Friday, September 30, 2011

COURAGE

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


COURAGE

Standard disclaimer:

Always run this process as a GodSoul, never as a mere mortal,
because when the God stuff turns on, you won't be there to handle it,
you will be cowering in a corner crying 'Where's God when I need him!"

And don't play the prove it game, 'But I need proof that there is
something to know before I try to know it by not knowing!'

Handle fear of enforced not knowing through self determined not
knowing, not harder efforts to know.

Harder efforts to know result in hurry to make case gain, because
he ain't making any.

Trivializing this process. or throwing a fit because you can't
know at will, will break your spine in two, as forces which you should
be controlling through not know, will be released to splat all over the
place, in your efforts to know harder.

You can always not know at will, and that will chill it all out.

It is dangerous to even KNOW this process if you aren't going to
NOT KNOW IT, and run it as a fully operational GodSoul, which you are,
whether you think you are or not.

The basic process is:

"Not know something."
"Know something."

Always run the 'Not know something" first, but sync is important.

If you are not running on a meter, the only way you will know that
sync is out, is that the preclear will be bogged down in no OKs!

Simply run the existing command again, or the other command twice
in a row, back and forth until you get into sync with the preclear's
flows again. If you do not know about sync by now, you shouldn't be
running this bulletin.

This process is really easy.

You ask your preclear to 'know something'.

It can be anything, he looks around him and sees a blue book, so
now he knows the book is blue. He says OK, and that's it, next command.

Then you say "Not know something."

And your preclear goes 'Ok, well I know the book is blue, now I
will not know that!'

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO, WRONG!

That's knowing something, not not knowing something.

You do not want him to know something and then not know it, you
want him to not know something that he is already not knowing!

Have him feel the flows he is using to not know something, and do
THEM more, then when he says OK, go back to "Know something."

So your preclear complains "But I don't know if I am not knowing
anything, how can I not know something when maybe there is nothing there
that I am not knowing."

He is terrified of duplicating the not know already running his
life. Christ, he might as-is his stupid self.

Refer him to the church for auditing, he doesn't have the
prerequisite personal honesty to run the process.

If the command 'Not know something' doesn't instantly indicate to
your preclear with bells and chimes, laughter and relief, you do not
want anything to do with them.

Allow the pc to Itsa, but do not demand it, if the pc says "OK" at
the end of a command, that's fine, end of story.

None of this, 'Tell me about it', or 'Are you sure that is all?'

He can't TELL YOU ABOUT IT, because he is not knowing it, you see?

If the meter hasn't finished falling on each command, just give it
time and only start the next command when the needle starts to rise
again. You do not need a meter to run this.

A clumsy auditor, in a hurry, or running his own case, while
running this on another, can use a meter to stay in sync with the
preclear. The meter acts as a rein on the auditor.

And NEVER EVER force your preclear to answer WhatsIt?

Auditor's just always have to know whatsit, whatsit, whatsit.

You are trying to get him to NOT KNOW WhatsIt, and to not know that
he is not knowing WhatsIt. You don't do this by asking him What's It?

You get it?

He doesn't need to know whatsit to get to native state, and if he
does know whatsit momentarily, it will be so fast, he won't remember it
long enough to tell it to you, no matter how big it is. Trying to hold
on to the whatsit, so as to report to the auditor about it, will only
bog him down in making sure it doesn't appear, lest he lose it before he
he has a chance to relate it.

Sorry, poor auditor doesn't get his whatsit fix for the day.

Keep your own question asking psychoses to yourself and do not ruin
your preclears with them.

When he can feel the certainty of not knowing without wondering
about, or needing to know, what he is not knowing, he is half way there.

When he is no longer terrified out of his wits by his somatics, and
can handle them, in or out of session, when they turn on by further
running of not knowing and knowing, he will be in pretty good shape.

E/P: chilled out and able to run the remainder of this bulletin.

Go take a break, yum donuts and coffee, the rest of this is long
and very heavy.

Homer

COURAGE

I had a dream tonight. In the dream I listened to a taped lecture
by Enid Vien. This is what the lecture said.

Courage is powered by desire.

Courage is the willingness to go after something at all costs to
self, without much thought given to recovering, should one lose, as
ultimately, being able is a given.

Courage is the dividing line between:

1.) Sanity and Insanity
2.) Exterior and Interior
3.) On purpose and Off purpose
4.) Exhilaration and mere Enthusiasm

Courage is item based.

An item is what your preclear has the courage to be, do and have.

Each item has embedded within it the courage to be, do or have that
item.

Items can not exist without the foundational courage to drive them.

Courage is what reads on the meter.

A being can not want something for real without the courage to
attempt to get it.

If there is no courage, the item is not really wanted, except as a
substitute.

People think they want all kinds of things, that in fact they would
hate having if they had them.

Mock it up, mock up having what you think you want, notice the bad
taste in your mouth and the emptiness in the pit of your belly.

If what is wanted is prime and real, the courage to go for it will
be there as part of it.

It will feel as the warmth of life.

The opposite of emptiness.

No courage means no real desire for it in the first place.

Desire, courage and item form a complete package of power and
purpose.

Find your preclear's point of courage, and you will find their
point of true purpose.

Find their point of true purpose, and you will find their point of
courage.

Everything else sought after is a waste of time, and forces them,
by definition, into cowardice on the tone scale.

Cowardice means chasing what you don't want as prime purpose.

Cowardice is born of considered failure on prime purpose and IS the
effort to shift to a substitute.

Courage means true purpose.

True purpose means courage.

Cowardice means off purpose, someone else's purpose, substitute
purpose.

Off purpose means cowardice.

It can't be any other way.

True purposes are the items of GPMS.

GPM means Goals Problem Mass.

They float above time so your preclear is taking them everywhere he
goes. He can't escape them by moving ahead in time.

GPMS form the archetypical design of the game.

GPMS define what is worth a while and what is not.

GPMS are your preclear's raison d'etre, reason to be, do and have.

GPMS are items bound together with desire and courage, which
creates power, motion, flow towards action at Spirit of Play on the tone scale.

Spirit of play doesn't care about winning or losing, Spirit of Play
only wants to PLAY.

Spirit of play only cares to give the other side a run for their
money that they will NEVER forget even if it loses.

Spirit of Play will do ANYTHING to play.

Trying to win it will, but what really pisses it off is not being
able to play any more.

If a GPM is implanted, then the courage that goes with its items
will be implanted too.

If the GPM is his own, then his courage will be his own also.

If the GPM items are suppressed, then his courage will be
suppressed too.

Without courage he will be afraid to get out, and will live a life
of purposelessness, of tooling around in secondary Q&A, substitutes.

In this sense Q&A (Question and Answer) means starting out for A,
getting stopped and saying "Ah well, I think I will go to B instead,
didn't really want to go to A anyhow."

Q&A is endless cycles of sour grapes, the fox that couldn't reach
the ripe grapes, gave up in dismay and said he didn't want them anyhow,
and pretty soon you find the person not going to A, B or C but parked at
Z, saying "Who me? I was born here, and never had a desire to leave."

That's spelled COWARDICE.

Cowardice is not cause, postulates and considerations are cause.

Cowardice is merely the color energy the being uses to continue in
an off prime direction, replete with gaping wounds and overt and covert
pleas for sympathy, for help to 'show him the way'.

"Well, it ain't this way bud", you turn him around and show him the
direction where he WAS going that would heal anything.

A secondary substitute purpose is saying "Well, I didn't make it
being a doctor, so I am going to be a garbage man instead."

Fortunately the world needs 7 am garbage men, so the ploy works.

The dwindling spiral consists of endless layers of secondary
substitutes piling on top of an original primary purpose in a high state
of failure, pretending it will succeed by doing something else.

It takes great courage to travel the road of cowardice for there is
only darkness and doom up ahead that NO ONE can confront.

How can you get to A by going to B?

How can you get to A by STAYING at Z?

Cowardice is doing something else, and doing something else is
always powered by cowardice.

"There may be such a thing as Courage, but there is no such thing
as sanity totally opposed." - LRH

Suppressed GPM items can not be run by asking questions.

It is not possible to run "What is it?" and run not know at the
same time.

GPM items have been NOT KNOWN. You need to run off the not know
before the knowingness of what they are will come back.

The power of GPMS is running him. Standing aside and trying to
divine what they are, is like trying to see your gas tank in a car going
300 miles an hour. Forget the gas tank, just GO.

If he can't GO, then get him to NOT GO, but for heaven's sake do
not get him squirreled around looking for the gas tank or a road map.

Have your preclear get the idea of asking a question with all his
might, and then refusing the answer with all his might on the same item
at the same time.

If he is doing that, have him spot it and run it out, such activity
must not be a part of his survival repertoire.

Physical isometrics make the body strong, but mental isometrics
make the spirit insane.

Exerting the effort to ask "What is it?" runs the item in, and
creates intractable somatics, that not even suicide will end, as being's
take their somatics with them when they die.

His after life, whether good or bad, is a kind of somatic, a heaven
or hell, arising from the GPMS he is involved in.

Heavens are winning, hells are losing.

After life heavens and hells can be run out before death or after,
at which point the being is free to be reborn again or not on his own
determinism.

If these heavens and hells are not fully run out, either during the
life or after, your preclear will dramatize both for a while, and then
get reborn again anyhow on one of the flows still operating.

