Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence

On The Actual Freedom Mailing List

with Correspondent No. 27


January 24 2004

RICHARD: I will repeat what I said earlier for emphasis: in any area of research I have ever looked into I have, more often than not, found that not only are facts rather thin on the ground but that it is mainly the hypothesis/ theory which gets most of the attention.

RESPONDENT: I suppose this is what it boils down to?

RICHARD: Aye ... no one person can read, let alone comprehend so as to determine validity, all the millions upon millions of scientific articles.

RESPONDENT: I can readily agree with your conclusion regarding ‘any area of research’ that I have looked into as well being thin on facts – especially regarding major theses.

RICHARD: I am pleased we are in agreement on this ... it is glaringly obvious when one twigs to what to look for (the factual basis of the hypothesis or theory/the basic premise of the argument or proposition) and it saves wading through a lot of quite often well-written but fatally-flawed articles trying to make sense of something that can never make sense.

RESPONDENT: This is quite different though from saying that science itself is thin on facts – which of course, you did not say. Open a college physics I textbook or Chemistry I textbook or a textbook on anatomy or cell biology and quite interesting facts abound. It is easy to infer from your statement of most scientists being thin on facts that science itself is thin on facts – but it appears that you are mostly referring to ‘scientific’ research, though not necessarily exclusively. Is that a correct assessment?

RICHARD: Yes ... I was, and am, most definitely referring to facts being few and far between in the research most scientists do and not science itself (as out of those 6,000,000 or so articles a year, multiplied by x-number of years, comes the abundance of those ‘quite interesting facts’ which you mention).

I do appreciate science and have the highest regard for facts – it is what enabled western civilisation to get out of superstition and medieval ignorance – hence the concern that it not be taken over by the metaphysicists who would have future generations slip back into the supernatural.

RESPONDENT: Possibly the distinction I’m looking for is between ‘descriptive’ science and ‘theoretical science.’ What I’m thinking of as ‘descriptive’ science are things like anatomy, biology, geology, palaeontology, basic physics and chemistry and electromagnetism – possibly these could all be called ‘physical’ sciences. I am also aware that these cannot completely do without theory.

RICHARD: They certainly cannot ... it is, after all, what one does with the facts which counts.

RESPONDENT: I just don’t see that your statement that ‘most scientists’ are thin on facts could possibly apply to the ‘physical’ sciences. It seems that it would be more accurate to apply that sort of statement to the instances when theory outruns observation.

RICHARD: Yes ... ‘when theory outruns observation’ is another way of saying that facts are few and far between/thin on the ground in that area of the research.

RESPONDENT: An illustration on this point might be your example of the ‘smoker’s lung’ and ‘non-smoker’s lung’ versus the ‘unhealthy lung’ and ‘healthy lung.’ In other words, facts regarding the structure, composition, and function of a lung are not hard to come by, but research into the causation of lung cancer and it’s connection to smoking tends to be mired with confusion, emotion, and error.

RICHARD: Indeed ... just as it is in many other areas of supposedly scientific study (the ecological/environmental issues for another current example).

January 26 2004

RICHARD: Just as a matter of interest: as I did not say that the ‘Big Bang’ theory ‘implies that consciousness gives rise to matter’ what makes you say that I think that?

RESPONDENT: In the context of discussing the Big Bang theory, you said that it is the ASC which informs that consciousness gives rise to matter. By contrast, the PCE informs that matter gives rise to consciousness. The fact that you juxtaposed the Big Bang theory with both the ASC and the idea that consciousness gives rise to matter suggests that you think they are, in fact, linked. If that isn’t what you meant, what did you mean?

RESPONDENT: Being that I know personally what it is like to be somewhat baffled by responses given by Richard and other actualists, I’d like to input a clarification at this point that could save some confusion.

What Richard actually said was [quote] ‘It is the PCE which informs that matter gives rise to consciousness’. [endquote]. The only substantial difference between how you reported what Richard said and what he actually said was the word ‘implies’ versus ‘informs’. There is a marked difference between the two. What is important to see here is that Richard is saying that the PCE ‘informs’, not ‘implies’ – as an implication means that an additional inference must be made.

[Addendum] After rereading this paragraph, I see that I made an error. It isn’t the case that ‘The only substantial difference between how you reported what Richard said and what he actually said was the word ‘implies’ versus ‘informs’. Actually, it was the ASC that Richard said ‘informs that consciousness gives rise to matter’. So the misunderstanding doesn’t hinge on the words ‘implies’ versus ‘informs’ after all as I thought, but apparently your replacing ‘ASC’ with ‘the big-bang theory’ in Richard’s statement that ‘It is the ASC which informs that consciousness gives rise to matter’.

RICHARD: I like the way your mind works (such as observing that an implication does mean an additional inference must be made), and appreciate that you do not hesitate to provide input from time-to-time based upon, not only your experience of being somewhat baffled on occasion, but your presumably extensive research of what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... as evidenced by knowing where to find an appropriate quote that will throw some light upon what is at that time currently under dispute over a lack of information/ a misunderstanding/ a misrepresentation/ or whatever.

I also see you as consistently able to be impartial (you will say ‘this is what Richard actually says’ and not ‘Richard says this thus it is so’) and leave it up to the other to sort it all out for themselves based upon being more fully informed ... as no doubt you do, for yourself, also. I also recall, for example, you pointing out an error I made – an oversight – very early in the piece about what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti had said in another context which negated a point I was making.

In short: your clarifications lift the level of discussion.

It occurs to me, and I write this as it is occurring, that whilst I do not know what academic qualifications you have I do recall you mentioning having studied philosophy (along with a broad knowledge of the more mystical aspects of consciousness studies) so if you were to ever entertain the notion of putting together an article/thesis/book/whatever on actualism, as it is presented in the publicly available word (a researched and annotated scholarly piece as opposed to a personal account), then I would not only be appreciative – being the boy from the farm I have no formal training – but supportive in whatever way appropriate ... such as supplying all the actualism writings on disc, for instance, to enable quick and easy word or phrase searches.

But I digress ... what I am writing to say is your contribution on this mailing list is very welcome.

January 31 2004

RESPONDENT: One other point of interest that I first encountered a while back in Hawking’s writings ... ‘Olber’s paradox’. Apparently, there are those that say that if the universe were infinitely old, the ‘night’ sky would be bright – not dark. I wonder.

