Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at
Mon Mar 6 06:06:02 EST 2017

Arthur C. Clarke 2/9                        ART MATRIX - LIGHTLINK           PO 880 Ithaca, NY 14851-0880
                                            (607) 277-0959      Voice
                                            (607) 277-8913      Fax
                                            (607) 277-5026      Modems
                                            homer at E-mail
                                            jes at   E-mail

                                            01/27/07 12:34am

     Dear Revered Sir,

     Thank you for offering to take the time to preview my work before
publishing.  This is the second of 9 parts that I will be sending to
you, as I write them.

     I am writing them specifically for you, rather than send you a
formal dissertation which would be both dry and boring.

     The formal dissertation for those that want it is at

     These letters to you however are also public knowledge and have
been shared with a small circle of friends on the internet in

     Your responses, should there be any, will be kept private unless
you direct me otherwise.  I am sure the world would love to know what
you think.

     The material in these letters is a bit haphazzard, written late at
night in desperation to communicate this material to someone who can
'get it'.

     Thus it might serve you to read all of them before trying to
comment, some of the later letters may answer your questions to earlier

     There is no need for you to respond to any of them, unless you wish
to.  Comments at the end of the presentation are of course solicited.

     If you feel others of your peers would benefit from reading these
letters you are welcome to send them onto anyone you wish, I would be

     If at any time you wish no more, just say so.



01/19/07 Saturday 04:00am EST

     Dear Sir,

     I send this letter to you with great trepidation.

     This is a difficult and physically tortuous subject, at least it
has been for me.

     I had a crystal clear dream about you the other night.

     We were trying to discuss The Proof amongst a number of people who
kept interfering like little children who can't stand their parents
talking to anyone but them.

     You were tall and healthy and good looking, and I knew I was
talking to a person of stature, while I was very unsure of myself and
didn't know where to begin.

     Where does one begin to make a fool out one's self?

     I admit that the conclusions I draw from my own work are
emotionally untenable, even to myself: they are possible, but utterly
unbelieveable.  If true, we have been so wrong about so many things,
that almost the opposite obtains on just about every matter of
importance in religion and science.

     The objective evidence is completely against me, every leaf in the
wind, every blade of grass, every basic tenent of science tells us that
consciousness is but chemistry bubbling away at 98.6, that we are multi
dimensional machines of matter, energy, space and time, and that further
truth is to be found in finding more dimensions, rather than less.

     Quantum mechanics has put uncertainty on a pedastal and proclaimed
it to be the greatest wisdom.

     And right they are for a machine.

     So we know that machines can't be certain of anything, not even
that they exist, let alone that they have changed state, but the tiny
matter that we as conscious units can be certain of some things, escapes
us in the overwhelming onslaught of evidence that we are but incipient
dust in the wind.

     We are apparently born to desire Eternality but destined to live
just long enough to know for sure that although we exist now, we will
never live again.

     Is there any greater loss?

     Have we had time enough for love?

     And into that wind, this hurricane of present day knowledge that
surrounds us, I am going to blithely proclaim that consciousness is not
a machine, not a space time process?

     That consciousness and conscious units are zero dimensional?

     Am I going to utterly ruin myself in front of the world by
proclaiming that consciousness may even be "God" in carnation?

     That He is Us, and We are Him?

     That space and time are but self luminous renderings in the non
dimensional substrate of the AllThatIs?

     It couldn't be any other way could it?

     If God were himself an eternal dimensionless consciousness, and he
made a universe out of space time and dimension, could he then make our
own consciousness's out of that same space time and dimension?

     This does not make sense to me.  If God is dimensionless
consciousness, and we are also consciousness, then not only are we
dimensionless, we are God in carnation, for I doubt consciousness could
be MADE by anyone out of anything.

     Being made is a space time dimensionfull concept.

     The best that God could do is render in his own dimensionless
substrate, self luminous visions of space and time to be perceived by
himself, individuated into the many beings that make up the High US.

     Thus I conclude, the universe is the body of God glowing in the
dark of the void.  The one caveat being that God is not the great I-AM,
God is the great WE ARE.  God is a Multi I-AM being, composed of an
infinite number of infinite souls.

     Thus there is nothing made, nothing destroyed, just a shift of
color form in His/Our experience as we proceed through time.

     The High US is thus God in carnation.

     In any case, what the proof says about God is if God and Soul are
two different objects they will never be able to know about each other
with perfect certainty.  They will forever remain a theory to each

     We have all been taught that consciousness is a function of life,
of chemistry and space time, are we ready even for a moment to consider
that life, chemistry and space time mechanics are instead a function of

     A function of the dimensionless dreaming of dimension?

     A God dreaming of what God is not?

     We are taught that consciousness exists in and arose from the
universe at large.

     Is it possible that the universe at large exists in and arose from
     Absurd isn't it?

     At best doubtful.

     At worst preposterous.




     Would it even be possible to have a dream of space time mechanics
in a non dimensional substrate?

     How can a dream of space time itself take up no space or time?

     Can a 0 dimensional actuality project 3, 4 or 11 dimensions of
holographic illusion in its own 0 dimensional fabric?

     If our experience of space time is an illusion of reality, how much
space time does that illusion take up in actuality?

     Mankind has grown up through the 4 Big Lies of the universe, and
considers that it finally has a mature view of the universe.  Certainly
a sobering one.

     The first lie was that the Earth was flat.

     The second lie was that the Earth was the center of the universe.

     The third lie is that the Earth is the only planet with life on it.

     The fourth lie is that this universe is the only universe there is.

