  Once I had gathered
together all my perfect certainties, and threw out all the bets no
matter how much I liked them, I was left at the perfect 50/50 mark of
not knowing if the world was a dream or not.

      I Knew I existed, and I knew my dream existed.  That was it.

     I AM.
     I WANT.
     I KNOW.
     I DO.
     I GIVE A DAMN.

      Doing = Wanting + Knowing

      One computes what to do from what one wants and what one knows
about how to get what one wants.

      When one is Sovereign at the top of the tone scale, Wanting IS
getting.

      Lower down one must DO in order to get, according to the rules laid
out.

      From there my mind was open enough to start having lots of
visionary dream experiences both awake and asleep that made it more and
more unlikely that the physical universe existed and I was made of it.

      I became very sure that the world was a spiritual place, that we
exist before after and all around our present time, that divinity is
quite real and quite different than human.

      The reason that Divinity is Omni Numinous is because every time it
talks to you it sends an Angel AND a Devil, it can't do just one, and
that this whole 'I am a machine made of ball bearings' is quite absurd.

      Machine: Any system of parts interacting via cause and effect
across a space/time distance.

      While studying the mathematics of machines I came across two rather
important theorems.

      The first is the Media Independence theorem which states that any
machine 'function' can be implemented in any machine media.  Thus you
have clocks for example that can be made of wheels and springs, or
spinning stars, batteries and circuits, chemicals, or even sub atomics.

      A clock has an energy source, an escapement mechanism and a display
that shows the accumulated escapements (time going by).  The Media
Independence theorem then says that it doesn't matter what media you
implement these three things in, the clock will do its function.

      There may be *PRACTICAL* limits to what one can do, but not
theoretical limits.

      Thus one could build an electric circuit that matched the function
of a neuron.  One could even do it with roller balls and springs if one
wanted to, it would be big and slow and clunky, but it would work.

      Once you built such an neuron analogue you could hook them all
togther in the same way the brain was hooked together, and get a working
brain.

      *IF* consciousness and pain were MERELY brain function in motion,
then the created entity of electric circuits would also have
consciousness, and feel pain and be self aware etc, even if very slowly
and clunkily :).

      But here came the rub, conscious units are capable of PERFECT
certainty, not only of themselves but also of their conscious color
forms.

      In particular they can also be perfectly certain of the contained
agency in their own will and in the color forms that gave rise to
perception.  This takes a bit to get across to people, but its quite eye
opening once the being sees for sure that it can see cause.

      The CONSCIOUS UNIT CAN KNOW SELF AGENCY WITH PERFECT CERTAINTY.

      So the second theorem that came out of the study of machines was
the Machine Certainty Theorem, commonly known as The Proof.

      It states quite simply that a machine can't be certain of anything.

      Because effects do not imply cause with certainty, a machine that
can only learn by looking at effects in itself of alleged external
causes, can never know with certainty if those causes exist or not, let
alone what the nature of those causes might be.

      In other words a machine can only look at and 'sense' effects, it
can't ever see cause, particularly across a space/time distance.

      The only way to know about a cause over there is to receive an
effect here and compute back that there must be a cause out there.

      That is not direct perception of cause.

      This is learning about A (cause) by looking at B (effect).

      That is learning about cause via implication from effect.

      But any number of third parties can hook up the effects to make it
look like a cause is out there, and so mathematically it can be proven
that no series of effects can ever result in a perfect certainty about
any particular cause.

      The REASON that a machine is limited to learning about external
causes by looking at effects is because of the nature of space/time.

      Actual distance between B and A means that the only way B can learn
about A is if A causes effects in B.  If A causes no effects in B, then
B will never know that A exists.  The only learning that B can do about
A is about the effects B receives allgedly from A.  The existence of A
is mere theoretical 'compute back' on the part of B, and not a perfect
certainty born of direct perception.

      Indirect perception means B is learning about A by looking at
effects in B.  This provides evidence theory and model.

      The effects in B are evidence, the existence A is model, and the
idea that A is affecting B is the theory binding evidence and model
together.

      Direct perception means B is learning about A by looking directly
at A.  This results in a perfect certainty of the cause in A that is
affecting B.  No third party can interfere in this.

      Direct perception can not happen across a space/time distance, for
reasons best left to the web page mentioned above.