It other words he will be coming in on a heaven flow or a hell
flow.

In either case they will continue to alternate during his life, and
after until if and when they are all run clear.

Without clearing, the being builds up endless layers of heaven and
hell flows, none of which ever reach closure.

His eventual fate, too horrible to imagine, is something like a 9
to 5 Phd at Cornell.

If you are wondering, a clear probably would not choose to be
reborn in ignorance again, but he might :)

GPM somatics are not a body thing.

Courage and cowardice are not mortal issues, they are immortal
issues, as the being, pretending to be a mortal body, is already
drowning in a sea of glue made of cowardice and self deceit, hanging on
to his drift wood of secondary substitutes.

Exerting the effort to not know for a while, runs the not-isness on
the item out, and the item will appear in its own good time, at which
point your preclear can run with it again, and then be done with it
according to his free choice at the time.

You gotta get his car running on its track again, like it was
before he got into trouble, before he can bring it to a controlled stop.

After a long time of suppression, that GPM is going to want to GO
when it sees the light of day again, you get the picture?

CHASE

There is some attraction to being fairchosenly nuts in a time
stream chasing after pretty girls or some such thing.

If he wants it, why chase after it, why not just have it?

You see that's SPIRIT OF PLAY coming into it, Spirit of Play wants
to PLAY more than it wants to have the wiener that it wins, if it does,
at the end.

CHASING the pretty girl, well that's fun, but HAVING a pretty girl?

Just make sure you have a prenup handy.

Spirit of Play enjoys defeat as much as it enjoys triumph, as long
as it made the other side wonder, and it will try to optimize its games
so that it gets equal amounts of both winning and losing with LOTS of
play in between.

Short games, easily won or easily lost, are anathema to Spirit of
Play.

Spirit of Play would play forever and never win or lose if it could.
It dreams of the endless volley but may push it to a win or a lose once in
a while in order to start a new one.

AUDITING

As far as auditing is concerned ignorance (not know for a while) is
bliss.

Wouldn't it be great if you could know anything just by not knowing
it INTENTIONALLY for a while?

Do you know how many questions you have left in total failure on
your whole track, never daring to not know them even for a moment, lest
you waste precious time, when you could be trying harder to answer them?

It's that suck in, wanting to know, that keeps the whole track
caved in on you, and the key to the whole shebang is the ability and
willingness to not know for while every single one of those questions,
until you know again, and can dispense with them all.

THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS NOT IMPORTANT.

THE ABILITY TO STOP ASKING THE QUESTION UNTIL THE ANSWER REAPPEARS,
IS.

Beings think that if they give up trying to know the answers to
questions, they will forget them and never come back to them.

And as they thought, so it became.

If they had thought instead that if they forgot their questions and
let them be, the answers would all appear in their own good time, they
would have all the answers they ever wanted, and wouldn't have a whole
track bank glued to their faces still trying to know.

Even though people forgot their questions, they did so in FAILURE
AND APATHY, rather than expectation of knowing, and THEY ARE STILL
TRYING TO KNOW them.

The efforts to answer forgotten questions never go away, they get
converted into efforts to play basket ball, drink beer, or some other
substitute.

The guy picks up a fork to stick a piece of meat in his mouth,
that's an effort he once used long ago to answer a question that didn't
work. He is no longer aware of the question, but he's doing the effort
in present time on a substitute.

That's why when a being is off purpose, pretending he is on
purpose, EVERYTHING he is doing is a substitute, and thus everything
hurts and he feels lower at the end of the day, more empty, more
useless, more dead.

Once the being got the idea he had to know RIGHT NOW to survive, he
was doomed.

The truth was he had to be able to NOT KNOW for a while to survive.

Ultimate eternal survival results from total as-isness, which
results from running out all the alter-isness off of things, the FALSE
KNOWING AND THE PRETENDING TO NEED TO KNOW MORE.

But that can only happen after the NOT-ISNESS and pretending there
is nothing to know is run out.

As you run not know, the somatics will abate, your body will feel
better, your energy and courage will begin to return based on the
ABSENCE of dramatizing TRYING TO KNOW, acting along secondary
substitutes, and the pain of cowardice, and THEN the correct item will
appear.

Running not-know creates a small temporary native state while the
suppression blows off and runs out.

Native state feels good, certainly better than flaming hells
forever powered by false knowing and stupid question asking.

Stupidity is defined as ENFORCED unknowness of exact consideration.

When a person thinks he knows but doesn't, that's what glues in his
stupidity. His continued thought that he knows, continues the
enforcement on his not knowing.

One audits stupidity by running NOT KNOW on all the stupid things
he thinks he knows no matter how bright he thinks they are.

When the not know is gone and he comes back to the prime original
consideration on any problem, he won't be stupid any more, but neither
will that knowingness persist because it will be a true as-isness,
resulting in a true not know of native state a moment later.

Native state is FAIR CHOSEN not knowing.

Spiritual death is ENFORCED not knowing.

Native state knows it is not knowing because there is nothing there
to know.

Spiritual death is trying to know because it there is nothing
being not known.

All aberration is ENFORCED native state.

Enforced native state means the being has chosen to know something,
then chose to not know it, but continues to think he has to know it to
survive but now somehow can't.

He is too busy trying to know, rather than trying to not know
again.

Thus the knowing that he created gets stuck on, but remains
unknowable, because he continues to try to know it through the not know
he placed over it, rather than duplicate the not know and let the not
know vanish on its own.

Persistence of not know is caused by refusal to take responsibility
for, and to reoperate the not knowing, and trying to know instead.

Hells forever are the result of trying to KNOW to escape an
ENFORCED not knowing.

Reengaging FAIR CHOSEN not know, consciously and actively, for a
while, reengages native state which vanishes all things including the
false and enforced not know made of force, effort, and black mass that
has been laid down on a being's GPM items, to cover them up, and to make
them 'never have been.'

Your preclear has been seeking his items for EVER, the quest for
peace grows old. He knows something is up, he knows he is wrong, but he
would never admit it, he wouldn't dare, he knows he would never live it
down should it all come to light.

The MECHANISM of descent escapes him, and yet only in that
mechanism is his pride retained.

Thus only in restoring awareness of that mechanism does one restore
him to operating pride.

"Pegasus had wings of pride, eternal omni operating pride."

Your preclear has flown pegasus to where he is now, and then forgot
his horse, his true self, even existed.

So during auditing, his items start to appear for the first time in
forever, and you have him say, "Nope not now, in a while, I am going to
have some tea."

As long as your preclear's intent is only for a while, and NOT
FOREVER, the whiles will become shorter and shorter between reeruption,
reascension of his item from the underground. And once the whiles
finally allow it to surface it will be soft and comfortable and
FRIENDLY, his upset with HIMSELF will end, as all the pressure and
enragement from 'who did this to me?' will have been let off during
their prior repeated conscious refusals for a while.

HE DID IT TO HIMSELF VIA NOT KNOW, THEN PRETENDED 'HE HAD NOTHING
TO DO WITH THE NOT KNOW.'

The item will not arise if the pc has the slightest doubt about his
involvement in who did what to whom. He did it to himself. Running not
know gets him back into the sovereign seat of creating not know, THEN
once he KNOWS the not know is his own, he will be willing to know WHAT
he not knew, the item, again.

He will never get rid of the somatics by trying to find the item by
question asking, or looking harder, or God save him, looking for proof
that he not knew the item himself, before he tries to duplicate the not
know.

He doesn't have to believe or have faith that he not knew the item
himself, all he has to do is PRETEND THAT MAYBE HE DID OR COULD NOT KNOW
IT NOW IN PRESENT TIME.

Once he is doing the not know himself in present time and knows it,
it doesn't matter who originally did it or not.

He will find the item by chilling out the somatics, by
redramatizing not know for a while against it, intentionally and without
attitude.

Somatics are caused by breaking the not-know forever too fast and
with out responsibility for having laid it down in the first place.

Somatics are caused by trying to rip the lid off of Pandora's Box.

The proper way is to close it again by sitting on it until the
latch clears, then SLOWLY stand up and letting everything crawl out free
and clear.

Your preclear has used (hired and payed) BT's and clusters to help
him lay down the not know and keep it in place with out his own effort
or attention any more. They balk at a sudden change in direction and
create backflow and pain.

The same would happen with out the BT's/Clusters helping him but
the kickback would not be as serious.

As it is, he has used the power of hundreds of trillions of other
beings closely packed into his own space to help him remain comatose and
oblivious to his and their own IMMORTAL true purposes and failures in
life. They and he need to be woken up SLOWLY.

You wake up a BT/Cluster/Self by maintaining and putting it back to
sleep consciously for a while and then letting off on the intent to
sleep a little at a time, over days, weeks, months.

Sleep doesn't only mean unconscious, it can also mean conscious but
oblivious. Some are unconscious, some are quite conscious but utterly
utterly utterly oblivious.

Kind of like that PhD we were talking about.

Thus the ability to create or maintain unconsciousness and
oblivion, FOR A WHILE, in self and others, are important auditing
survival tools.

Persistence consists of a stack that looks like this:

Native State
As-isness
Alter-isness
Is-ness
Not-isness

As-isness is prime creation without persistence.