RICHARD: In 1610 Mr. Johannes Kepler advanced an argument against the universe being infinite and eternal, and thus containing an infinite number of stars (a hypothetical problem nowadays popularly known as the ‘Olbers’ Paradox’ after the German astronomer Mr. Heinrich Olbers who also discussed it in 1823), by proposing that if the universe is indeed infinite and eternal and uniformly populated with luminous stars then every line of sight must eventually terminate at the surface of a star ... which implies that, contrary to observation, the night sky should everywhere be bright with no dark spaces between the stars.

This hypothesis assumes, of course, that because the night sky does not appear to be bright to the naked eye, with no dark spaces between the stars, then it is so in fact.

In order to comprehend why it was presented as an argument against the universe being infinite and eternal it must be borne in mind that in both 1610 and 1823 the known universe was a one-galaxy universe (the ‘Milky Way’ galaxy) and it was not until 1929 that astronomers discovered there were other galaxies ... many other galaxies, in fact (the current estimate is 125 billion and rising).

As recently as October 2001 astronomers, using the Hubble Deep Field telescope, looked 12 billion light years away from planet earth (one light year is approximately six trillion miles) into a speck-size area of the southern sky, an area so tiny to the naked eye that it would be obscured by a grain of sand held at arm’s length, and spied 620 galaxies (and one galaxy alone can contain trillions of stars).

If the naked eye was optically receptive enough (or powerful enough or whatever the right word is to describe what it is not) there would be nowhere it could look that its every line of sight would not eventually terminate at the surface of a star ... and the night sky would no longer appear to be dark.

It could be said that the universe is indeed a brilliant universe (in more ways than one) or, to put that another way, there is only light after all.

February 04 2004

RESPONDENT: Good article, stating how GPS relies on relativity (Relativity in ‘everyday life’): www.physicscentral.com/writers/writers-00-2.html

RICHARD: May I ask what you found good about how Mr. Clifford Will (one-sidedly) states it relies upon (Einsteinian) relativity in the article you provided a link to?

I only ask because there was, apparently, an intriguing controversy which he would have to be cognisant of that arose before the Global Positioning System (GPS) was even launched as Einsteinian relativity gave reason to doubt whether it would work at all.

There was an article written by Mr. Tom Bethell, in ‘The American Spectator’, which referred to a paper published in ‘Physics Letters A’ (December 21, 1998) written by Mr. Tom Van Flandern, a research associate in the physics department at the University of Maryland, who worked as a special consultant to the GPS in the 1990’s. Here is part of what Mr. Tom Bethell had to say:

• ‘At high altitude, where the GPS clocks orbit the Earth, it is known that the clocks run roughly 46,000 nanoseconds (one-billionth of a second) a day faster than at ground level, because the gravitational field is thinner 20,000 kilometres above the Earth. The orbiting clocks also pass through that field at a rate of three kilometres per second – their orbital speed. For that reason, they tick 7,000 nanoseconds a day slower than stationary clocks. To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system ‘works’. Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth’s surface), and since in Einstein’s theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet ‘the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch’, Van Flandern said. ‘They have basically blown off Einstein’. (‘Rethinking Relativity’ by Tom Bethell; The American Spectator, April 1999).

What I found interesting about what Mr. Tom Van Flandern had to say was that Lorentzian relativity (where velocity is subsumed under time and space in contrast to Einsteinian relativity subsuming time and space under velocity) is not only the more simple theory to represent the process the GPS operates by – and not only for pragmatic reasons – but is of major importance for the future of physics. Vis.:

• ‘In addition to a great difference in practicality for use in systems such as the GPS (in favour of LET), the two theories differ about whether or not material bodies can exceed the speed of light in forward time. In SR [Einsteinian relativity], that is proved impossible because time ceases to advance for any entity travelling at the speed of light. By contrast, in LR [Lorentzian relativity], no speed limit for material bodies exists. It is true that speed relative to the preferred frame causes electromagnetic-type clocks (which include all ordinary mechanical, biological, and atomic clocks) to slow, metre sticks to contract, and the momentum of bodies to be increased by the relativistic factor just as in SR. But in LR, time, space, and the matter content themselves are not affected. So the question of which theory better represents nature is of major importance to the future of physics, which is presently invested in the belief that speeds faster than light in forward time are not possible’. (www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep6/ep6-vanfl.htm).

It would seem that the jury is still out on this – and other – matters.

February 04 2004

RESPONDENT: Good article, stating how GPS relies on relativity (Relativity in ‘everyday life’): www.physicscentral.com/writers/writers-00-2.html

RICHARD: May I ask what you found good about how Mr. Clifford Will (one-sidedly) states it relies upon (Einsteinian) relativity in the article you provided a link to?

RESPONDENT: ‘Good’ because it states the case well that Einsteinian relativity is applicable to ‘everyday life’. By posting the URL, I am by no means endorsing it as fact.

RICHARD: Sure ... by posting what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say does not mean I am endorsing it as fact either.

RESPONDENT: As I have never personally worked on the GPS system – I do find interesting the perspective of those that have – just as I am quite interested in what Mr. Tom Bethell has to say about it. I have located his article you referred to – of which I was previously unaware. I am happy to see relativity go by the wayside if need be, but it seems to me that there first must be a convincing alternative to what is normally offered as ‘confirmation’ of Einsteinian relativity.

RICHARD: What I see, being but a lay-person in all these matters, is theoretical physicists, mathematicians, logicians, and so on, discussing amongst themselves the validity/ invalidity of this theory and that theory and any other theory ... when they start presenting equations to each other (I do not even know what most of the symbols refer to) I have no recourse, other than to read what they have to say in general, but to observe that such-and-such a topic is by no means settled.

The democratic process – as in majority rules – which works well enough in the political arena at the present stage of human development has no valid application in science.

*

RICHARD: I only ask because there was, apparently, an intriguing controversy which he would have to be cognisant of that arose before the Global Positioning System (GPS) was even launched as Einsteinian relativity gave reason to doubt whether it would work at all.

RESPONDENT: I was unaware of the controversy – thanks for bringing it to my attention.

RICHARD: Oh, there are quite often such controversies in many areas ... for example, when the first uranium bomb was detonated in ‘Project Manhattan’, there was reason for some physicists to be concerned (at the time) that a chain reaction might be set-off in the atmosphere and engulf the entire planet.

