Homer Wilson Smith
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Mon Mar 12 15:11:52 EDT 2018
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
OCCAM'S SHARPENING STRAP
Occam liked to follow the simplest theory first before wasting time
on more complex ones.
There is some complaint that the dreamball theory is more complex
than the meatball theory.
In truth the hybrid theory that says both the physical universe and
the conscious universe are actual and are interfaced together is clearly
a more complex one than either theory alone.
But as for the pure meatball and dreamball theories, they are
pretty much on a par with other, although the dreamball theory is richer
in possibilities as it allows the virtualization of many different kinds
of meatball universes.
The dreamball universe is also way more desirable as it allows for
eternality and time enough for love, along with virtual roller coaster
rides as wild as you could ever want including the goal to seek
spiritual death forever, something you can never win, but spend a long
time trying to get there.
The meatball theory says that consciousness is a process in the
physical universe and the brain. Without the physical universe or
brain, there is no consciousness.
The dreamball theory says the physical universe and the brain are a
process in consciousness. Without the conscious universe, there is no
brain or physical universe, nor virtual renditions of them.
The meatball theory says that the physical universe came first, and
consciousness arose out of its complexity of parts, that consciousness
is chemistry bubbling away at 98.6 Farenheit.
The dreamball theory says that consciousness came first, is in fact
eternal, and that (dreams of) the physical universe arose out of its
Effectively the dreamball theory gets rid of the physical universe
except as illusion, and the meatball theory gets rid of consciousness
except as illusion.
But we do not have a symmetry because the existence of
consciousness can not be questioned, perfect certainty is after all
perfectly self luminous.
But the existence of the physical universe can intelligently be
questioned because we can only know it through renditions of its alleged
likeness in our consciousness.
That is like trying to prove something out there exists when all
you have ever seen is a TV picture of it fed to you by an alleged video
camera out there looking at the object. How do you know there is a
video camera and not just a video tape playing?
Worse it can be stated that it is possible to prove that it is
impossible to prove the existence of the physical universe.
That's a big statement, think about it.
Images on a TV set do not prove the existence of anything rendered
in the TV screen beyond the images so rendered.
Images in consciousness do not prove the existence of anything
rendered in consciousness beyond the images themselves.
Thus we have proven that the existence of anything rendered on a TV
screen is unprovable merely from the data on the TV screen!
Just so, we can prove that the existence of anything rendered in
consciousness is unprovable merely from the data in consciousness.
BUT THAT IS ALL WE HAVE, WHAT WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF.
Therefore the existence of the physical universe is provably
Occam's Razor said follow the simplest theory that explains all the
But Occam's Sharpening Strap said don't even bother to assert or
follow theories that you can prove can never be proven.
That's a deep one and needs some thought.
Stay away from hypotheses that you can prove up front are
unprovable. That doesn't mean they are wrong, it means you can't prove
them even if they are right.
So Occam said screw it, don't even bother with provably unprovable
stuff, find something else to follow.
Man has been saying for years that the ultimate truths about
consciousness are unknowable.
The truth is that the very existence of the physical universe is
unknowable as long as we are using consciousness to know about it.
Consciousness on the other hand you can know about, with perfect
Now the guys who make a living chasing the provably unprovable,
like Scientists of the Rock, won't like this, which is in part why no
one has ever heard of Occam's Sharpening Strap.
But there is it.
There is nothing wrong with present day science, it gives us
virtual truth about a virtual reality, but it does not give us anything
about the actual truth of what creates the virtual reality.
It could though, but they would have to stop looking outward, and
start looking ATward, at their consciousness, perfect certainty, self
luminousness, and find the connection that binds us all together as one
family forever, called source or static.
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Thu Jan 28 00:11:57 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Mar 12 12:00:02 EDT 2018
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)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at mailman.lightlink.com
More information about the Clear-L