Alter-isness alters the prime creation into a persisting Is-ness.
This is what you see and know about.

Not-isness covers the Is-ness in black, in a false effort to vanish
it.

Aberration is the effort to vanish unwanted is-ness via not-isness
rather than as-isness.

Auditing is the process of bringing your preclear out of a state of
not-isness (unconsciousness and oblivion) on his own true items.

Duplicating the not-isness (by making more of it), as-ises the
not-isness, revealing the persisting is-ness underneath.

Duplicating the alter-isness (by making more of it) on the
persisting is-ness, as-ises the alter-isness revealing the prime
as-isness underneath.

Letting go of the prime as-isness results in total vanishment as if
none of it had ever been.

Thus auditing out not-know results via facility in creating more
not-know, not by trying to know.

The result of facility with not-know is knowing, and then
vanishment leading to native state which is true not know.

The result of trying to know in the face of not-knowing, is
continued not knowing with endless somatics.

You can not as-is not knowing with knowing. You can only as-is not
knowing with not knowing.

If you make an apple and you want to vanish it, you need to
duplicate MAKING THE APPLE.

If you make some not-isness and you want to vanish it, you need to
duplicate MAKING THE NOT ISNESS.

Get this and don't leave it.

The effort to know in the face of not knowing, will break your
spine and leave you in hell forever. Just don't do it, let your worst
enemies do it.

For a while :)

On your enemies run:

"Can you hurry up and try hard to remember something?"

On your friends run:

"Not know something!"

Question asking is the effort to know, the effort to wake everyone
up at once, its like a loud alarm clock going off when you have not had
enough sleep.

And it rips the body to pieces from the inside out, and the more he
asks 'Why?' or "What is causing this?", the worse it gets.

ASKING 100 MILLION YEAR OLD QUESTIONS IS CAUSING IT, AND ASKING
MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS CAUSING IT, WILL CAUSE IT MORE.

The answer is to not know intentionally and for a while, until the
truth appears in its own good time.

But you have to not know with the intent to find out, to resolve,
not with the intent to forget forever.

Resignation is acceptance with expectation of failure.

As-isness is acceptance (for a while) with expectation of vanishment.

Thus one should not know with expectation of vanishment of not
know.

The original intent was to not know FOREVER (in time), to pretend a
faux native state non existence using effort, force, covering in black
and not-isness.

Native State is a jealous God, only true native state is forever
and that's outside of time.

The curative intent is to not know for a WHILE, allowing the false
intent to not know FOREVER to run out as deadly silliness.

If you postulate a forever in time, that is exactly what you get,
in time forever. (As long as you keep postulating that way.)

Is that really what you want?

As for your preclear, if there is still pain in his space, he is
still trying to solve a not know forever, by trying to know, rather than
not know again for a while.

He originally put a billion tons of force into not knowing, and
intended that it be that way forever, so he mustn't dilettante around
with this process or it will turn on more pain than he can imagine.

I been there, I kid you not. The last scream of a being dying in
pain is "Why?"

The primary not know of the mortal is that they are indeed immortal
and dreaming and detest it, and beyond that eternal and asleep.

How much not know does that take?

How many GPMs, how many items, how many life times, how many
questions, how much hysteria, shock, catatonia, and oblivion, must he be
not knowing to maintain this delusion that he lives once and dies once
and that's it bud.

How much responsibility for his own condition does he have to
package up and flush out the tubes to get that deluded anyhow?

And you are going to audit him?

If he can be gotten to muster up that much not knowing,
intentionally and FOR A WHILE, he will smooth it all out, it will become
well behaved, his BT/Clusters will sigh a breath of relief that is
palpable, that he can feel, and they will cooperate fully in releasing
it all, in its own good time, powered by the intent to surface by not
knowing for a while.

Your preclear is an eternal spirit crucified on the cross of
immortality, and buried alive in the ground of mortality.

Self auditing is asking 'What is wrong with me' until dead.

Who, how, what, where, when, why, and which, are nails in the
coffin.

Was it, Has it, Is it, Will it, Can it, Could it, Should it, Would
it are the ropes that lower the coffin into the grave.

Am I, Are we, Are they, and all the rest of the questions on Earth
are the worms that crawl around his eternal spirit in the darkness
forever for free.

Self auditing can be cured with,

"Spot the effort to think and not think about the same subject at
the same time."

E/P: Run to "Oh Phooey with that!"

Solo auditing is "Well I feel some volcano wants to blow its lid
here, I think I will go have some tea."

Getting into the tea puts the lid back on the volcano purposefully,
intentionally, volitionally, consciously and FOR A WHILE.

No tea?

Run,

"Spot NO courage." (NO means pretended no, not-isness on courage.)
"Spot SOME courage."

Run it back and forth, get the rhythm, get the sync, and the
volcano will chill out and pop the next item on the stack in its own
good time for your viewing pleasure and endless relief.

And Christ, get an auditor already will you?

"Spot NO fear.
"Spot SOME fear."

E/P: knows what he is afraid of, worst and best life and death,
and can make it come up and deal with it as it comes up.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Sep 30 18:37:26 EDT 2011
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore876.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFOhkSmURT1lqxE3HERAoy6AKCkdnEW6OCVTma5XSzNlWZG3do/RQCfQ/WG
hLR76AeaMrSkcWt89Vz1DCg=
=Z59+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

Thursday, September 29, 2011

ADORE863 (fwd)

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


In alt.clearing.technology Roger Larsson <roger.larsson@live.com> wrote:
> If the universe we lives in is located in Gods asshole it's not all
> safe to speak low about him as it is in Hubbards and scientologys
> cases. It can't be so fun to be awashed by the flood.

This comment seems to indicate a belief that God MADE us, that we
are not God itself in carnation, and thus we need to fear God and thus
dare not speak freely against the sin of separationism.

Separationism teaches us, there was God, then God created the
universe which was not God, and then create us who are not God, and then
dumped us into the universe to be tested for his own approval.

The truth is that the soul is the co eternal active part of God,
that God is a multi I-AM being, and each I-AM can at its own sole
discretion incarnate with other I-AM's into a game for its own fun and
pleasure.

Thus all there is of God in any particular universe are the
souls that have incarnated into that universe, either as physical
players or higher plane players.

In this state we call God the High US, to remind us that God is a
MULTI I-AM being, it is both a one AND a many. The one is the subtrate
that connects us that we all share in common and allows us to share
dreams, and the many are the eternally individual souls who enjoy
dreaming together once in a while.

The universe is a color form glow in the dark image created in the
body of each soul called its consciousness, it has no other external
actuality. In other words the soul descends from the static of non
manifestation into the dream time of the kinetic, rendered as a color
form display only in each soul's consciousness.

Homer

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun May 1 14:28:12 EDT 2011

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Sep 29 03:06:02 EDT 2011
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore863.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFOhBjaURT1lqxE3HERArwHAJ4t3ohwYuFIAmo+Upd7mgznAi2JQACfa4Sb
MeUOL5fzpJkvdOnRoynIDro=
=2ifA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

INTRO TO LOGIC

INTRO TO LOGIC

Here follows the first broad public issue of the Machine
Certainty Theorem (MCT).

There are two fundamental aspects to any theorem or proof, the
LOGICAL FORM, and the CONTENT.

The logical form can be expressed with out the content by
replacing the various words and phrases in the proof with variables
that have no meaning. This allows the logical form of the proof to be
studied independent of its actual application.

Once the logical form is verified, then the variables can be
replaced by the meanings they stand for, and application of the proof
with its content can be studied independent of its logical form.

Any proof has at least three parts. The ASSUMPTIONS, the LOGIC,
and the CONCLUSION.

The logical form of the proof consists of all three parts in
abstract variable form, as described above. The content of the proof
also consists of all three parts in the concrete form where all
variables are replaced by their intended meanings.

The Machine Certainty Theorem states that a space-time machine
can't be certain of anything, yet a Conscious Unit can, therefore a
Conscious Unit is not a space-time machine.

Before I get on with the formal presentation of the Machine
Certainty Theory, I would like to provide a small sample proof to
explain the various parts of what you are about to see to those who
have little training in formal logic.

In this case I will work backwards from an actual argument in
concrete CONTENT FORM, to its abstract LOGICAL FORM so that you can
see how the process will be reversed when we get to the actual proof.

Consider the following argument.

1. Joe is a Christian.
2. All Christians believe in Hell.
3. Therefore, Joe believes in Hell.
Q.E.D.

Q.E.D is Latin for Quite Easily Done, this is placed at the end
of the proof to demark where the proof ends and that the conclusion
has been proved. (Actually QED stands for Quod Erat Demonstramdum,
'that which was to be demonstrated'.)

All proofs contain three parts, the ASSUMPTIONS, the LOGIC and
the CONCLUSION. The conclusion is true if and only if the assumptions
are true AND the logic is valid. If either the assumptions are false
or the logic is invalid, then the conclusion may be false (it could
still be true though, you don't know.)

For example, it is clear from the argument above, that if Joe is
not a Christian, or if some Christians don't believe in Hell, then the
conclusion that Joe necessarily believes in Hell becomes
indeterminate, he may or may not.

A properly presented proof would show all three parts,
assumptions, logic, and conclusion, clearly marked so that no
confusion could result.