That it did not indicates that whatever it is that happens in such a bomb is peculiar to uranium (and not contagious, so to speak).

*

RICHARD: It would seem that the jury is still out on this – and other – matters.

RESPONDENT: Yes. At least some of the ‘jury’ is still out – others have returned, and they are contradicting each other :o)

RICHARD: Aye ... and, presumably, on and on it will go (we could post URL’s to each other until the cows come home and still the matter would be not settled either way).

What I do find cute, in all this, is that my report/ description of this actual world sometimes attracts those who want scientific proof of something experiential – whilst oft-times proffering mathematical proof, as to why the experiential evidence is invalid, in lieu of scientific proof (as if they were one and the same thing) into the bargain – and disregard what I actually have to say ... so on occasion, to give but one example, I point out that mathematics do not describe the universe and that a mathematical equation has no existence outside of the ratiocinative process.

How someone – anyone – could consider that a mathematical computation (or any abstract logic for that matter) renders experiential evidence null and void has got me beat ... because when I go to bed each night I have had, as always, a perfect day.

And I do not use the word ‘perfect’ lightly.

February 11 2004

RESPONDENT: Good article, stating how GPS relies on relativity (Relativity in ‘everyday life’): www.physicscentral.com/writers/writers-00-2.html

RICHARD: May I ask what you found good about how Mr. Clifford Will (one-sidedly) states it relies upon (Einsteinian) relativity in the article you provided a link to?

RESPONDENT: ‘Good’ because it states the case well that Einsteinian relativity is applicable to ‘everyday life’. By posting the URL, I am by no means endorsing it as fact.

RICHARD: Sure ... by posting what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say does not mean I am endorsing it as fact either.

RESPONDENT: Understood – though I’m not at all sure that Clifford Will deserves the accusation of being ‘one-sided’. He is merely stating the evidence as he sees it – there is no need to take into account dissidents if one is already convinced.

RICHARD: And do all those peoples who were convinced of geocentricity even after the publication of Mr. Nicolaus Copernicus’s ‘Six Books Concerning The Revolutions Of the Heavenly Orbits’ in 1543, and even after Mr. Galileo Galilei’s publication supporting heliocentricity via astronomical observations (‘Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems – Ptolemaic and Copernican’) in 1632, also not deserve the accusation ‘one-sided’, then?

After all, they were merely stating the evidence as they see it, no?

RESPONDENT: Here are a couple of URLs where it can be seen that No. 56 is correct about Mr Tom Bethell – who really is a conservative creationist ‘with an axe to grind’ so to speak. (snip).

RICHARD: As Mr. Tom Bethell is a magazine columnist (somewhat akin to a newspaper reporter) writing about what Mr. Tom Van Flandern published it is beside the point what he is or is not as what is relevant is whether his summation in that magazine article (the part I quoted) is in accord with what Mr. Tom Van Flandern had to say or not ... and, speaking personally, the moment I read the article I went straight to the source and checked it out for myself.

‘Tis oh-so-easy to get side-tracked by red-herrings, eh?

*

RICHARD: The democratic process – as in majority rules – which works well enough in the political arena at the present stage of human development has no valid application in science.

RESPONDENT: The more I think about it, the more I think you could be wrong about this. What is fact is not so because the majority think it true, but isn’t it possible that the majority think something true because it actually IS true?

RICHARD: Somehow I am reminded of that passage in Mr. Rudyard Kipling’s ‘Jungle Book’ where the Bandar-log (the monkeys) all shout, twenty at a time, to Mowgli (the man-cub) ‘we all say so, and so it must be true’ and ‘this is true; we all say so’.

If the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago had not discovered that something the majority think to be true (as in ‘you can’t change human nature’ for example) was not actually true we would not be having this conversation ... both The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list would not exist.

In short: on more than a few occasions in human history it has been the maverick, the non-conformist, the iconoclast, who breaks new ground.

*

RICHARD: It would seem that the jury is still out on this – and other – matters.

RESPONDENT: Yes. At least some of the ‘jury’ is still out – others have returned, and they are contradicting each other :o)

RICHARD: Aye ... and, presumably, on and on it will go (we could post URL’s to each other until the cows come home and still the matter would be not settled either way).

RESPONDENT: Possibly – or possibly it might get settled by looking further at the evidence. One doesn’t know until it is examined.

RICHARD: The ... um ... ‘the evidence’ in this particular instance is what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say (and not ‘the evidence’ regarding a magazine columnist) ... and what I found interesting was that he says Lorentzian relativity (where velocity is subsumed under time and space, in contrast to Einsteinian relativity subsuming time and space under velocity), is not only the more simple *theory* to represent the process the GPS operates by – and not only for pragmatic reasons – but is of major importance for the future of physics.

Some years ago, whilst in a government office for bureaucratic reasons, I noticed a rather droll sign (which could very well have been a bumper sticker) propped up on a nearby clerk’s desk which asked what would happen if one were to switch on the headlights in a space-ship travelling at the speed of light.

*

RICHARD: What I do find cute, in all this, is that my report/ description of this actual world sometimes attracts those who want scientific proof of something experiential – whilst oft-times proffering mathematical proof, as to why the experiential evidence is invalid, in lieu of scientific proof (as if they were one and the same thing) into the bargain – and disregard what I actually have to say ... so on occasion, to give but one example, I point out that mathematics do not describe the universe and that a mathematical equation has no existence outside of the ratiocinative process. How someone – anyone – could consider that a mathematical computation (or any abstract logic for that matter) renders experiential evidence null and void has got me beat ... because when I go to bed each night I have had, as always, a perfect day. And I do not use the word ‘perfect’ lightly.

RESPONDENT: I understand what you are saying here as a bid for ‘experiential evidence’ over abstract logic as it applies to your experience of an actual freedom.

RICHARD: No, what I am saying is that, from time-to-time, some peoples inform me that the direct experience of actuality, such as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), is invalid because a mathematical computation, or any abstract logic for that matter, devised by a person who (apparently) does not comprehend that mathematics do not describe the universe, or that a mathematical equation has no existence outside of the ratiocinative process, renders that experiential evidence null and void.

RESPONDENT: Fine. What is being offered for confirmation of relativity is ‘experiential evidence’ – observation – confirmation.