      Thus consciousness, which is self aware with perfect certainty can
not be a process happening across a space/time distance within itself.
Thus consciousness is zero dimensional.

      Thus external cause always remains a theory to a machine learning
solely by looking at effects across a space/time distance.

      The machine can't even prove that cause exists at all from merely
looking at effects, for an effect doesn't contain the data in it, that
it was caused!

      Only by looking directly at cause can one be certain of cause, but
across a distance one is limited to looking at effects, so one can not
learn with perfect certainty about cause across a distance!

      And if you can't learn with certainty about CAUSE across a
distance, you can't learn about ANYTHING across a distance, for without
cause there is no learning.

      Since all learning is the result of cause, certainty of learning
would imply certainty of cause.

      Thus no certainty of cause implies no certainy of learning.

      Thus we have 'Learning with certainty across a distance is
impossible.'

      Since the conscious unit can see various causes directly within
itself, not only its own agency in creating efforts (outgoing cause),
but in its own color forms as they result in perfectly certain
perception of them (incoming cause), the conscious unit can not be
learning ABOUT THESE PARTICULAR THINGS by looking at effects.

      This completely violates the premise that the ONLY way one can
learn across a distance is BY looking at effects here, about causes out
there, and thus the conscious unit is not learning about itself across a
distance.

      Thus the CU is zero dimensional.

      That's all very complex, but one can do a simple experiment.

      Put your arm on the table and pick it up with the other hand and
force it to move.  Did it move because it hurt, or was it forced to
move?

      Then have someone threaten the arm with a hot needle, and notice
that you move the arm, again by force.  But what moved you to move the
arm?

      Then compare the desire/pain thing that moved you, and the force
that you used to move the arm until you see that the relationship
between will and pain is similar to but not identical with the
relationship between force and mass.

       Pain 'moves' the will.
       Force moves the mass.

      Although desire and pleasure and pain 'move' or motivate the will
much as force moves an electron, motivation is more than mere push and
pull.

      One can try to simulate motivation with push and pull, but it is
quite obvious by direct comparison that motivation is not reduceable to
mere push and pull.

      Thus if we build a machine only out of parts that can push and
pull, it becomes impossible to create a machine that can motivate, with
desire and pain.

      Thus "love and pain can not of force and mass be made".

      I saw clearly that if the physical universe did exist, there would
be no way to prove it, because at all times I am perceiving the PU
through the via of my conscious color forms.  Looking at effects (my
color forms) does not prove cause, so without the ability to look at the
PU directly, it was just a theory.

      I could be certain of my effects, because consciousness is
self aware, self luminous, but I could be certain of implied
causes out in the external world.

      A poor machine can't even be certain of the effects in itself!

      So a machine is doubly damned.

      That left me with the possiblity that there was a hybrid theory,
that both the conscious unit and the physical universe were actual but
interacting.

      Occam's Razor told me to at least temporarily nuke that idea as 1.)
unprovable and 2.) too complex.

      So that left me with the conscious universe only theory, but that
presented the enormous mental task of separating out the difference
between a zero dimensional (scalar) space time, and a 0x0x0 three
dimensional point in which nothing could fit.

      The underlying actual substrate of the hologram has no dimensional
space or time, it instead has zero dimensional scalar 'space and time,'
its not linearly extended out into a dimension the way a road is, its
all one place with an 'infinite' amount of data in it.  Everywhere and
everywhen is 'here/now'.

      Its like, rather than make a 1000 by 1000 matrix with 1,000,000
little integers in each spot to represent what is going on there, create
a single scalar number with a 1,000,000 digits.

      The first is 2 dimensional and contains 1,000,000 data points, the
second is zero dimensional with one data point, but also contains just
as much data.

      However the Conscious Unit can also scan the zero dimensional
hologram in a linear fashion thus giving the illusion of a moving space
and time.

      The CU can also stop doing that in theory and 'see it all at
once', which would be pure magic.

      Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Apr 15 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB:  http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP:  ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore115.memo
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFY8kOCURT1lqxE3HERAqouAKDDov/NOFG7PJSIPCn19hdlc2QAEwCguLYE
KbWgQcWb/OAI24IDwFcvGIg=
=KxDk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l


More information about the Clear-L mailing list