The purpose of first presenting the proof in logic form devoid of
meaningful content is to verify or validate the LOGIC part of the
proof.

Once that is accomplished, then the proof must be presented for a
second time in CONTENT form, so that the assumptions and conclusion
can first be UNDERSTOOD and then their truth verified or argued. One
first verifies each of the assumptions in turn. If all of the
assumptions check out to be true, then the conclusion must be true if
the logic is also valid.

One then looks to see if the conclusion actually fits with
actuality. If it does you are finished for the moment. If it turns
out the conclusion is observably false, then either the logic was
invalid or one or more of the assumptions was false.

In the above example, there are two assumptions.

1. Joe is a Christian.
2. All Christians believe in Hell.

There is one conclusion,

3. Joe believes in Hell.

Normally in a more complex proof there would be more statements
inbetween 2 and 3 which would be partial conclusions on the way to the
final conclusion, but in this case the logic is so simple we go
directly from lines 1 and 2 to line 3 with a logical form called Modus
Ponens.

Modus Ponens is a fancy Latin phrase meaning 'If A implies B, and
A is true, then B is true too.' (Actually Modus Ponens means 'Mode
that affirms')

For example, 'If being a dog implies being an animal, and Joey is
a Dog, then Joey is an animal.

Modus Ponens can be compared to Modus Tolens, another fancy Latin
phrase meaning 'If A implies B and B is false, then A is false.'
(Actually Modus Tolens means 'mode that denies'.)

For example, "If being a dog implies being an animal, and Jane is
not an animal, then Jane is not a dog."

1. "Joe is a Christian" can be symbolized as "J -> C" which says
"If it's Joe, then it's a Christian", or "Being Joe implies being a
Christian", or more simply, "Joe implies Christian".

2. "All Christians believe in Hell" can be symbolized as "C ->
H" which says, "If it's a Christian then it believes in Hell", or
"Being a Christian implies Believing in Hell", or just "Christian
implies Hell".

3. "Joe believes in Hell" can be symbolized as "J -> H" which
says, "If it's Joe, then it believes in Hell" or "Being Joe implies
Believing in Hell", or "Joe implies Hell".

We can thus symbolize the entire argument as follows, and this is
its logical form.

We explain each part in the section below the proof.

************************************************************************

LOGICAL FORM OF THE PROOF

1. J -> C (Being Joe implies being Christian)
2. C -> H (Being Christian implies Believing in Hell)

(1,2)[A] 3. J -> H (Being Joe implies Believing in Hell)

Q.E.D

(M.P.) A. (A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)

************************************************************************

In the above example there are two assumptions, lines 1 and 2,
and one conclusion, line 3.

The '(1,2)[A]' to the left of line 3 denotes that line 3 was
derived from lines 1 and 2 using Logical Form A which is shown at the
bottom below the proof below the Q.E.D. The particular Logical Form
in this case is Modus Ponens, which is denoted by (M.P.) to the left
of the same line.

Not all logical forms have formal names, and if not, the name or
its abbreviation is left out.

So how does one go about checking this proof out?

1.) Well the first thing that needs to be done is to check out
and verify all the Logical Forms shown below the Q.E.D, as these are
the extracted GENERALIZED statements of the LOGIC part of the proof
that gets you from the assumptions to the conclusion.

2.) The next thing to do is to familiarize yourself with the
assumptions and the conclusion.

3.) The next thing to do is to verify each step between the
assumptions and the conclusion to see that indeed the GENERAL Logical
Forms stated below Q.E.D are used correctly in their SPECIFIC
application to each step of the proof between the assumptions and the
conclusion.

The GENERAL Logical Forms will usually be stated in generic
variables like A, B and C which have nothing to do with the proof.

The assumptions and the conclusion and the SPECIFIC USES of the
general Logical Forms will usually be stated in letters that relate to
their content, such as J, C and H (Joe, Christian and Hell).

Thus one needs to be able to see that the SPECIFIC use of a
particular Logical Form parallels the GENERAL use of the same form to
know that the general form has been used correctly.

For example,

GENERAL ((A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)
SPECIFIC ((J -> C) and (C -> H)) -> (J -> H)

Where ever there is an A in the general form there had better be
a J in the specific form. Where ever there is a B in the general form
there had better be an C in the specific form. And where ever there
is a C in the general form there had better be an H in the specific
form.

Don't get the C in the GENERAL form confused with the C in the
SPECIFIC form. They are unrelated and are the same letter only by
coincidence. In the general form the C doesn't stand for anything, it
is merely a place holder. In the specific form the C stands for
Christian and corresponds to the PLACE HOLDER B in the general form!

Now at this point it should be possible to say with perfect
certainty that the proof is either logically valid or not.

There is no such thing as an uncertain proof. Either it is valid
or it is not valid. This can be determined with perfect certainty
before anything else is known about the meaning of the variables in
the proof.

Remember though that just because a proof has been proven valid,
this does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily true. This
would also depend on the assumptions being true, and determining the
truth of the assumptions, not the validity of the logic, comprises the
main body of work in verifying the conclusion of a proof.

Verifying the validity of the logic of the proof is the first and
easiest step and by this time in the analysis should be satisfactorily
completed.

So that was a lot of work, no? But, as I said, we are not done
yet.

Once the logic form of the proof has been verified completely as
we have just done, you next need to verify the CONTENT form of the
proof.

This is done by replacing each specific variable in the proof
with its English equivalent so that you can see what each of the
assumptions and the conclusion actually say.

This is done first by providing a little table that shows what
each variable means, like so.

J = Joe
C = Christian
H = Hell

Then you plug them in and you get the following.

************************************************************************

CONTENT FORM OF THE PROOF

J = Joe
C = Christian
H = Hell

1. Joe -> Christian
2. Christian -> Hell

(1,2)[A] 3. Joe -> Hell

Q.E.D

(M.P.) A. ((A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)

************************************************************************

This provides a rather sparse and pared down version of what the
proof is about, but it serves to convey the meaning of each of the
lines.

The last step would be to take up each line of the proof and
expand it into a grammatically correct full English sentence and
discuss it at length.

Discussion of the assumptions would involve not only their
meaning, but also evidence that they are true.

In general there are 4 kinds of assumptions.

1.) Logical Tautologies.
2.) Definitions
3.) Observations
4.) Intuitions

LOGICAL TAUTOLOGIES are always true because of their inherent
logical structure. An example of a logical tautology would be,

1.) Christian or not Christian

A full english expansion of this might be,

1.) Joe is either a Christian or not a Christian.

You have to be careful when presenting such tautologies to make
sure that your words are defined in such a way that the tautology is
true. If someone has a sloppy or fuzzy definition of what it means to
be a Christian, then it might be possible to be both a Christian and
not a Christian! But really he would be changing meanings in mid
sentence, so its a good idea to set rigorous definitions of your words
that everyone can agree on before you start an argument or proof like
this one.

DEFINITIONS are statements that are true by definition.

An example might be,

1. All Christians believe in Christ, if they don't believe in
Christ then they are not real Christians.

Such a statement is true only because we say it is true, it has
no other basis. There may be other people who don't believe in Christ
who none the less wish to be called Christians. This is not a
problem, you have the right to define your words how ever you wish,
just remember that what you are calling a Christian may not include
others who call themselves Christians. They will no doubt complain,
but their complaints will be irrelevant to your proof.

If you wish to define your words in some other way, that is fine,
just make sure that everyone knows what YOUR definitions are before
you proceed.

OBSERVATIONS are statements that are true by observation.

1. Some Christians go to Church on Sunday.

It's true because it's true, go out and LOOK for yourself. It's
not true by LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, and it's not true by definition, it's
true because someone went out and measured the phenomenon and reported
back what he found.

The certainty level of a observation is dependent on how many
vias you use to make that observation, how many levels of symbols
referrering to referents before you come to the actual thing being
observed. A person who is using radio telescope data to determine the
temperature of some planet circling a sun 4 galaxies away, is on far
less certain grounds, than someone looking at a thermometer in his
back yard. Someone who goes out and just feels that it is hot outside
is in even more direct contact.

Observations of the external physical universe however can never
be perfectly certain because all observers are using effects in
themselves to make conclusions about what must be out there.

In this sense, 'making an observation' means 'to be the effect of
an external cause' and THEN to logically compute back in time to what
that cause might be like in order to have had the effect that one
received.

That one received an effect might be a certainty, but the nature
of what caused that effect can not be determined from the nature of
the effect alone.

This 'computing back from later effects to earlier causes' is
always an uncertain process, because effects 'here' do not prove
anything about cause 'there'. One can merely create a 'causal model'
and hope for a dependable but uncertain world view.

Observations of one's own conscious color forms, though, CAN be
perfectly certain. If you see a color form mockup of red and green in
front of you, there can be no denying that you see it. Anything it
might be USED TO REPRESENT to you in the external universe might be
uncertain, but the existence of the color form itself is certain.

INTUITIONS are statements which one feels to be true because it
violates some inner sense of propriety to think they aren't. This of
course doesn't mean that they are true, but it does mean that if you
can get agreement among a number of people who have the same sense of
intuition, then you can proceed with your proof as if your intuitions
were true, recognizing that the truth of the conclusion is only as as
certain as the truth of your intuition.