RICHARD: You are aware that the topic under dispute is whether or not the universe is spatially infinite, temporally eternal, and materially perdurable (and not just Einsteinian relativity per se)?

I only ask because the whole notion of it not being so comes out of the ‘big bang’ theory ... which is based upon the ‘expanding universe’ theory which was based upon Mr. Albert Einstein’s relativity theory ... it is, in other words, a notion drawn from a mathematical computation based upon a mathematical computation based upon a mathematical computation.

And the ‘experiential evidence’ you refer to are theories and not observation (for example ‘red-shifted galaxies’ is the observation; ‘galaxies moving away at high speeds’ is the theory, or, for another instance ‘microwave radiation’ is the observation; ‘cosmic background radiation’ is the theory).

RESPONDENT: Why do you continue to dispute it?

RICHARD: Because I care about my fellow human being and want only the best for them ... to settle for second-best because of mathematical theories, or because of any abstract logic for that matter, is absurd.

RESPONDENT: Is it impossible for Einsteinian relativity and an actual freedom to coexist? If so, why?

RICHARD: As this is somewhat similar to asking me if the Ptolemaic System is in accord with actuality I will make no further comment.

February 17 2004

RESPONDENT: ... By posting the URL, I am by no means endorsing it as fact.

RICHARD: Sure ... by posting what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say does not mean I am endorsing it as fact either.

RESPONDENT: Understood – I’m not at all sure that Clifford Will deserves the accusation of being ‘one-sided’. He is merely stating the evidence as he sees it – there is no need to take into account dissidents if one is already convinced.

RICHARD: And do all those peoples who were convinced of geocentricity even after the publication of Mr. Nicolaus Copernicus’s ‘Six Books Concerning The Revolutions Of the Heavenly Orbits’ in 1543, and even after Mr. Galileo Galilei’s publication supporting heliocentricity via astronomical observations (‘Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems – Ptolemaic and Copernican’) in 1632, also not deserve the accusation ‘one-sided’, then?

RESPONDENT: If you are referring to the ‘well-informed’ that were aware of contrary evidence and voluntarily suppressed it, then yes they were ‘one-sided’. If you are referring to the masses that were poorly informed – they were not ‘one-sided’ – they were wrong.

RICHARD: No, I am not referring to people of either scenario you now sketch ... I am referring to the peoples whom you say, because they are already convinced, have no need to take into account dissidents and are merely stating the evidence as they see it.

*

RICHARD: After all, they were merely stating the evidence as they see it, no?

RESPONDENT: It is possible to be wrong, yet not ‘one-sided’. As I see it – the question is not whether Clifford Will is ‘one-sided’ – the question is whether he is correct.

RICHARD: As the question as you see it is whether the proponent of the prevailing wisdom of the time – the Ptolemaic System in the above instance – is correct and not whether such a person is one-sided because they need not take into account the dissident – the one with the alternative system (the Copernican System in the above instance) – when they are already convinced then the following will surely be of interest:

• [Mr. Clifford Will]: ‘The modern history of experimental relativity can be divided roughly into four periods: Genesis, Hibernation, a Golden Era, and the Quest for Strong Gravity. (...) beginning around 1960, astronomical discoveries (quasars, pulsars, cosmic background radiation) and new experiments pushed GR to the forefront. Experimental gravitation experienced a Golden Era (1960-1980) during which a systematic, world-wide effort took place to understand the observable predictions of GR, *to compare and contrast them with the predictions of alternative theories of gravity*, and to perform new experiments to test them. (...) The results all supported GR, *and most alternative theories of gravity fell by the wayside* (for a popular review, see ‘Was Einstein Right’? by C. M. Will, 1993). Since 1980, the field has entered what might be termed a Quest for Strong Gravity. [emphasises added]. (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/node1.html).

It would appear that, at least since the end of the ‘Golden Era’ in 1980, Mr. Clifford Will has indeed been convinced the prevailing wisdom of the time is correct and does not need to take an alternative theory into account ever again.

Which would mean that he is, after all, merely stating the evidence as he sees it, eh?

*

RESPONDENT: Here are a couple of URLs where it can be seen that No 56 is correct about Mr Tom Bethell – who really is a conservative creationist ‘with an axe to grind’ so to speak. (snip).

RICHARD: As Mr. Tom Bethell is a magazine columnist (somewhat akin to a newspaper reporter) writing about what Mr. Tom Van Flandern published it is beside the point what he is or is not as what is relevant is whether his summation in that magazine article (the part I quoted) is in accord with what Mr. Tom Van Flandern had to say or not ... and, speaking personally, the moment I read the article I went straight to the source and checked it out for myself. ‘Tis oh-so-easy to get side-tracked by red-herrings, eh?

RESPONDENT: Maybe so – are you suggesting that I have been ‘side-tracked by red-herrings?’

RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? Nowhere in either your initial reply nor your second response did you refer directly to – let alone comment on – what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say.

RESPONDENT: As I have not made up my mind yet about Tom Van Flandern and what he says about relativity’s role in the GPS – I would hardly say that pointing out Tom Bethell’s ‘agenda’ is a red-herring.

RICHARD: Hmm ... the part of the magazine article I quoted could have been written by the columnist known as ‘Cassandra’, for example, without such an article (the part I quoted) detracting from what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say.

RESPONDENT: Nowhere have I claimed that what Tom Bethell writes taints what Tom Van Flandern has to say.

RICHARD: If I may point out? This, your third e-mail, is the first time you have even mentioned that Mr. Tom Van Flandern himself has something to say.

RESPONDENT: You were clearly using what Tom Bethell had to say about Tom Van Flandern in your case to show that Clifford Will was being ‘one-sided’ so I simply wanted to point out Tom Bethell’s ‘agenda’ as noteworthy.

RICHARD: I provided a part of a magazine article (the only part I quoted), which summarised what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say as what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say takes up many, many pages and can hardly be described as succinct or concise ... what is relevant is whether or not the magazine article’s summation (the part I quoted) is in accord with what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say and, speaking personally, the moment I read the article I went straight to the source and checked it out for myself as that is what I found noteworthy

What you did, however, was locate the magazine article itself and post URL’s to me about both the article’s writer and other things written in that article (the parts I did not quote) because, apparently, that is what you found noteworthy.

*

RICHARD: The democratic process – as in majority rules – which works well enough in the political arena at the present stage of human development has no valid application in science.