     Is it possible that the 5th lie, yet to be understood, is that
consciousness is not chemistry?
     Not a space time gizmo?

     That one can not build a non spacetime thing (consciousness) out of
spacetime things (quarks, atoms, molecules)?

     Is it possible that Creatures are Creator in carnation?

     Prove it!  Prove it, I can hear them say.  The extraordinary claim
bears the burden of proof!

     Well some things can not be proven by us to another, they have to
be directly experienced by them selves.
     I can not prove to another that they can be certain they exist,
although I can prod them until they admit they can be.

     Talk about exhaustion...

     But anyone can prove that IF they are certain they exist, they
aren't a space time machine.

     In that one awareness of perfect certainty of self existence, they
have transcended any form of dimensional space time process whatsoever.

     Even the quantum boys who are uncertain of everything, will be
certain of that!

     This is why finding causation in the physical universe is so
hopeless, nay impossible.  One can observe the dependable followingness
between two events, but never observe the NECESSARINESS of that
followingness.  One is always left with a theory.

     When two electrons repell each other, are they cause over each

     Or is time cause over them both, by giving them room in time to
move?  If time didn't move forward, the electrons couldn't repel as they
would have no time to move in.

     Without time, would there be any cause at all in the physical
universe?  Time gives cause room to move things.

     Does movement of electrons cause time, or does time cause movement?

     Does the electron's repelling each other, CAUSE time to move?

     Or does time moving cause the electrons to repell?

     Or does the real cause merely need time in which to produce

     Does cause need time?  Does time need cause?

     Consciousness however can be directly aware of the necessariness
between its desires and its agency, and between its agency and its
actions.  Consciousness can be perfectly certain of the truth of its own
existence, perceptions, and personal agency over those desires and

     It can know it exists and is agent, and can't be wrong about it.

     I exist, I am and I know it, and there is no possibility of my
being wrong about that.

     A space time machine can not do this.

     There may be illusions of dimension, but there can not be illusions
of necessariness.  Our sense of causation, personal agency, is actual.

     Thus certainty of existence and causation lead me away from space
time mechanics into a world as yet unfathomable, incomprehensible, but
certainly dimension free.

     That is the one thing that can be said with certainty about
certainty, the process of learning with perfect certainty must be
dimension free.

     "Learning with certainty across distance is impossible."

     Distance includes space or time distance.

     For learning across a space time distance implies learning by being
an effect, and effect does not prove cause, thus learning by being an
effect can not produce learning with certainty about cause.

     One can thus conclude what we call the Machine Certainty Theorem
(The Proof), namely that a machine that learns only by being an effect
can never prove there is cause.

     If a machine can't prove it changed state, and can't prove that the
change which might have occured was caused, what can a machine prove

     The joke is absolutely everyone will agree with that last
paragraph.  What they have missed is that *THEY* CAN learn with
certainty about themselves and causation within themselves, and thus
that particular process of learning can not be across a distance, and
thus must be dimension free.

     Since all consciousness-of is certainty-of, all consciousness-of
must be dimension free.

     If you can see it, and it looks like it is out there, it does
exist, but can't be out there, because if it were out there you couldn't
see it directly!

     We are talking about conscious experiences of color in the world
around us, not the objects in the physical universe we assume they
represent, which can never be been seen at all except indirectly via

     Thus conscious color experiences exist, but their implied
'out-thereness' is an illusion.

     A machine can receive effects and change state accordingly, but it
can never see itself seeing with certainty, and it can never see what
caused those effects across a distance.

     There may be something out there, the physical universe may
actually exist as represented in our consciousness of it, but then I get
to demand "Prove It!".

     What we see, is only our conscious representation of the world out
there, our personal dream of it, and from this we assume that because we
see something that looks like it is out there, there must really be
something out there.

     We think that because we 'see space', there must BE space!

     But if The Proof is correct, our conscious representations of out
thereness ARE NOT OUT THERE, no matter how much they look like they are.
They are more a hologram of 'out there' than anything else.

     For whatever we are certain of has to be one and the same object
with what is certain of it, and the process of learning with certainty
about existence and cause has to be spaceless and timeless, and
dimension free.

     Can a dimensionfull world give rise to a dimension free phenomenon?

     Can matter, energy, space and time give rise to perfect certainty
within a conscious unit?

     If yes, then chemistry can give rise to perfect certainty, and we
may yet be dust in the wind.

     But dimension free includes TIME FREE, so we are asking of space
and time to give rise to something (consciousness) without space or
time, for either one of space or time separating two things from each
other precludes their ever knowing about each other with perfect

     If the conscious looker were truely separate from the conscious red
or green 'out there on the wall', he would never be able to see it

     What you SEE would be merely a theory not a perfect certainty.

     Can a dimension free world give rise to a dimension full world of
space and time?

     I would have to guess not, because this is too close to creating
something from nothing.  If you don't yourself have any space or time,
how are you going to create some?  Where and when are you going to put

     Can a dimension free world give rise to illusions (dreams) of a
dimensionfull world of space and time, rendered in the self luminous
light of its own dimension free self aware fabric?

     Does one ask this question publically?

     I would hate to be the guy that went down in history as the guy who
thought he was dreaming when he wasn't.  :)

     Your faithful servant,

     Homer Wilson Smith
     Jane Elizabeth Staller

Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer at    In the Line of Duty

Fri Aug 10 01:10:32 EDT 2007
05/05/16 Thursday 4:03pm EST

================ ====================
Mon Mar  6 06:06:02 EST 2017
Send mail to archive at saying help
================== ===================
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.

More information about the Clear-L mailing list