Even if you can't get agreement among others about intuitions,
you can still have your proof to yourself and be satisfied with it as
far as it goes.

As an example of an intuition,

Something can't come from nothing.

Any given proof will have assumptions that consist of mixtures of
the above 4 kinds of 'truths'. It is often enlightening to actually
state next to each assumption which kind of truth it is.

For example,

A something is an object with a non empty quality set. DEFINITION
An nothing is an object with an empty quality set. DEFINITION

0.) An object is either a something or a nothing LOGICAL
1.) Something can't come from nothing INTUITION
2.) Something exists now. OBSERVATION

Q.E.D. 3.) Something must have always existed. (conclusion)

In closing I would like to add that it is not clear that every
argument can be put into such simple terms as I have laid out here, or
that every assumption can be divided into the above 4 categories.
Sometimes its takes an enormous reworking of the WORDING of an argument
to make it conform to the simpler rules of logic. The English language
is very complex and the simple Logical Form is often lost in more poetic
forms of argument.

People in fact with often try to hide bad logic in the complex
nuances of the language, which is why it is important to break arguments
down into raw logical form.

However for the purposes of the Machine Certainty Theorem, the
above discussion is relatively complete and satisfactory.

The Machine Certainty Theory is VERY SIMPLE, so simple in fact that
once you get it, it will be a BIG DOWN, because you will have been
expecting all these fireworks to go off in your brain once you realize
this 'Great Eternal Truth' of the ages.

Your actual reaction will be more like, 'Duh, so what else is new.'

However it is the application of the MCT to consciousness that will
give you something to think about.

Machines can't be certain of anything, consciousness can.

Finally, I would like to remind you of a wise old saying.

"At first they said it wasn't true.
Then they said it wasn't important.
Then they said they knew it all along.
Which was true."

Well, the guy who said that, was talking about the Machine
Certainty Theorem, which is the grand daddy of all truths that people
argue about with you until they convince themselves they showed it to
YOU in the first place!

At that point you know they got it.

Homer


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

LCC-MCT3 (fwd)

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

INTRO TO LOGIC

Here follows the first broad public issue of the Machine
Certainty Theorem (MCT).

There are two fundamental aspects to any theorem or proof, the
LOGICAL FORM, and the CONTENT.

The logical form can be expressed with out the content by
replacing the various words and phrases in the proof with variables
that have no meaning. This allows the logical form of the proof to be
studied independent of its actual application.

Once the logical form is verified, then the variables can be
replaced by the meanings they stand for, and application of the proof
with its content can be studied independent of its logical form.

Any proof has at least three parts. The ASSUMPTIONS, the LOGIC,
and the CONCLUSION.

The logical form of the proof consists of all three parts in
abstract variable form, as described above. The content of the proof
also consists of all three parts in the concrete form where all
variables are replaced by their intended meanings.

The Machine Certainty Theorem states that a space-time machine
can't be certain of anything, yet a Conscious Unit can, therefore a
Conscious Unit is not a space-time machine.

Before I get on with the formal presentation of the Machine
Certainty Theory, I would like to provide a small sample proof to
explain the various parts of what you are about to see to those who
have little training in formal logic.

In this case I will work backwards from an actual argument in
concrete CONTENT FORM, to its abstract LOGICAL FORM so that you can
see how the process will be reversed when we get to the actual proof.

Consider the following argument.

1. Joe is a Christian.
2. All Christians believe in Hell.
3. Therefore, Joe believes in Hell.
Q.E.D.

Q.E.D is Latin for Quite Easily Done, this is placed at the end
of the proof to demark where the proof ends and that the conclusion
has been proved. (Actually QED stands for Quod Erat Demonstramdum,
'that which was to be demonstrated'.)

All proofs contain three parts, the ASSUMPTIONS, the LOGIC and
the CONCLUSION. The conclusion is true if and only if the assumptions
are true AND the logic is valid. If either the assumptions are false
or the logic is invalid, then the conclusion may be false (it could
still be true though, you don't know.)

For example, it is clear from the argument above, that if Joe is
not a Christian, or if some Christians don't believe in Hell, then the
conclusion that Joe necessarily believes in Hell becomes
indeterminate, he may or may not.

A properly presented proof would show all three parts,
assumptions, logic, and conclusion, clearly marked so that no
confusion could result.

The purpose of first presenting the proof in logic form devoid of
meaningful content is to verify or validate the LOGIC part of the
proof.

Once that is accomplished, then the proof must be presented for a
second time in CONTENT form, so that the assumptions and conclusion
can first be UNDERSTOOD and then their truth verified or argued. One
first verifies each of the assumptions in turn. If all of the
assumptions check out to be true, then the conclusion must be true if
the logic is also valid.

One then looks to see if the conclusion actually fits with
actuality. If it does you are finished for the moment. If it turns
out the conclusion is observably false, then either the logic was
invalid or one or more of the assumptions was false.

In the above example, there are two assumptions.

1. Joe is a Christian.
2. All Christians believe in Hell.

There is one conclusion,

3. Joe believes in Hell.

Normally in a more complex proof there would be more statements
inbetween 2 and 3 which would be partial conclusions on the way to the
final conclusion, but in this case the logic is so simple we go
directly from lines 1 and 2 to line 3 with a logical form called Modus
Ponens.

Modus Ponens is a fancy Latin phrase meaning 'If A implies B, and
A is true, then B is true too.' (Actually Modus Ponens means 'Mode
that affirms')

For example, 'If being a dog implies being an animal, and Joey is
a Dog, then Joey is an animal.

Modus Ponens can be compared to Modus Tolens, another fancy Latin
phrase meaning 'If A implies B and B is false, then A is false.'
(Actually Modus Tolens means 'mode that denies'.)

For example, "If being a dog implies being an animal, and Jane is
not an animal, then Jane is not a dog."

1. "Joe is a Christian" can be symbolized as "J -> C" which says
"If it's Joe, then it's a Christian", or "Being Joe implies being a
Christian", or more simply, "Joe implies Christian".

2. "All Christians believe in Hell" can be symbolized as "C ->
H" which says, "If it's a Christian then it believes in Hell", or
"Being a Christian implies Believing in Hell", or just "Christian
implies Hell".

3. "Joe believes in Hell" can be symbolized as "J -> H" which
says, "If it's Joe, then it believes in Hell" or "Being Joe implies
Believing in Hell", or "Joe implies Hell".

We can thus symbolize the entire argument as follows, and this is
its logical form.

We explain each part in the section below the proof.

************************************************************************

LOGICAL FORM OF THE PROOF

1. J -> C (Being Joe implies being Christian)
2. C -> H (Being Christian implies Believing in Hell)

(1,2)[A] 3. J -> H (Being Joe implies Believing in Hell)

Q.E.D

(M.P.) A. (A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)

************************************************************************

In the above example there are two assumptions, lines 1 and 2,
and one conclusion, line 3.

The '(1,2)[A]' to the left of line 3 denotes that line 3 was
derived from lines 1 and 2 using Logical Form A which is shown at the
bottom below the proof below the Q.E.D. The particular Logical Form
in this case is Modus Ponens, which is denoted by (M.P.) to the left
of the same line.

Not all logical forms have formal names, and if not, the name or
its abbreviation is left out.

So how does one go about checking this proof out?

1.) Well the first thing that needs to be done is to check out
and verify all the Logical Forms shown below the Q.E.D, as these are
the extracted GENERALIZED statements of the LOGIC part of the proof
that gets you from the assumptions to the conclusion.

2.) The next thing to do is to familiarize yourself with the
assumptions and the conclusion.

3.) The next thing to do is to verify each step between the
assumptions and the conclusion to see that indeed the GENERAL Logical
Forms stated below Q.E.D are used correctly in their SPECIFIC
application to each step of the proof between the assumptions and the
conclusion.

The GENERAL Logical Forms will usually be stated in generic
variables like A, B and C which have nothing to do with the proof.

The assumptions and the conclusion and the SPECIFIC USES of the
general Logical Forms will usually be stated in letters that relate to
their content, such as J, C and H (Joe, Christian and Hell).

Thus one needs to be able to see that the SPECIFIC use of a
particular Logical Form parallels the GENERAL use of the same form to
know that the general form has been used correctly.

For example,

GENERAL ((A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)
SPECIFIC ((J -> C) and (C -> H)) -> (J -> H)

Where ever there is an A in the general form there had better be
a J in the specific form. Where ever there is a B in the general form
there had better be an C in the specific form. And where ever there
is a C in the general form there had better be an H in the specific
form.

Don't get the C in the GENERAL form confused with the C in the
SPECIFIC form. They are unrelated and are the same letter only by
coincidence. In the general form the C doesn't stand for anything, it
is merely a place holder. In the specific form the C stands for
Christian and corresponds to the PLACE HOLDER B in the general form!

Now at this point it should be possible to say with perfect
certainty that the proof is either logically valid or not.

There is no such thing as an uncertain proof. Either it is valid
or it is not valid. This can be determined with perfect certainty
before anything else is known about the meaning of the variables in
the proof.

Remember though that just because a proof has been proven valid,
this does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily true. This
would also depend on the assumptions being true, and determining the
truth of the assumptions, not the validity of the logic, comprises the
main body of work in verifying the conclusion of a proof.

Verifying the validity of the logic of the proof is the first and
easiest step and by this time in the analysis should be satisfactorily
completed.