RESPONDENT: The more I think about it, the more I think you could be wrong about this. What is fact is not so because the majority think it true, but isn’t it possible that the majority think something true because it actually IS true?

RICHARD: Somehow I am reminded of that passage in Mr. Rudyard Kipling’s ‘Jungle Book’ where the Bandar-log (the monkeys) all shout, twenty at a time, to Mowgli (the man-cub) ‘we all say so, and so it must be true’ and ‘this is true; we all say so’.

RESPONDENT: I’m not sure why you are reminded of that passage – as it doesn’t illustrate anything I actually said. Maybe I can be more clear about what I meant so as to avoid confusion. Just because the majority think something is true does not make it true – and it doesn’t count as evidence for it to be true. Even so there are times where the reason that the majority think something is true is because it IS true. Take geocentrism for example, prior to Copernicus the majority view was wrong – which demonstrates that the majority can be wrong. Today, the majority think that Copernicus was right, mainly because he WAS right – that is, the cause goes from the fact to the widely shared view.

RICHARD: As the equivocation in your clarification (‘just because the majority think something is true does not make it true’/‘even so there are times where the reason that the majority think something is true is because it IS true’) is essentially the same as the equivocation in your initial response (‘what is fact is not so because the majority think it true’/‘but isn’t it possible that the majority think something true because it actually IS true’) there remains only your example – ‘prior to Copernicus the majority view was wrong’/‘today the majority think that Copernicus was right’ – to add the clarity you speak of so as to illustrate why that passage does not illustrate anything you actually said.

As what you actually said was that the more you think about it [think about me saying that the democratic process – as in majority rules – has no valid application in science] the more you think I could be wrong about this [could be wrong about the democratic process – as in majority rules – having no valid application in science] it makes no difference at all what example you provide where who the majority think is right is right mainly because they are right as it still does not make the democratic process – as in majority rules – have a valid application in science ... whoever is right is only ever right if what they have to say be in accord with the fact.

Needless is it to say that, because of your clarification, I am more than ever reminded of that passage?

*

RICHARD: If the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago had not discovered that something the majority think to be true (as in ‘you can’t change human nature’ for example) was not actually true we would not be having this conversation ... both The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list would not exist.

RESPONDENT: And if I didn’t think that you might be right – I wouldn’t be using this mailing list.

RICHARD: Yet that is not why I offered this analogy (whether you think I might be right or not is beside the point) as the point I am making is that, irregardless of what the majority think to be true, on more than a few occasions in human history it has been the maverick, the non-conformist, the iconoclast, who breaks new ground.

In short: peoples sometimes referred to, by their ‘majority rules’ detractors at the time, as heretics, recusants, rebels, and so on, have on more than a few occasions added enormously to human knowledge.

*

RICHARD: It would seem that the jury is still out on this – and other – matters.

RESPONDENT: Yes. At least some of the ‘jury’ is still out – others have returned, and they are contradicting each other :o)

RICHARD: Aye ... and, presumably, on and on it will go (we could post URL’s to each other until the cows come home and still the matter would be not settled either way).

RESPONDENT: Possibly – or possibly it might get settled by looking further at the evidence. One doesn’t know until it is examined.

RICHARD: The ... um ... ‘the evidence’ in this particular instance is what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say ...

RESPONDENT: Whereas ‘the evidence’ I had in mind is the purported evidence for relativity – in this context specifically what Clifford Will has to say.

RICHARD: Yet what does Mr. Clifford Will offer in the way of ‘the evidence’ on the web page you provided a link to? Other than merely stating that time on a GPS satellite clock advances about a net rate of 38 microseconds per day faster than a clock on the ground (because Mr. Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity says that rapidly moving clocks tick more slowly and his general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick faster) such that navigational errors would [quote] ‘accumulate faster than 10 km per day!’ [endquote] unless the Einsteinian relativistic offset in the rates of the satellite clocks be compensated?

I ask this because, apart from also saying that without the proper application of Einsteinian relativity the GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes and that when one lands at an airport one might, therefore, think of Mr. Albert Einstein, he adds nothing to an understanding of why he chose that example to be the *only* example he provides for his own question ‘what good is fundamental physics to the person on the street’.

Speaking as a person on the street I was left none the wiser ... which is why I asked what you found [quote] ‘good’ [endquote] about that article.

*

RICHARD: ... (and not ‘the evidence’ regarding a magazine columnist) ...

RESPONDENT: Nowhere did I say or imply that it was.

RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? As I am not a mind-reader I can only go by what you tap out on the keyboard before clicking ‘send’ ... and nowhere in either your initial response nor your second response did you refer directly to – let alone comment on – what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say.

Instead of that what you did was locate the magazine article itself and post URL’s to me about both the article’s writer and other things written in that article (the parts I did not quote) because, apparently, that is what you found noteworthy.

*

RICHARD: ... and what I found interesting was that he says Lorentzian relativity (where velocity is subsumed under time and space, in contrast to Einsteinian relativity subsuming time and space under velocity), is not only the more simple *theory* to represent the process the GPS operates by – and not only for pragmatic reasons – but is of major importance for the future of physics.

RESPONDENT: I find ‘Lorentizian relativity’ interesting too – as the concept is new to me.

RICHARD: May I ask what it is that you find interesting about what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say about Lorentzian relativity?

The reason I ask is because, being but a lay-person, I cannot mathematically know whether Mr. Clifford Will is right, in regards Einsteinian relativity being the better model for the GPS, or whether Mr. Tom Van Flandern is right, in regards Lorentzian relativity being the better model for the GPS, and, apart from drawing attention to the fact that there are (at least) two models being proposed, I am suggesting it is important to remember they are both models (just as the various theories regarding the sub-atomic postulates of quantum theory, for example, also are).

What is actually happening to the rubidium and cesium in the clocks on board the satellites – why such highly reactive chemical elements ‘tick’ faster than when on earth in a stronger gravitational field – may very well be entirely something else, of course, as mathematical models are only models ... could it be that the measure of time (the rubidium and cesium in this instance) is what is ‘ticking’ faster and not time itself advancing more quickly?

I only mention this because this moment has no duration here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: Again, I have not yet made up my mind on it though – and from what I can tell – it may take quite a while on this one.