So that was a lot of work, no? But, as I said, we are not done
yet.

Once the logic form of the proof has been verified completely as
we have just done, you next need to verify the CONTENT form of the
proof.

This is done by replacing each specific variable in the proof
with its English equivalent so that you can see what each of the
assumptions and the conclusion actually say.

This is done first by providing a little table that shows what
each variable means, like so.

J = Joe
C = Christian
H = Hell

Then you plug them in and you get the following.

************************************************************************

CONTENT FORM OF THE PROOF

J = Joe
C = Christian
H = Hell

1. Joe -> Christian
2. Christian -> Hell

(1,2)[A] 3. Joe -> Hell

Q.E.D

(M.P.) A. ((A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)

************************************************************************

This provides a rather sparse and pared down version of what the
proof is about, but it serves to convey the meaning of each of the
lines.

The last step would be to take up each line of the proof and
expand it into a grammatically correct full English sentence and
discuss it at length.

Discussion of the assumptions would involve not only their
meaning, but also evidence that they are true.

In general there are 4 kinds of assumptions.

1.) Logical Tautologies.
2.) Definitions
3.) Observations
4.) Intuitions

LOGICAL TAUTOLOGIES are always true because of their inherent
logical structure. An example of a logical tautology would be,

1.) Christian or not Christian

A full english expansion of this might be,

1.) Joe is either a Christian or not a Christian.

You have to be careful when presenting such tautologies to make
sure that your words are defined in such a way that the tautology is
true. If someone has a sloppy or fuzzy definition of what it means to
be a Christian, then it might be possible to be both a Christian and
not a Christian! But really he would be changing meanings in mid
sentence, so its a good idea to set rigorous definitions of your words
that everyone can agree on before you start an argument or proof like
this one.

DEFINITIONS are statements that are true by definition.

An example might be,

1. All Christians believe in Christ, if they don't believe in
Christ then they are not real Christians.

Such a statement is true only because we say it is true, it has
no other basis. There may be other people who don't believe in Christ
who none the less wish to be called Christians. This is not a
problem, you have the right to define your words how ever you wish,
just remember that what you are calling a Christian may not include
others who call themselves Christians. They will no doubt complain,
but their complaints will be irrelevant to your proof.

If you wish to define your words in some other way, that is fine,
just make sure that everyone knows what YOUR definitions are before
you proceed.

OBSERVATIONS are statements that are true by observation.

1. Some Christians go to Church on Sunday.

It's true because it's true, go out and LOOK for yourself. It's
not true by LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, and it's not true by definition, it's
true because someone went out and measured the phenomenon and reported
back what he found.

The certainty level of a observation is dependent on how many
vias you use to make that observation, how many levels of symbols
referrering to referents before you come to the actual thing being
observed. A person who is using radio telescope data to determine the
temperature of some planet circling a sun 4 galaxies away, is on far
less certain grounds, than someone looking at a thermometer in his
back yard. Someone who goes out and just feels that it is hot outside
is in even more direct contact.

Observations of the external physical universe however can never
be perfectly certain because all observers are using effects in
themselves to make conclusions about what must be out there.

In this sense, 'making an observation' means 'to be the effect of
an external cause' and THEN to logically compute back in time to what
that cause might be like in order to have had the effect that one
received.

That one received an effect might be a certainty, but the nature
of what caused that effect can not be determined from the nature of
the effect alone.

This 'computing back from later effects to earlier causes' is
always an uncertain process, because effects 'here' do not prove
anything about cause 'there'. One can merely create a 'causal model'
and hope for a dependable but uncertain world view.

Observations of one's own conscious color forms, though, CAN be
perfectly certain. If you see a color form mockup of red and green in
front of you, there can be no denying that you see it. Anything it
might be USED TO REPRESENT to you in the external universe might be
uncertain, but the existence of the color form itself is certain.

INTUITIONS are statements which one feels to be true because it
violates some inner sense of propriety to think they aren't. This of
course doesn't mean that they are true, but it does mean that if you
can get agreement among a number of people who have the same sense of
intuition, then you can proceed with your proof as if your intuitions
were true, recognizing that the truth of the conclusion is only as as
certain as the truth of your intuition.

Even if you can't get agreement among others about intuitions,
you can still have your proof to yourself and be satisfied with it as
far as it goes.

As an example of an intuition,

Something can't come from nothing.

Any given proof will have assumptions that consist of mixtures of
the above 4 kinds of 'truths'. It is often enlightening to actually
state next to each assumption which kind of truth it is.

For example,

A something is an object with a non empty quality set. DEFINITION
An nothing is an object with an empty quality set. DEFINITION
An object is either a something or a nothing.

0.) An object is either a something or a nothing LOGICAL
1.) Something can't come from nothing INTUITION
2.) Something exists now. OBSERVATION

Q.E.D. 3.) Something must have always existed. (conclusion)

In closing I would like to add that it is not clear that every
argument can be put into such simple terms as I have laid out here, or
that every assumption can be divided into the above 4 categories.
Sometimes its takes an enormous reworking of the WORDING of an
argument to make it conform to the simpler rules of logic. The
English language is very complex and the simple Logical Form is often
lost in more poetic forms of argument.

People in fact with often try to hide bad logic in the complex
nuances of the language, which is why it is important to break
arguments down into raw logical form.

However for the purposes of the Machine Certainty Theorem, the
above discussion is relatively complete and satisfactory.

The Machine Certainty Theory is VERY SIMPLE, so simple in fact
that once you get it, it will be a BIG DOWN, because you will have
been expecting all these fireworks to go off in your brain once you
realize this 'Great Eternal Truth' of the ages.

Your actual reaction will be more like, 'Duh, so what else is
new.'

However it is the application of the MCT to consciousness that
will give you something to think about.

Machines can't be certainty of anything, consciousness can.

Finally, I would like to remind you of a wise old saying.

"At first they said it wasn't true.
Then they said it wasn't important.
Then they said they knew it all along.
Which was true."

Well, the guy who said that, was talking about the Machine
Certainty Theorem, which is the grand daddy of all truths that people
argue about with you until they convince themselves they showed it to
YOU in the first place!

At that point you know they got it.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Sep 27 03:06:03 EDT 2011
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/lcc-mct3
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFOgXXbURT1lqxE3HERAmPEAKCm+sVHo/13fBTI175FpPMyzIGxWgCglQSk
pyZQtQUZEbVhu28lh0WeLbU=
=VoDE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

Sunday, September 25, 2011

THE BROKEN CHALICE

THE BROKEN CHALICE

The soul forms a single crystal in the Chalice of Life.

The Chalice can not be broken or destroyed because it is an eternal
structure forming the fabric of the AllThatIs.

The soul 'breaks' the Chalice when it decides that it no longer
wants to be in relation to another soul FOREVER, another crystal in the
Chalice.

The soul's own crystal goes dark, and the Chalice is marked at that
point forever more, but never broken.

It is not possible to throw enough hate or harm at another being to
affect them. Oh yes, you may be able to affect their body or other
accoutrements de la vie, but in the end the other being can only affect
himself.

But you certainly can put yourself in jail.

For by casting out another's light FOREVER, it doesn't matter who
they are, you dim your own abode.

Life is made of dicoms, a soul who is 'disconnected' from the
Fountainhead of Source, can act as poorly as a soul, who is connected,
can act well.

Imagine a negative God.

Thus those who would get rid of all assholes, would get rid of all
God's too.

What was RUINED (-8.0 on the tone scale) was not an object or
creation, but a relationship between beings, different crystals in the
same eternal Chalice.

They have no choice but to mend the rift within themselves to
restore the brilliance of their own existence, regardless of what the
other continues to do to themselves.

Homer

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

12/09/06 Saturday 8:02pm EST
Sun Dec 10 01:31:36 EST 2006

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

Saturday, September 24, 2011

ADORE577 (fwd)

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

EVIDENCE SCHMEVIDENCE

Theta Bop <doorman.ford@googlemail.com> wrote:
> There is not the slightest shread of evidence for any of these claims-

You mean YOU have never seen any. Please stop considering us
idiots that can't see through your pitiful efforts at logical treason.

At this point you would be thrown out of any debate for criminal
dharma treason.

> though I had never heard of the Murder Rundown. One thing I noticed is
> that Scientologists tend to become very angry people.

They can, it has to do with the unbalance of motivators and overts.

If you run out the overts of a person, and not the motivators, they
become overladen with remaining motivators and start wanting to commit
overts again (anger, no sympathy etc) to balance the load.

If you run out motivators on a person, and not the overts, they
become overladen with remaining overts and feel very guilty and start to
pull in motivators to balance the load.

Auditing should be a 4 flow process, but Book One for example was a
1 flow process, run the motivators only, so people felt guilty and
started to pull in more motivators to balance.

In the Church, too much attention is on pulling overts, and people
feel ashamed to have motivators to run, so the overts get run, the
motivators stay in place, and you get an anger case seeking to overt on
others again to balance the motivators 'he doesn't have'.

> The church has killed on many occasions, with various degrees if
> deliberateness. OT magic pixie dist would be a good way to do this and
> not get caught.
>
> Why not do so?

I hate repeating myself. No one in the Church has that ability.

OT powers up to OT VIII are reserved for power in one's own
universe, and perhaps power in a shared universe with another OT.

Moving the marble in the shared physical universe is not part of
the bridge at that point, nor is killing any one.

Anyone who can kill at a distance is probably no where near
associated with the Church any more.

The people in the Church who try to kill people are dramatizing 007
licence to kill, they are neither clear nor OT.

Many people come into the church only because they want
licence to kill and to overwhlem.

OT's are more likely to spend their time messing around with
elections by globally projecting intentions to vote one way or another.

See?

Having physical magic powers is not what will make you happy.

Having inner certainty and proof that you are a timeless eternal
being will. What power then flows will flow.

If you are being robbed, you would more likely get the guy
to change his mind through projection of intention, than try to
kill him as if you had a gun to defend yourself.

This is why many people who are going OT VII, stop carrying guns as
self protection because they see it is in fundamental conflict with
trying to be able to deal with life with thought reason and group mind,
rather than force.

The point is you made the universe along with everyone else, you
assigned yourself game playing powers, and if you can't move the marble
its because you chose to not be able to, long long ago.

In the past you have been able to kill at a distance, I assure you,
and you regretted it, and finally became disgusted with the power and
yourself, and you decided to become a body which has very little in the
way of power and can't remember it's detested past, and now you want
proof. You see how silly that is?

"YOU CHOSE, what proof did you leave behind you now?" - Adore

If you want power back, you will need to first get back the ability
to LIMIT your abilities, so you can duplicate the original act of
limitation that defined your present power set, which will vanish that
limitation returning you to native state.

Then you can redefine your power set by limiting yourself back down
to where you can move the marble, but not a mountain say or whatever you
want.

Too much power means no game, but in any case:

Power comes with total responsibility for no power.

Homer

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Thu Apr 17 01:14:02 EDT 2008

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Sep 24 03:06:02 EDT 2011
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore577.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFOfYFaURT1lqxE3HERAnX0AKDALOIcKpOoFe5zfrUAIh4jYcMY8QCgrmSc
z3CWDhl6bNGRlcQ3gVNyscQ=
=nSIa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

SCALARS

SCALARS AND DIMENSIONALITY

From Learning, Certainty, Causality and Consciousness, 2006
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof

APL is A Programming Language conceived by Kenneth Iverson in the
1960's at the IBM Yorktown Heights, NY computer center.

APL was written to allow designers of the new IBM 360 super
computer of the time to express the algorithms implemented in the
hardware that made up the computer.

They essentially wrote the computer in APL, before implementing it
in hardware.

In that sense APL was a hardware programming language, however they
found once the 360 was built, that the language used to design it was
optimum for use on it in many other areas of application.

Like many programming languages APL deals with numbers and
computations.

It has two rather unique qualities, the first is that rather than
use names for various functions like log and sine, it uses single
characters, and thus needs a special keyboard to enter the special
symbols. If you have ever seen an APL keyboard, you will probably
remember wondering what the hell that was.

Second, because it has so many fundamental operators like log and
sine, there is no order of precedence in evaluating expressions.

In most languages 3 x 2 - 1 would be (3 x 2) - 1 or 5.

In APL, everything is evaluated from right to left unless there are
parenthesis, so 3 x 2 - 1 would be 3.

One of the advantages of APL is that it is an interpreter, rather
than a compiled language, so one is presented with an active workspace
on the computer screen that accepted commands, executed them and
remembered them.

A simple session might go as follows.

Indented lines are typed by the user, unindented lines are typed by
the computer.

A
VALUE ERROR

A <- 3
A
3
A <- A + 2
A
5

The above session shows a number of important things.

Before A has been assigned anything, it doesn't exist at all, it is
a NOTHING per the opening definitions, or a VALUE ERROR per APL.

The opening definitions define a nothing as any object with an
empty quality set, no qualities.

After A has been assigned the number 3 with A <- 3, A becomes a
something, its quality set is no longer empty now being the number 3.

Once A has been assigned a number, it retains that number forever
until it is changed again, for example, in the next line by adding 2 to
it.

The last line where A is typed alone on the line indicates a desire
to see its value, and the number 5 is written.

In fact any line that does not contain an assignment arrow <-, no
matter how complex, means that you want the final evaluation of that line
printed out. Without the assignment <- however the final result is not
stored in any thing, and the value is lost as soon as it is printed.
Better to store it in A first then print it out!

The workspace can be saved at this point and reloaded later, to find
A still exists where one last set it.

A can also be erased, returned to a value error.

)ERASE A
A
VALUE ERROR

Numbers come in many forms in APL, they start with the simple
numbers like 3 in the example above. In that case the 3 is a scalar,
with zero dimensions as we shall see below.

But A can also be assigned to a set of numbers like so:

A <- 3 10 5 17
A + 1
4 11 6 18

In the above example 3 10 5 17 form a 4 element array called a
vector. Vectors have one dimension, like points on a line, and can be
as long as you like, that is have as many elements as you like including
just 1 or even 0 elements!

There are a number of operators that work with vectors to help
you handle them.

First the regular operators like plus and minus work as you would
expect.

A <- 2 4 6 8
A + 3
5 7 9 11
A + 1 2 3 4
3 6 9 12
A + 1 2 3 4 5
LENGTH ERROR

The above shows that you can add a scalar to a vector in which case
the scalar is added to each member of the vector, or you can add two
vectors together, in which case each member is added to the same member
in the other vector. But we can not add two vectors of different
lengths, its meaningless.

There are also more sophisticated operators like the one that allows
you to sum up the values of A

A <- 1 2 3 4
+/A
10

The construct +/A means put the + between every member of the
vector and the execute the whole line.

A more interesting example is is x/A which puts a times between
each member and multiplies them all up.

A <- 1 2 3 4
x/A
24

Notice in APL times is x and not *. The * is exponentiation.

THE RHO OPERATOR

Now here is where you really need to start paying attention, for
without this you won't ever be able to talk about the proof and scalars
in any meaningful way.

There is an operator that allows you to determine the shape and
size of any array, be they scalars, vectors, matrices, cubes or hyper
cubes and higher etc.

It is written and called after the greek letter RHO, in this paper
we will use the small letter p to represent the RHO operator, as that is
the closest to what a RHO really looks like. Its called RHO after
RESHAPE which is what it does.

RHO has two uses, depending on whether it is used with one
argument or two.

With one argument, RHO returns the shape of A.

A <- 1 2 3 4 5 6
pA
6

This says that A has one dimension with 6 elements in it. That's
like a one dimensional line 6 inches long.

You know the extension is 6 because you see it right there in the
answer. You know there is only one dimension because only one number
was printed out.

So when you see 6 = pA, you know that A is one dimensional with an
extension of 6 inches, elements, numbers or whatever.

When used with two arguments, B p A, RHO reshapes A after the
value of B.

5 p 1
1 1 1 1 1

6 p 1 2 3
1 2 3 1 2 3

4 p 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4

Now the above notation opens a serious question, which is what is
the value of:

0 p 1 2 3 4

Well we know that the left hand side tells you two things, how
many dimensions and how many elements in that dimension.

So because there is just one number on the left, the answer must
be a one dimensional vector, but it has ZERO elements!

To make it more concrete let's use A again.

A <- 0 p 6
pA
0
A
<- blank line

Since A has no elements in it, when you ask for APL to print it
out, it just prints an empty line. Notice this is not the same thing
as a VALUE ERROR.

Just because A is an empty vector, doesn't mean it is a nothing.
Its a 'something' with one dimension, but no extension.

Now of course in the real world, an object that was one dimension
but zero inches long, would be a material nothing, but we have to be
really careful here, because having one dimension, even if its zero
extension, makes it a something in thge language of the proof, not a
nothing.

It has a quality, namely shape, even if it has no material
existence, thus it can't be considered a true nothing which has no
qualities at all. Shape means dimension with extension. In this case
having zero extension doesn't mean having no shape, thus it isn't a
complete nothing.

One more thing to notice before we move on, it clearly doesn't
matter WHAT is to the right of the RHO if the left is 0, because RHO is
going to take zero elements from the set on the right, and that's zero
elements regardless of what is on the right.

So the following are all the same empty vector:

0 p 1
0 p 2 3
0 p 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 p 0

In fact when someone wants to create an empty vector they often
just use

A <- 0 p 0

Now you might ask why would you want to create an empty vector?
Well it creates a place holder so that you can then concatenate things
on to it as you collect them.

For example:

A <- 0 p 0
A
<- blank line

A <- A, 3
A
3

A <- A, 4
A
3 4

A <- A, 2 4 6
A
3 4 2 4 6

A <- A, 3 p 7 7 9 8 7
A
3 4 2 4 6 7 7 9 Notice the 8 and 7 are dropped because only 3 are
are wanted.

Suppose you tried to concatenate onto B without first setting B
to the empty vector.

B <- B, 3
VALUE ERROR

B isn't defined at all, its a true nothing, so you can't add
something to it.

OK, let's move on. Say you want to create a two dimensional
matrix that is 3 by 4 filled with 1 2 3 4.

A <- 3 4 p 1 2 3 4
A
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4

You see, 3 rows, 4 columns.

Say you want to create a cube of 3 by 3 by 2 filled with the numbers
from 0 to 17.

A <- 3 3 2 p 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
A
0 1
2 3
4 5

6 7
8 9
10 11

12 13
14 15
16 17

You see APL can't print out a cube, so it prints out 3 faces of 3
by 2 each.

So you can see the power of RHO.

Now let's take a look at the consequences.

First let's review what RHO does.

Used with two arguments it creates an object from data on the
right with shape specified on the left.

A <- SHAPE p DATA

A <- 2 3 4 p 3 That's a 2x3x4 cube filled with 3's.

Used with one argument, RHO returns the shape of the object that
was used to create it.

SHAPE = p DATA

A <- 2 3 4 p 3
pA
2 3 4

So this is our first theorem of importance.

SHAPE = p (SHAPE p DATA)

B = p (B p A)

Now here is the next question.

What is the shape of the answer that RHO returns? In other words
what is the shape of the shape of data?

In the example above pA returned 2 3 4. What is shape of 2 3 4?

Well its 3.

So we have

A <- 3 4 p 1
A
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
pA
3 4
ppA
2
pppA
1
ppppA
1

Clearly A is a 3 x 4 matrix of 1's.

So the shape of A is {3,4}.

We put the {}'s around the shape of an object to signify that it is
the shape we are talking about. APL itself doesn't do this.

And the shape of 3 4 is {2}, its a line with 2 elements right?

And the shape of 2 is {1}, it too is a line with 1 element.

Now here is where you ask, but 2 is a single number, why is it
considered a vector of one element instead of a scalar?

Simply because RHO is *DEFINED* to return a vector, it always
returns a vector, it can't return any thing else but a vector.

But it can return a one element vector or even an EMPTY vector.

Say we define S to be a scalar, V to be a vector, M to be a
matrix and C to be a cube.

S <- 3
V <- 1 p 3
M <- 1 1 p 3
C <- 1 1 1 p 3

We have created four objects above.

The first is a zero dimensional scalar whose value is 3.

The second is a one dimensional vector whose value is 3.

The third is a two dimensional matrix whose value is 3.

the fourth is a three dimensional cube whose value is 3.

S
3
V
3
M
3
C
3

So what is the difference?

pS

pV
1
pM
1 1
pC
1 1 1

The shape returns how many dimensions the object has, and each
element in the shape tells you the number of elements along that
dimension in the object.

Take a 1 x 1 matrix, it is two dimensional, but has only one
element. The shape of that marix is {1,1} which means a 1 by 1
or 1 x 1 matrix.

Take a 1 x 1 x 1 cube, it is three dimensional, but also has only
one element, so its shape is {1,1,1}

So you see that the number of elements that an object has is not
related to how many dimensions that object can have.

A vector, matrix or cube can have as many elements as you wish,
including none!

0 p 0 is a zero element vector with shape {0}
0 0 p 0 is a zero element matrix with shape {0,0}
0 0 0 p 0 is a zero element cube with shape {0,0,0}

So how do you make a zero element scalar?

You can't. A scalar HAS TO HAVE ONE AND ONLY ONE ELEMENT.

A zero element scalar is a VALUE ERROR.

So let's talk about the vector and matrix and cube a bit more.

How many elements total does an object have?

Well if it is a 2 x 3 x 4 object, it has 24 elements, or 24 cubic
inches, or whatever your measure is.

Since 2 3 4 is just the RHO of the object we can write that the
number of elements in an object is

A <- B p 1
N = x/pA = x/B

Remember that x/B means to multiply all the elements of B
together. If B is 2 3 4 then 2 x 3 x 4 is 24 elements total in a 2 by
3 by 4 matrix.

Now let's get tricky.

We know there are zero elements in a 0 element vector.

How many elements are there in a matrix with 0 rows and 4 colums.
That's a 0 x 4 matrix.

M <- 0 4 p 5
pM
0 4
x/pM
0

That's right, zero rows and 4 colums makes zero elements total.
Kind of stupid eh?

So is that a nothing? No, its not a value error, its a nothing
with two dimensions and SHAPE, namely 0 rows and 4 columns, and that
surely is not a nothing.

But it isn't a lot of something either.

Say someone gave you a 2 x 2 x 2 piece of gold. That would be 8
cubic inches of gold wouldn't it. That's a lot of gold.

But now say someone gave you a 0 x 2 x 2 piece of gold. That's 2
inches square on a side, but 0 zero inches thick. How much gold would
that be?

Zero cubic inches of gold. Correct.

Now let's say you are a two dimensional flatland creature, you
have no idea about the 3rd dimension, and cubic inches is meaningless
to you, but square inches means a lot.

Say someone gives you a 2 x 2 piece of gold.

How much gold is that?

Well it's 2 square inches of gold, which is quite a bit, right?

But say he gives you a 0 x 2 piece of gold.

How much gold is that?

It's zero square inches, and that's no flatland gold at all!

So what is the difference between

A 0 x 2 x 2 piece of 3 dimenisonal gold and
A 2 x 2 piece of 2 dimensional gold?

The first is 0 cubic inches of 3 dimensional gold which is no
gold, and the second is 4 square inches of 2 dimensional gold which is
some gold!

So we come to our next theorem which is really important, and you
really have to get it, or you just won't get anything beyond this.

If a physical object has a dimension, it must have non zero
extension in that dimension to order to be a physical something.
Anything with zero extension along any of its dimensions is a physical
nothing.

So the minute you take a 2 x 2 piece of gold which is a
something, and give it a 3rd dimension, you HAVE to give it non zero
extension in that dimension or it will turn into 0 x 2 x 2 or no gold.

So if the external physical universe consists of 11 dimensions,
as the string theory boys claim, every one of them HAS to have non
zero extension in them or else the entire universe would disappear
into nothing.

Yes APL does allow for zero extension objects to be called
somethings, they are also called nothings with shape, but physical
existence doesn't.

In APL a object with zero extension along a dimension is
a nothing with shape.

In the physical universe, such an object is a nothing period.

Ok so what about the scalar?

Well the scalar is a rough case, because it doesn't have the option
of being a nothing with shape, it has to be a something or a value
error. You can only be a nothing with shape if you have shape! And
having shape means having non zero dimensions. Since a scalar has zero
dimensions, it has no shape at all.

Further how do you create a scalar using RHO. Since its SHAPE is
the empty vector, you have to use an empty vector to create it!

A <- (0p0) p 4 That's why A <- 4 is so much easier!

Notice that 0p0 is an empty vector, and remember if there is a 0 on
the left, it doesn't matter what is on the right, 0p6 would have done
just as well, its still 0 elements!

Notice also that the above does not make A empty, it makes
A's SHAPE empty, which makes A a non empty scalar!

A
4
pA
<- empty vector, A's shape is zero dimensions
ppA
0 <- indicates that pA has zero elements
pppA
1 <- is always 1 no matter what

So lets make a table out of this showing everything there is to
know about scalars, vectors, matrixes cubes and hypercubes.

Formally the correct way to create all these different kinds of
arrays is as follows.

S <- (0 p 0) p 5 0 dimension, {} shape
V <- (1 p 5) p 5 1 dimension, {4} shape
M <- (2 p 4 5) p 5 2 dimensions, {3,4} shape
C <- (3 p 3 4 5) p 5 3 dimensions, {3,4,5} shape
H <- (4 p 2 3 4 5) p 5 4 dimensions, {2,3,4,5} shape

S
5

V
5 5 5 5 5

M
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5

C
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5

H
Hey I will let you figure it out! H is a hypercube.


Here is another formal table laying out the p, pp, and ppp of
each of the above arrays.

S V M C H
p {} {5} {4 5} {3 4 5} {2 3 4 5} shape
pp 0 1 2 3 4 # of dimensions
ppp 1 1 1 1 1 always 1

The shape has one number for each dimension showing the extension
in that dimension. Notice the shape of the scalar is empty {}.

The number of dimensions an object has is called its RANK.

Notice the rank of the scalar is 0 because there are 0 dimensions
in the shape {}.

So what have we learned?

An object can either be a scalar with zero dimensions or a non
scalar with 1 or more dimensions, such as a vector, matrix or cube.

If an object has one or more dimensions, it MUST have non zero
extension in that dimension in order to not be a physical nothing.

If an object is a scalar, it doesn't have dimensions in which to
have extensions, but exists anyhow with only one element. That one
element however can be as long or as complex as you want.

PI is a scalar, but is infinitely long and contains an infinite
amount of data.

One doesn't need dimension to encode data, the use of vectors,
matrixes and cubes are merely a convenience. All of the data in the
biggest multidimensional matrix you could concieve, can all be placed
into a single number (large enough or long enough) in a single scalar.

PHILOSOPHY

The ultimate question then is what is the nature of the
AllThatIs. Is it a multidimensional object, or a zero dimensional
object?

Which is true?

0 = pp Actuality or
0 < pp Actuality ?

It is an important question.

From the proof we have learned that one can not learn with
certainty about anything across a non zero extension in a non zero
dimension. Where there is certainty, there is no extension and zero
dimension between learner and learned about.

So where there is perfect certainty, 0 = pp Actuality.

This zero dimensional actuality however likes to project multi
dimensional virtual realities, thus we have the following two
equations that sum up existence.

0 = pp(Actuality)
0 != pp(Reality)

Homer


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

Sat Dec 9 01:21:40 EST 2006

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com