RICHARD: Okay ... the reason why I linked what I found interesting in what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say about Lorentzian relativity with a rather droll sign (which asked what would happen if one were to switch on the headlights in a space-ship travelling at the speed of light) that I noticed propped up on a nearby clerk’s desk, whilst in a government office for bureaucratic reasons some years ago, could be put like this:

1. Suppose a vehicle travelling at 75 kilometres an hour (75k) has a head-on crash with a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction also at 75k ... would the collision, the force of the impact, be the same as just the one vehicle crashing into a stationary object at 150k?
2. If so, now suppose a vehicle travelling at three-quarters the speed of light (.75c) has a head-on crash with a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction also at .75c ... would the collision, the force of the impact, be the same as just the one vehicle crashing into a stationary object at 1.50c?

I ask this because, according to Einsteinian relativity (in direct contrast to Lorentzian relativity), the force of the impact would only be the same as a .96c collision with a stationary object.

*

RICHARD: ... what I am saying is that, from time-to-time, some peoples inform me that the direct experience of actuality, such as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), is invalid because a mathematical computation, or any abstract logic for that matter, devised by a person who (apparently) does not comprehend that mathematics do not describe the universe, or that a mathematical equation has no existence outside of the ratiocinative process, renders that experiential evidence null and void.

RESPONDENT: Are you referring to relativity?

RICHARD: I am referring to some peoples informing me that the direct experience of infinitude here in this actual world is invalid because of a notion drawn from a mathematical computation (the ‘big bang’ theory) based upon a mathematical computation (the ‘expanding universe’ theory) based upon a mathematical computation (the ‘general relativity’ theory).

RESPONDENT: Are you saying that if relativity were fact, then an actual freedom would be impossible?

RICHARD: I am not saying that ... those who seek to disallow the direct experience of eternity – such as in a PCE – are saying that (in effect if not specifically spelt-out).

RESPONDENT: Or are you referring to the ‘mathematical computations’ involved in the ‘big-bang’ theory?

RICHARD: Also those ... how someone – anyone – could consider that a mathematical computation (or any abstract logic for that matter) renders experiential evidence null and void has got me beat because when I go to bed each night I have had, as always, a perfect day.

And I do not use the word ‘perfect’ lightly ... only that which is peerless can be perfect.

RESPONDENT: I’m not following what you are saying because I don’t know of any mathematical computation that some people might use to try to invalidate your experience.

RICHARD: This is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say:

• ‘In 1922 Alexander A. Friedmann, a Russian meteorologist and mathematician, and in 1927 Georges Lemaitre, the aforementioned Belgian cleric, independently discovered solutions to *Einstein’s equations* ...’. [emphasis added]. (©1994-2002 Encyclopaedia Britannica).

This is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say about Mr. Georges Lemaitre in regard discovering solutions to Mr. Albert Einstein’s mathematical equations (aka mathematical computations):

• ‘Lemaitre, Georges: Belgian astronomer and cosmologist who formulated the modern big-bang theory, which holds that the universe began in a cataclysmic explosion of a small, primeval ‘super-atom’.
A civil engineer, Lemaitre served as an artillery officer in the Belgian Army during World War I. After the war he entered a seminary and in 1923 was ordained a priest. He studied at the University of Cambridge’s solar physics laboratory (1923–24) and then at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (1925–27), where he became acquainted with the findings of the American astronomers Edwin P. Hubble and Harlow Shapley on the expanding universe. In 1927, the year he became professor of astrophysics at the University of Louvain, he proposed his big-bang theory, which explained the recession of the galaxies *within the framework of Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity*. Although expanding models of the universe had been considered earlier, notably by the Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter, Lemaitre’s theory, as modified by George Gamow, has become the leading theory of cosmology. [emphasis added]. (©1994-2002 Encyclopaedia Britannica).

I know that I have referred to the following before (only I provided an internet reference back then) but perhaps its import may become more apparent with a second reading:

• ‘Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in ‘Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists’. The physicist’s breadth of spirit and depth of enthusiasm were always most evident among truly intellectual men. He loved being with the physicists Paul Ehrenfest and Hendrik A. Lorentz at The Netherlands’ Leiden University, and several times he visited the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena to attend seminars at the Mt. Wilson Observatory, which had become world renowned as a centre for astrophysical research. At Mt. Wilson he heard the Belgian scientist Abbé Georges Lemaitre detail his theory that the universe had been created by the explosion of a ‘primeval atom’ and was still expanding. Gleefully, Einstein jumped to his feet, applauding. ‘This is the most beautiful and satisfactory *explanation of creation* to which I have ever listened’, he said. [emphasis added]. (©1994-2002 Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Maybe the reason why actualists keep on seeing spiritualists under the bed is because there are indeed spiritualists under the bed?

*

RESPONDENT: Fine. What is being offered for confirmation of relativity is ‘experiential evidence’ – observation – confirmation.

RICHARD: You are aware that the topic under dispute is whether or not the universe is spatially infinite, temporally eternal, and materially perdurable (and not just Einsteinian relativity per se)?

RESPONDENT: I was not aware that of that, no.

RICHARD: Oh? Why would Einsteinian relativity be such a hot topic on this mailing list, then, if not because of my oft-repeated observation that the infinitude of the universe is directly experienced here in this actual world?

Just curious.

RESPONDENT: Do you say that because of your reasoning below?

RICHARD: Perhaps an example may be of assistance: I first came onto the internet, in 1997, to share my discovery with my fellow human being ... and in a very short time the following exchange happened:

• [Richard]: ‘Only this moment exists. This moment has no duration. This physical universe is infinite and eternal. It has no beginning and no ending ... and therefore no middle. There are no edges to this universe.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘But there are boundaries to the universe and it is finite. We can see that galaxies are speeding away from one another. We can see back in time to when the universe was just a young thing. We see that stars die while new ones are born. The universe evolves. What is infinite is eternal. What is eternal does not evolve. Therefore the universe is not infinite. However, what makes the universe possible may indeed be something of an infinite, eternal nature.

That instance, in 1997, was but the very first of several such occasions when another would skip past my ‘only this moment exists/this moment has no duration’ (eternity is here on earth in this actual world and not in some other dimension) observation, written as the direct experience of it is happening, and seize upon my ‘this physical universe is eternal (and infinite)’ observation so as to present mathematical proofs (abstract computations) as to why the physical moment cannot be eternal (have no duration) because the mathematical equations ‘prove’ the existence of an underlying reality (as in my co-respondent’s ‘what makes the universe possible may indeed be something of an infinite, eternal nature’ comment above) which timelessly manifests all phenomena.

Mr. Victor Stenger has written a book called ‘Timeless Reality’ wherein he makes it quite clear that what he too calls the underlying reality of all time, all space, and all form (the overlying reality) is timeless. Vis.:

• ‘... whether or not reality has one universe or many, it had no beginning and was not created. It neither was nor will be. It just is’. (Book Description for ‘Timeless Reality : Symmetry, Simplicity, and Multiple Universes’ by Victor J. Stenger; ©2000 Published by Prometheus Books).

That clearly speaks of a beginningless and endless (aka uncreated) reality – a reality that just is – which isness may or may not have many universes (many overlying realities) manifesting as time and space and form (all phenomena) ... for example:

‘... the underlying reality of all phenomena may have no beginning and no end ...’. (From the Inside Flap of ‘Timeless Reality : Symmetry, Simplicity, and Multiple Universes’ by Victor J. Stenger; (C)2000 Published by Prometheus Books).

As he elsewhere adjudges fellow theoretical physicists Mr Stephen Hawking, Mr. Roger Penrose, and Mr. Steven Weinberg, to be Platonists (thus apparently excluding himself from that classification) the parallel with eastern philosophy is virtually inescapable ... as in a uncreated underlying reality timelessly manifesting all phenomena (all time and all space and all form).

And, as all this is ‘proved’ by mathematical computations, the direct experience of actuality is therefore (supposedly) invalided.

*

RICHARD: I only ask because the whole notion of it not being so comes out of the ‘big bang’ theory ... which is based upon the ‘expanding universe’ theory which was based upon Mr. Albert Einstein’s relativity theory ... it is, in other words, a notion drawn from a mathematical computation based upon a mathematical computation based upon a mathematical computation.

RESPONDENT: Just so I am clear on this – are you saying that since the ‘big-bang’ theory is false (according to you) that also entails that relativity is false?

RICHARD: As the mathematical ‘big bang’ theory proposes that there be a beginning to all time, all space, and all form – and a universe which has a beginning is not an eternal universe by any description – and as the ‘big bang’ theory is based upon the mathematical ‘expanding universe’ theory, which is itself based upon the mathematical ‘general relativity’ theory, it would appear that Mr. Albert Einstein’s relativity is indeed false if only for that reason.

However, I would suggest it is false for the far more pragmatic reason it is a subjective interpretation of what actually happens.

RESPONDENT: The ‘big-bang’ theory may need the theory of relativity – but I wasn’t aware that the theory of relativity needs the big-bang.

RICHARD: I am not suggesting it does.

RESPONDENT: Are you saying that if relativity is fact, then that implies that the ‘big-bang’ would have to be fact as well?

RICHARD: I am not saying that ... those who seek to disallow the direct experience of eternity – such as in a PCE – are saying that (if they did not I would not go looking up such things in encyclopaedias and other places).

*

RICHARD: And the ‘experiential evidence’ you refer to are theories and not observation (for example ‘red-shifted galaxies’ is the observation; ‘galaxies moving away at high speeds’ is the theory, or, for another instance ‘microwave radiation’ is the observation; ‘cosmic background radiation’ is the theory).

RESPONDENT: Yet I am not referring to ‘experiential evidence’ for the ‘big-bang’ as you outline here – I am talking about ‘experiential evidence’ for relativity of the kind proposed by Clifford M Will in the link I previously provided and his book ‘Was Einstein Right?’ – personally, I’m leaving the ‘big-bang’ theory out of the discussion as it seems better to treat the two separately – though I do realize that relativity is needed for the big bang – though not the other way around.

RICHARD: Speaking personally I am not at all concerned about either the big bang theory or the relativity theory – or quantum theory for that matter – and it is only when my fellow human being chooses to settle for second best because of a man sitting in a patents office nearly a century ago having the happiest thought in his life (that a person falling from a roof has the right to interpret their state of motion as being a state of rest and thus conclude there is no gravitational field for them) that I go looking up such things in encyclopaedias and other places.

Quite frankly, I would rather sit and watch paint dry on a wall than read about the imaginative/ intuitive speculations of theoretical physicists.

*

RESPONDENT: Why do you continue to dispute it?

RICHARD: Because I care about my fellow human being and want only the best for them ... to settle for second-best because of mathematical theories, or because of any abstract logic for that matter, is absurd.

RESPONDENT: I do understand this – but I’m specifically asking about what reasons you have for rejecting the evidence (of the type offered by Clifford Will) for relativity alone.

RICHARD: Mainly because mathematical theories, or any abstract logic for that matter, are a poor substitute for the actual

*

RESPONDENT: Is it impossible for Einsteinian relativity and an actual freedom to coexist? If so, why?

RICHARD: As this is somewhat similar to asking me if the Ptolemaic System is in accord with actuality I will make no further comment.

RESPONDENT: Ok, let me ask it a different way – specifically why do you reject the ‘evidence’ (of the kind offered by Clifford Will in this case) for Einsteinian relativity?

RICHARD: Science is, or is supposed to be, objective.

RESPONDENT: Would you say that the theory of relativity is of such a nature that it could never possibly be confirmed?

RICHARD: As I am not a mathematician I will defer to Mr. Tom Van Flandern here (from the same page I previously quoted from):

• ‘(...) What we have just described are careful and correct inferences of SR [Einsteinian relativity] as applied to the twin’s paradox. This also shows the essentially mathematical nature of the theory, because it does violence to what we fondly call ‘common sense’. The most important point to note carefully is that *the theory is internally consistent, and no mathematical contradictions can be found* no matter how the transformation equations are manipulated, or how many frames or twins are introduced. The next important point to note is that SR makes demands on our credulity that LR [Lorentzian relativity] does not. Let’s examine why ...’. [emphasis added]. (www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep6/ep6-vanfl.htm).

I would hazard a guess that it is well-nigh impossible to either confirm or disconfirm a mathematical theory which is internally consistent and (mathematically) non-contradictory.

Which is perhaps why it has such a hold on otherwise intelligent peoples.

March 09 2004

RESPONDENT No 60: Another example of neo-solipsistic-like thinking in actualism: I know I am the first because I don’t know of any who might have been there before me. Absence of knowledge of a predecessor is ‘proof’ that there wasn’t one.

RESPONDENT: Would you, likewise, propose that when Neil Armstrong claimed to be the ‘first man to walk on the moon’ that he was being ‘solipsistic’? (...) Maybe he should be known as ‘first man to walk on the moon, as far as we know ...

RESPONDENT No 60: Even if the two claims WERE similar ... The question is whether the absence of knowledge of a precedent is proof of the absence of a precedent. Strictly speaking, yes, the absence of knowledge of a previous moon-walk is not certain proof that there never was one before Armstrong. Armstrong, apparently a sane and reasonable man, would have no problem acknowledging this in principle. It then becomes a question of likelihood. If anyone can get Richard (or his more ardent followers), by hook or by crook, to acknowledge that it is a question of likelihood rather than experiential certainty, I will run stark naked and screaming across the Sydney Harbour Bridge for your entertainment pleasure.

RESPONDENT: Would it be enough to qualify for an acknowledgement ‘that it is a question of likelihood rather than experiential certainty’ if Richard said that there is a possibility (no matter how unlikely) that there was another person prior to him to discover and live a permanent actual freedom?

No 60, my intent in posing this question to Richard is not to be entertained by you running stark naked and screaming across the Sydney Harbour Bridge (so, don’t do it for my sake) – rather that statement indicates the importance of the question to you (and others encountering actualism).

Richard, knowing that you say you are the first to live an actual freedom, do you admit that it is at least possible, no matter how unlikely, that someone else before you lived an irreversible actual freedom for some indeterminate time in their life?

RICHARD: If you look at the (above) exchange you will see that the crux of the topic under discussion is that a sane and reasonable person would have no problem acknowledging that, in principle, the absence of knowledge of a precedent is not proof of the absence of a precedent.

Whilst I am not sane I am indeed reasonable and I hereby unambiguously acknowledge that the absence of knowledge of a precedent is not proof of the absence of a precedent ... which (logical) principle I have acknowledged before. Here is but one example:

• [Richard]: ‘... given that you dismiss the extraordinary way of knowing as believing that I know it may be pertinent to point out that I am well aware of the proposition made by Mr. Karl Popper that, logically, nothing can ever be known exhaustively by the ordinary way of knowing (in an infinite and eternal and perpetual universe there just might be a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eater somewhere and somewhen) ...’

Now, to have to personally verify every single person, thing or event in order to satisfy the demands of this logical principle only serves to show the limiting strait-jacket that such an abstract logic is as it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that there is a limit to the rarefied demands of such theoretical thinking (an academic theorist says ‘is it a logical proposition’ whereas a field engineer says ‘does it work in practice’).

In practice, then, any (apparently) previously unknown discovery is a new discovery by default until evidence to the contrary shows otherwise ... which practice is what has sometimes been called ‘the probabilism theory’ (or ‘the probabilist theory’) upon which 99% – if not 100% – of all human endeavour is sensibly based. For example:

• ‘probabilism (Philos.): the theory that there is no absolutely certain knowledge, but that there may be grounds of belief sufficient for practical life’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Thus the [quote] ‘another example of neo-solipsistic-like thinking in actualism’ [endquote] referred to at the top of this page is but (another) facile argument based upon a misrepresentation as I have never said [quote] ‘I know I am the first because I don’t know of any who might have been there before me/absence of knowledge of a predecessor is ‘proof’ that there wasn’t one’. [endquote] ... here is what I have actually said (at least 48 times):

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You claimed once that you are the only one to have discovered what you discovered ...
• [Richard]: ‘For as far as I have been able to ascertain ... yes. I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for over twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail.

As ‘for as far as I have been able to ascertain’ is but a variation on your ‘as far as we know’ phrasing – to which your co-respondent answered [quote] ‘strictly speaking, yes ...’ [endquote] – it looks as if it is a beat-up you are responding to

RESPONDENT: Or is there something intrinsic to the experience of a PCE or an actual freedom that informs you that it is an impossibility, rather than an unlikelihood, that any other human being has lived an actual freedom prior to you?

RICHARD: Put specifically: in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) it is obvious that actualism (the direct experience that matter is not merely passive) is *not* what spiritualism refers to ... this is the way I have described it before:

• [Richard]: ‘In mid-1980, six months prior to the commencement of the path that would eventually lead to an actual freedom from the human condition, I had a four-hour PCE wherein it was manifestly obvious that what the human race had made of such experiences was a degradation of the actual ... and five years later I had the first of many extra-extraordinary experiences – of going beyond the extraordinary experience called spiritual enlightenment – which experientially demonstrated (proved) to me that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience.

And:

• [Richard]: ‘Speaking in the context of the only religio-spiritual language I knew then (from the culture I was born into) I would say, to anyone prepared to listen at the time [mid-1980 to mid-1981], that everybody has got it wrong because nobody has to physically die to get to heaven ... that eternity was just here right now because, as it is already always happening, it cannot cease at physical birth and recommence at physical death after a 70+ year interregnum.

As for an actual freedom from the human condition: I cannot know (other than the ordinary way of knowing) whether anybody since 1992 is actually free from the human condition ... as I made clear only five months ago:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘One more point, this time not based in mistrust: [Co-Respondent]: ‘For some reason, I do believe you are telling the truth, and I find it fascinating that the universe is not allowing you to become aware of others who have made the same discovery (you’d probably say because no-one has)’. [Richard]: ‘Yep ... and, just in case there has been a misunderstanding, the universe is not god/goddess and thus neither allows nor prevents such an awareness you refer to’. [endquotes]. I understand that I am placing human qualities on this thing called the universe (everything) but I don’t fully understand your reply. Could you expand on this please.
• [Richard]: ‘Sure ... as the awareness you refer to is a psychic awareness it has no existence outside of the human psyche – there is no ‘spirit’ or ‘presence’ or ‘being’ in actuality – and there is no such facility operating in this flesh and blood body (when the affective faculty vanished so too did its epiphenomenal psychic facility).
Hence it is impossible to be aware of anybody else actually free from the human condition by such means.

In short: it was the ‘being’ possessing this flesh and blood body in 1985 who experientially discovered that no-one had gone beyond enlightenment before then ... and not me.

I am simply providing a report of ‘his’ experience ... what another does with this report is their business.


CORRESPONDENT No. 27 (Part Nine)

RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

The Third Alternative

(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)

Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.

Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-.  All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity