Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence

On The Universe


RESPONDENT: What do you think of the so-called Black Holes hanging around in the Universe?

RICHARD: I do not think of them – except in a discussion about such things – just as I do not think of unicorns.

RESPONDENT: What is the most refined form of matter, is it light, intergalactic ‘void’ or is it something else?

RICHARD: Such a question has no application in actuality – terms like ‘refined’ and ‘gross’ are spiritual terms, in discussions about the fundamental nature of everything, and say more about the elitist character of spirituality than anything else – as matter can be either mass or energy without any gain or loss of quality both phases of matter are equally elementary.

RESPONDENT: Does anti-matter exist as an actuality?

RICHARD: No ... it is a theoretical construct.


RESPONDENT: Reactions of the actual universe :)) to the human condition (both real and spiritual) is something to be watched with great interest.

RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well you put a smiley there as I have no notion as to what you are talking about ... this actual universe, not being sentient per se, does not react to anything. And, as the identity within is oblivious to all things actual, it cannot be watched anyway.

RESPONDENT: Yet, it manifests through yourself, does it not?

RICHARD: No ... what I am, as this flesh and blood body only (sans identity/affections in toto), is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself *as* an apperceptive human being (and not *through* a human being). I have written about this as/through distinction before ... for example:

• [Richard]: ‘The whole point of actualism is the direct experience of actuality: as this flesh and blood body only what one is (what not ‘who’) is these eyes seeing, these ears hearing, this tongue tasting, this skin touching and this nose smelling – and no separative identity (no ‘I’/‘me’) means no separation – whereas ‘I’/‘me’, a psychological/psychic entity, am inside the body busily creating an inner world and an outer world and looking out through ‘my’ eyes upon ‘my’ outer world as if looking out through a window, listening to ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ tongue, touching ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ skin and smelling ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ nose.

Hence my comment in the previous e-mail about the identity within being oblivious to all things actual ... there is no outer world in actuality.

RESPONDENT: You react to the posts on this mailing list and you make no secret from the fact that your words come directly from your moment-to-moment experiencing of the actual universe?

RICHARD: Oh, I see ... you were referring to my responses to what is written on this mailing list.

Okay then ... but while on the subject: the direct experiencing of actuality, as this flesh and blood body only (sans ‘being’ itself), simply means there is no separation whatsoever – the very stuff of this flesh and blood body is the very stuff of the universe – and if you were to reach forward and touch the glass, which is a few scant millimetres to the front of these words you are reading, then the very stuff of the universe, currently in a shape/form called finger-tip, is directly experiencing the very stuff of the universe, currently in the shape/form called glass.

The universe is not just the outer reaches of what is called ‘deep space’ as it is as much the room you are sitting in reading these words as it is anything else ... the universe is not just nebulae and stars and so on, it is as much the flesh and blood body you actually are, sitting in the room reading these words, as it is the pixels currently forming these words.

In short: there is nothing which is not this universe.

RESPONDENT: I was commenting in regard to the assumption (for me) that everyone (6.000.000.000 people – Richard) experiences his own universe, that everyone represents a different and unique world, as unique as the identity within.

RICHARD: Yes, whereas I was responding to you (seemingly) calling such a universe – an identity’s ‘own universe’ – the actual universe. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Reactions of the actual universe (...) is something to be watched with great interest.
• [Richard]: ‘As the identity within is oblivious to all things actual, it [the actual universe] cannot be watched [by an identity].

An identity, being but an illusion, is of course forever locked-out of the actual world by its very nature ... it cannot see what the eyes are seeing.

RESPONDENT: I haven’t met two similar persons or similar world-views as there are no two similar bodies.

RICHARD: At root everyone is not all that dissimilar – virtually all sentient beings are identical at the core of their being – as one person’s sorrow, for instance, is not all that different to another’s ... and so on through virtually all the emotions/ passions.

It (the similarity of the affective feelings and thus the ‘being’ they automatically form themselves into) is what makes for empathy.

RESPONDENT: And your universe is the actual universe except from the fact that it’s not yours: it exists on its own accord.

RICHARD: Aye, this actual universe existed long before this flesh and blood body was born and will exist long after this flesh and blood body is dead ... only an identity can claim ownership of their own creation (the identity’s ‘own universe’ you referred to further above).

RESPONDENT: This is what actually fascinates me.

RICHARD: The identity, who used to inhabit this body all those years ago, was so fascinated by the wonder of it all ‘he’ voluntarily (willingly and cheerfully) pressed the button which would ensure ‘his’ demise so that this actual universe could become apparent ... and thus went blessedly into oblivion.

*

RICHARD: ... are there no hints about the properties of this universe also in those writings [the 4th way system]?

RESPONDENT: Yes, there are but they are viewed and conveyed from an ‘objective’ point of view, (that is experienced through the Absolute eyes and translated in ordinary language, my opinion) although it is stated that they are scientific facts yet to be discovered.

RICHARD: For the sake of clarity in communication: are you suggesting that these people experiencing the universe through ‘Absolute eyes’ have discerned the infinitude of this universe ... have discerned that it exists infinitely, eternally, and perpetually (which means it is not a creation)?

RESPONDENT: Ouspensky wrote a book ‘In search of ...’ in which he stated that the age of the Universe is somewhere like 10^120 years (ha-ha, I don’t remember exactly, anyway it was an enormous number), I guess this definite number means that the Universe is not infinite.

RICHARD: Okay ... that would explain why you initially said that you have not heard enlightened people saying a word about the infinitude of this universe. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘... the confusion arrises that not the Universe is infinite but that I am, or that I’m the one immortal, not the Universe, etc. I haven’t heard enlightened people say a word about the infinity of this Universe, but instead the same old spiritual refrain: Me, Me and Me.

RESPONDENT: I recently watched a documentary on TV about Hubble telescope and it was reported that the furthest images Hubble took were from a distance of 12 billion light years from Earth and these photos were of already fully formed galaxies. These images puzzled scientists as they expected very young star formations in that area.

RICHARD: Yes, the increasing reach of modern astronomy is making the ‘Big Bang’ theory look even sillier than it already did when it was first proposed, in 1927, by the French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre (at the behest of the then pope Mr. Pius XI in a Conference on Cosmology, which was held in the Vatican, in the Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma).

In astronomical terms the universe is immense beyond human (earthly) comparison: the better the telescope the larger the known universe is ... the Next Generation Space Telescope (expected to be launched in 2009 when the Hubble Space Telescope ends its useful life) will collect light in the infrared band rather than the optical band and which may, by pushing the present boundaries past the range of current human visibility, drive the final nail into the coffin of that biblically-motivated ex-nihilo/ad-nihil (creation/destruction) science-fiction fantasy known as the ‘Big Bang’/ ‘Big Crunch’ theory which passes for wisdom in the vaulted halls of academia.

RESPONDENT: The human mind cannot accept infinity as a fact I guess.

RICHARD: Oh, this human mind could, back at age eight or nine when I was first made aware of the infinity of space by my then father, one night whilst gazing at the stars: I could not grasp the concept but could comprehend the existence of infinity when he gave me his version of the Ancient Greek ‘throwing a spear into what’ question regarding the supposed boundary to space (he asked me what lay at the end of the universe – a brick wall/wire fence/whatever – and if one leans on the brick wall and looks over what would one be looking at or into).

The actual knowing of this infinity (as opposed to intellectually knowing) lodged itself there and then in me as a demand to be met one day ... along with actually knowing the eternity of time and the perpetuity of matter (mass/energy) which I collectively refer to with the word ‘infinitude’ from the Oxford Dictionary ‘infinite extent, amount, duration, etc.; a boundless expanse; an unlimited time’ meaning.

RESPONDENT: And if it were to accept it as a fact, what would that imply for a human being?

RICHARD: Well, for this human being it implied that the timeless and spaceless and formless infinitude, which was subjectively experienced night and day for eleven years, was a delusory infinitude ... an affective/psychic hallucination.

RESPONDENT: Would it make any difference?

RICHARD: It made a difference for this human being – it being one of the numerous things which went towards enabling an actual freedom from the human condition – and thus, by extension, any other human being desirous of the same.

The history of science shows that fact always wins out over fantasy ... eventually.


RESPONDENT: There are a some questions I have regarding cosmology as defended by AF – maybe these can help clarify some current discussions – namely the current cosmology and unknowable phenomena discussions.

RICHARD: And for the sake of the clarification you speak of here are what the words cosmology and cosmogony mean to me:

• ‘cosmogony [Gk ‘kosmogonia’ creation of the world]: a theory or account of the origin of the universe; the branch of science that deals with the origin of the universe; the creation of the universe; cosmogonic, cosmogonical; cosmogonist: (a) a person who holds that the world had a beginning in time; (b) a person who studies cosmogony or propounds a cosmogony.
• ‘cosmology [Fr. ‘cosmologie’ or mod. L ‘cosmologia’]: the science of the evolution and structure of the universe; a theory or postulated account of this; the branch of philosophy or metaphysics which deals with the universe as a whole; cosmologist: a person who studies cosmology or propounds a cosmology’. (Oxford Dictionary).

I profess no intimate or direct knowledge of the structure (the nuts and bolts) of the universe ... that which is what is properly called cosmology. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘What I am most interested in, Richard, is bring forth some rather unusual questions about the nature of what is ‘Actual’. Questions about the energies which constitute matter ‘as we know it’ (through the senses), and the various speeds and properties of substance that the senses are unable to register. These may not interest you but it will help me understand (I’m choosing my words carefully here just how finely tuned is this third alternative focus ...
• [Richard]: ‘If you mean questions such as the make-up of atoms and the speed of sound waves, radio waves, light waves and so on, then I would make it clear that I am not a physicist ... nor a mathematician. Consequently I do not pretend to know all the detailed analysis of the constitution of physical matter/energy gathered and/or proposed so far by human beings ... which means that this lay-person viewpoint enables me to not fall for the all-too-obvious errors of omission (and errors of commission) that dogs the mathematically-driven physicist’s world-view’.

With only a few scattered digressions all I have ever spoken of – and repeatedly at that – in regards the nature of the universe is its infinitude ... and I use the word ‘infinitude’ in its ‘a boundless expanse; an unlimited time’ (Oxford Dictionary) sense. For instance:

• [Richard]: ‘As time is eternal – just as space is infinite and matter is perpetual – to be here now as this flesh and blood body only is to be living an ongoing experiencing of this infinitude of this very material universe (I am using the word ‘infinitude in its ‘a boundless expanse and an unlimited time’ meaning). Therefore, infinitude – having no opposite and thus being perfection itself – is personified as me ... a flesh and blood body only. Hence my oft-repeated refrain: ‘I am the material universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being’ or ‘I am the experience of infinitude’. The infinite character of physical space, coupled with the eternal character of time and the perpetual character of matter, produces a here and now infinitude that can be understood experientially by one who is apperceptive. To grasp the character of infinitude with certainty, the reasoning mind must forsake its favoured process of intellectual understanding through logical and/or intuitive imagination and enter into the realm of a pure consciousness experience (apperception). In a PCE – which is where there is no ‘I’ or ‘me’ extant – the essential characteristics of infinitude are transparently obvious, lucidly self-evident, clearly apparent and open to view’.

More than a little of what modern day theoretical physics proposes is, more properly, called cosmogony ... the ‘Big Bang’ theory for example.

RESPONDENT: 1) Precisely, how is the universe known to be infinite/eternal?

RICHARD: Put simply: if the infinitude directly experienced in a pure consciousness experience is not the infinitude of the universe then what is it the infinitude of ... a god (using the word ‘god’ in the ‘ground of being’ sense)?

In other words if it be not a physical infinitude then it falls into the realm of being a metaphysical infinitude.

RESPONDENT: It seems to me that whether this is known purely through ‘common sense’ reasoning without a PCE or whether it takes a PCE to become obvious is unclear.

RICHARD: You may find the following link informative in this regard:

Just in case you do not access that page I would draw attention to the following excerpts:

• [Richard]: ‘... modern astronomy is showing the universe to be immensely vast. For example, in 1986 a huge conglomeration of galaxies that are 1,000,000,000 light years long, 300,000,000 light years wide and 100,000,000 light years thick were found (which finding was confirmed in 1990). This ‘wall of galaxies’, as it became known, would have taken 100,000,000,000 years to form under the workings of the ‘Big Bang’ theory ... which makes the mathematically estimated ‘age’ of the universe – 12 to 14 billion years – simply look sillier than it already did. (...)
‘I primarily base the infinity, eternity and perpetuity (collectively known as infinitude) of the universe on my direct experience of the actual, of course, but that is of little use to another person who is not living in this actual world or not currently having a pure consciousness experience (PCE). Therefore, one initially needs to approach the question rationally – through inductive and/or deductive reasoning – so as to dispel the oh-so-persistent feeling of finiteness, temporariness and transitoriness which the psychological and psychic entity manifests over the actual (the centre in consciousness creates the boundary in awareness) thus producing everyday reality’s spatial, temporal and material finiteness. (...)
‘... as a normal person I could not directly experience the actuality of the infinitude ... at age eight or nine I was first made aware of the infinity of space by my father one night whilst gazing at the stars: I could not grasp the concept but could comprehend the existence of infinity when he gave me his version of the Ancient Greek ‘throwing a spear into what’ question regarding the supposed boundary to space (he asked me what lay at the end of the universe ... a brick wall/wire fence/whatever ... if one leans on the brick wall and looks over what would one looking at or into). The actual knowing of this infinity (as opposed to intellectually knowing) lodged itself there and then in me as a demand to be met one day. (...)
‘... at 33 years of age I had a four hour PCE wherein the direct experience of infinitude provided the actual knowing I had desired from childhood ... and I wanted this actuality twenty four hours of the day. Consequently – after an eleven year interlude in an altered state of consciousness wherein God aka Truth arrogated the universe’s infinitude – I entered into the actual world at age 45 and have directly known ever since, each moment again, infinitude as an actuality. It is ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ who creates the impression of ‘finite’, ‘duration’ and ‘transience’ ... and then challenges others to prove them wrong. There is no such thing as a physically finite, timed and depletable universe; it is ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ who creates this impression with ‘my’ instinct-driven feelings which cripple an otherwise intelligent mind ... ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ can only think in terms of duality. To think logically is to think in terms of opposites ... and logic is limited inasmuch as it cannot encompass infinitude (infinitude has no duality).
‘Therefore, it is up to those who propose an edge, a boundary, a beginning, a duration, an ending, a depletion to demonstrate the veracity of their belief. Until then, the universe will go on being what it is: a boundless, limitless, immeasurable infinitude. For those people who attempt to disallow this actual knowing on the grounds of subjectivity I can only say that their knowing is not only subjective as well but a self-centred subjectivity into the bargain. Furthermore, they need to satisfactorily explain why they are unnecessarily complicating what is actually a simple issue: they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a finite space ... and where it came from and out of what and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a limited time ... and when it came and from what and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing depletable form ... and where it came from and out of what and how and why’. (...) [endquotes].

I, for one, have not heard about, or read of, any satisfactory ‘where, when, how, from what, and why’ answer and I would be most surprised to ever come across one as what cosmogony does is shift the issue of infinitude into the realm of creation/discreation fantasies ... such as believing in a ‘Creation’ ex nihilo/‘Destruction’ ad nihil, if one is a religious cosmogonist, or believing in a ‘Big Bang’ ex nihilo/‘Big Crunch’ ad nihil, if one is a scientific cosmogonist, for example.

In other words (‘ex nihilo’ is Latin for ‘out of nothing’ and ‘ad nihil’ is Latin for ‘to nothing’) the issue of infinitude has been shifted onto a non-temporal (timeless) and non-spatial (spaceless) and non-material (formless) and therefore non-existent, and thus metaphysical, nothing or nothingness ... which posited nothingness, or non-existing void, is further proposed as being both the source, or origin, of all things physical (all time, all space, all form) and the eventual destiny for all its (supposed) manifestations.

In short: it bespeaks of credulity stretched to the max.

RESPONDENT: 2) Can I know merely by using common sense (without a PCE) that the universe is infinite/eternal – despite the currently prevailing scientific theories? If so – how could I know it?

RICHARD: I personally plunk for what Mr. Zeno proposed in the fifth century BCE (as already mentioned above) who asked if one were to travel to the edge of the universe and throw a spear what would one be throwing a spear into?

RESPONDENT: 3) Could I have a PCE and it still not be completely evident that the universe is infinite/eternal?

RICHARD: It could indeed be not completely evident ... yes. I have the distinct advantage of the on-going experiencing of infinitude and can easily know for sure each moment again when asked ... as I sit here now typing these words I am this material universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being: as such it is stunningly aware of its infinitude.

And this is truly wondrous.

RESPONDENT: Do I have to somehow turn my attention to that fact in a PCE – or is it always a datum of experience in the PCE?

RICHARD: What can happen is that the direct experience of infinitude in a PCE can be translated as being the infinitude of something metaphysical ... a god (using the word ‘god’ in the ‘ground of being’ sense) in other words.

Then the PCE can devolve into being an altered state of consciousness (ASC) with all that is implied and the ramifications thereof.

RESPONDENT: 4) It would also be interesting for Richard/ Peter/ Vineeto or whoever is inclined to discredit the purported evidence in existence for the big bang. It has been said that the big bang is creationist cosmology – which for some is true – yet it is hardly ONLY creationist cosmology – take people like Steven Weinberg or Stephen Hawking for example. Mr Hawking has defended a finite universe with nothing outside or before it (nothing for a Creator to do) – so there appear to be some who propose there is an outside to the big bang and others who say it is self-contained. Obviously, whoever proposes there is something outside the universe must do so on non-scientific grounds.

I don’t intend to argue the case for the big-bang – but how would AF explain the red-shift, for example? Or the current interpretations of the cosmic background radiation, etc? I’m aware of Halton Arp’s counter proposals, but the question, it seems to me is where the evidence actually leads. Just because the person who came up with the big bang theory was a theist doesn’t discredit the theory if there is no god. If there are independent reasons (evidence) for thinking it is true, is it not important for those independent reasons to be examined? Does a finite universe necessarily lead to a something outside of it? It seems there are many scientists who don’t think so.

RICHARD: There are many, many refutations of both the ‘Big Bang’ theory and the ‘Red Shift’ theory available both in print and on the internet (mostly on the internet as publishers, generally speaking, will not publish anything which departs from the party line) ... which one would you like to read/hear about?

Speaking personally the only refutation I am interested in is the direct experience of infinitude itself.

RESPONDENT: 5) Lastly, if I were setting out to discover whether the universe is infinite/eternal or finite – just how would I do it? What observations would I make? What reasoning would I use? Precisely, how would I investigate the issue if I don’t already know the fact?

RICHARD: Again I would recommend accessing the above link (where I go into some detail about this which you ask).

RESPONDENT: Is there a way to avoid being an agnostic on the issue – since if I’m investigating – then I’m open to finding out the fact of the matter? Does being agnostic necessarily mean being open to belief? Can’t I be agnostic and be open to finding out a fact? Or do I just have to get rid of current scientific theory to find that I already know the answer?

RICHARD: The question of agnosticism applies to all subjects, of course, not only the subject of the infinitude of the universe (which has tended to split the current, and previous, discussions on this mailing list into two separate issues).

For something like twenty five years I was an agnostic ... and it is an apparently satisfying position to be in as it makes one feel both intellectually comfortable and intellectually superior at the same time (whilst appearing humble) until one day I realised just what I was doing to myself ... and to others. I was cleverly shuffling all the ‘hard questions’ about consciousness under the rug and going around deftly cutting other people down to size (which is all so easy to do simply by saying ‘well that is your belief/truth/idea/philosophy/whatever’).

But I had nothing to offer in its place – other than the smug ‘nobody knows’ agnosticism – and I puzzled as to why this was so. Finally, I ceased procrastinating and equivocating. I wanted to know. I wanted to find out – for myself – about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are.

I now know.


RESPONDENT: And I should like to ask you also something else. You said that through you the universe is experiencing its self.

RICHARD: I did nothing of the sort ... I specifically say *as* this flesh and blood body. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘We are the universe creating its own self and experiencing it’s self.
• [Richard]: ‘The planet earth not only grows vegetation it also grows people – and all other sentient beings – and, as such, the universe can experience itself as a sensate and reflective human being (just as it also experiences itself as a cat or a dog and so on). (Re: For Richard; June 02, 2003).

And the follow-up e-mail:

• [Respondent]: ‘... the universe (tree) will not experience any more it’s self in this form (colour) through this human been (me) this moment (now).
• [Richard]: ‘So what? Tens of thousands human beings are blind all around the world ... yet you close your eyes for a moment and think that the universe is ‘dying with you for you’ (as you propose further below) because of that action?
• [Respondent]: ‘I can’t explain it better.
• [Richard]: ‘First of all the universe does not experience itself ‘through’ a human being: it experiences itself *as* a human being (and as cats and dogs and so on) ... only the identity within the flesh and blood body experiences itself, and its reality, ‘through’ a human being. (Re: For Richard; June 05, 2003).

RESPONDENT: Does not the universe do the same through me, even if I am not one actualist?

RICHARD: It is only in an actual freedom from the human condition, or in a PCE, that the universe experiences itself apperceptively ... for the remainder of the time the identity within is standing in the way (busily experiencing its reality, as a veneer over actuality, ‘through’ the flesh and blood body).

The universe, being eternal, is in no hurry (so to speak) to experience its infinitude as an apperceptive human being

RESPONDENT: You said that the universe is much more than intelligent, so why does not transform my brain, so that it can experience its self in a better way?

RICHARD: Apart from the universe’s lack of urgency, as it were, it is because you, and only you, hold your freedom in your hands ... and as the events of your life provide an opportunity, each moment again, to be apperceptively aware the stepping-off point wherein you meet your destiny is just here right now.

‘Tis your moment of glory ... who would have it any other way?


RESPONDENT: Richard, I have taken the liberty of combining all the emails into one document file. That way, anybody who is not concerned with length, can download the document file in M.S. Word, or some other program which uses the document extension. It also saves bandwidth. I am also planning to drastically cut what may be redundant in our discussions, but I offer you, if you’re interested, the first opportunity to do that.

RICHARD: Okay ... it has become a trifle long. Anyway, I am already totally content with the outcome of the discussion – all of my queries have been satisfactorily answered – and am quite happy to leave it as it is, if you wish. This was my initial query:

• [Respondent]: ‘The universe is inherently limited, being only an ‘appearance’ of energy, a brief movement within the totality of consciousness’ .
• [Richard]: ‘How is it that this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’, happens in the first place (other than Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says it does)?
• [Respondent]: ‘... nobody knows ‘how’ all this happens ...’.

I had been intrigued enough put the question as a direct result of you writing the following:

• [Respondent]: ‘Matter is what ‘stands out of’ pure energy or consciousness. It is an ‘appearance’ of non-material consciousness: Energy without boundaries, without form and function, or no-thing. In other words, matter is real but not actual, whereas, non-material consciousness is actual, forever unmanifest, non-existent ...’.

I was curious as to why you would say that a ‘forever unmanifest, non-existent ... non-material consciousness ... energy without boundaries, without form and function, or no-thing’ was ‘actual’, given that the normal or everyday meaning of the word <actual> is ‘existing in act or fact; practical; in action or existence at the time; present, current and not merely potential or possible’. However, all was made clear in the subsequent and detailed discussion, wherein you clearly explained why you have no comprehension whatsoever of the nature of the non-material energy or consciousness, which you posit as being the source of, not only all life, but the physical universe itself ... or why it does. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘... for me there is no why or how when it comes to ‘why it happened in the first place?’.
• [Respondent]: ‘It is not possible to have an insight into non-material energy, as insight is what non-material energy already is’.
• [Respondent]: ‘You are quite right. I don’t know what it is (...) Yes. Nothing in my singing reveals a thing about non-material energy’.
• [Respondent]: ‘... for me, the question of the nature of unobstructed energy is not significant as it is always the past, the desire of knowledge, the limited that asks that’.
• [Respondent]: ‘The question is inherently intellectual and therefore impossible to answer’.
• [Respondent]: ‘... if you really want an answer, it will not and cannot be obtained in terms of words, in terms of knowledge. It cannot be obtained in any case’.
• [Respondent]: ‘What is going to have that insight?
• [Respondent]: ‘There is nothing to be revealed because that would imply a division: Something revealed and a revealer’.
• [Respondent]: ‘The song is nothing but a tool, like a hammer. The hammer is neutral in itself, though it is real and is useful. It reveals nothing about the carpenter. It is only an extension of the intelligence of the carpenter’.
• [Respondent]: ‘No-body, no-thing, is actually there and can perceive non-material consciousness ...’.
• [Respondent]: ‘It is not a question of non-material consciousness becoming apparent to itself as non-material consciousness because that would require non-material consciousness to be divided, which is not possible’.
• [Respondent]: ‘... there is nothing to examine, as the ‘evidence’ is one’s own awareness, although, strictly speaking, it is not really ‘one’s’ awareness. It is awareness period’.
• [Respondent]: ‘The statement has been offered repeatedly that ‘awareness examining awareness’ is an impossibility’.
• [Respondent]: ‘... nobody knows how all this happens because there can be nobody that is actual and there to know anything’.
• [Respondent]: ‘... how can what is actual [non-material consciousness] be known as anything at all, including being known as having any properties?’.
• [Respondent]: ‘Some actions are beyond knowledge’.
• [Respondent]: ‘... get rid of the questioner, then the answer goes’.
• [Respondent]: ‘... I have repeatedly said ... there is no insight ‘into non-material energy’ because non-material energy is already what insight IS’.
• [Respondent]: ‘There is no insight into the nature of’ non-material energy insight’ as non-material insight is the only insight possible’.
• [Respondent]: ‘I keep saying that there can be no ‘insight into what is already insight’, and you keep asking me to provide insight into the nature – non-material energy – of what informs the song’.
• [Respondent]: ‘... you are proposing that insight – which is here being called ‘not worthless’ – is different from itself in the sense that it can have ‘awareness of its [own] nature’ ... I am saying that such a proposition is clearly impossible, as insight is one, indivisible energy whether it is without material form or is manifested as the universe, as nature, and as the human body’.
• [Respondent]: ‘There is nothing there that can have an insight into anything’.
• [Respondent]: ‘It is the ego, operating very subtly, that demands of itself the ability to have awareness ‘... as to the nature of ‘that which is pure energy, unlimited’ ...’.
• [Respondent]: ‘Whatever is there that can have insight into insight must be different from insight – which is not divisible – and, therefore, must be, by definition, that which blocks insight’.
• [Respondent]: ‘I have said from the beginning that there is no awareness into aware-ness, as awareness is not divided’.
• [Respondent]: ‘There is no insight ‘into’ anything. Insight is what you ARE when thinking-as-division has seen completely into its own nature and has, therefore, ended’.
• [Respondent]: ‘... there is nothing there that can ‘have’ an insight, as insight is already what is happening as body without ‘me’ or ‘ego’’.
• [Respondent]: ‘Of course nobody knows ‘how’ all this happens, as there is no ‘how’ offered by any-body that can penetrate the energy of that which words cannot convey’.
• [Respondent]: ‘Nobody really knows ‘how’, and anybody cannot have insight into ‘that energy which is ‘in itself’ no-thing ...’.

And, not only was I interested as to why a ‘unmanifest, non-existent ... no-thing’ would be called ‘actual’, I had intended to query what the word <real> means, in your use of language, in your ‘matter is real but not actual’ sentence ... but you have already explained that ‘real’ indicates that space and time and matter are not fact, not actual and are but illusions or concepts. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘... non-material energy is not a fanciful concept, as energy is actual. It is only the manifestation of energy as materiality that I regard as impermanent and therefore as illusion, as non-actuality. Illusion is real, time-bound, ever-changing, arising and vanishing. Actuality is not real, not time-bounding, not ever changing’.
• [Respondent]: ‘When one is living as non-material consciousness unobstructedly, there is neither the fact nor concept of space, time, here, and now’.
• [Respondent]: ‘... it [this universe] is happening as impermanently manifested energy within the concept of time and space imposed by that specialization of itself which calls itself ‘human’’.
• [Respondent]: ‘... time is thought, the thinker, the ego’.
• [Respondent]: ‘... even if there was ‘chronological time’ or time as physicists portray it – which, to me is not a fact – an insightful mind would still operate without time’.
• [Respondent]: ‘... the mind that has no limits such as ‘me’ and ‘that’ has no means to prevent the self-evident nature of matter as being totally empty and transparent, and lacking both time and space’.
• [Respondent]: ‘For the mind that sees without purpose and knowledge, actually, there is only energy that also appears as this and that. Since it is not actual, it never existed to begin with. It is just non-moving energy appearing to move’.
• [Respondent]: ‘That flesh and blood body [known as Richard] was never ‘born’ at all; that flesh and blood body never lives at all (as the energy that is life is what lives that flesh and blood body); That flesh and blood body cannot die because it is not living (it is the outermost appearance of life) ... there is no ‘after its death’, as it was never independently ‘alive’’.

There is really nothing else I wanted to ask you about. I already have intimate comprehension, of the nature of the non-material consciousness or energy which is ‘innocence’ , which ‘itself never suffers’, which is ‘independent of its manifestations’ because the ‘me’ as soul, who was parasitically inhabiting this body, was that non-material consciousness night and day for eleven years (only ‘he’ called it ‘The Absolute’) ... so there is nothing I am not already aware of, from first-hand experience, that I could become aware of from your ‘nobody knows’ song. Nevertheless, there may be something which you wish to address – or an aspect of the previous E-Mail you may want me to respond to specifically – in which case I am only too happy to reply.

If not ... I do appreciate that the discussion was able to happen.


RESPONDENT: By the way I paste and copy from the internet about the Hubble’s LAW not theory. The big bang is a THEORY but the expansion of the universe is a FACT, proven with photos. [quote]: ‘The Hubble Law and Hubble Constant are the foundations of the Big Bang theory. To test the theory, astronomers attempt to make reliable measurements of the expansion rate to determine the size and age of the Universe. The evidence that stars and galaxies are moving away from us comes primarily from the red shift of the light from them. These measurements are checked against independent estimates based on the ages of the oldest stars in the Universe. Debate continues concerning the exact value of the Hubble Constant. The animation pictured is a sequence of photos (http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/gif/M100CphB.gif), taken with the NASA Hubble Space Telescope, of a variable star in galaxy M100. These variable stars help astronomers calculate distances to other galaxies. Before 1910, Harvard astronomer Henrietta Leavitt began measuring the brightness of stars in a class known as Cepheid variables, which are bright, young stars with masses 5 to 20 times our own Sun. She discovered that these stars reveal their true brightness by the way their light varies, and that this makes them reliable markers for measuring astronomical distances. Astronomer Edwin Hubble used these Cepheid variable stars to discover that the more distant a galaxy is from Earth the faster it moves away. There is a proportionality between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity. This relationship is called the Hubble Law. The ratio of velocity to distance is known as the Hubble Constant. Hubble’s observations led to the realization that in a uniformly expanding universe, galaxies would have been closer together in the past. Early in the Universe, the density (and temperature) of matter would therefore have been very high. This leads to a model for the evolution of the Universe called the Big Bang theory. The theory says that the Universe began in an extremely hot and dense form and has been expanding ever since. The age of the Universe is estimated to be equal to the inverse of the Hubble Constant. One of the primary uses of the Hubble Space Telescope has been to search for very faint Cepheid variables (as shown above) in distant galaxies and to use them to determine galactic distances in an attempt to improve our estimate of the Hubble Constant. The current estimate of the Hubble Constant suggests that the Universe is between 8 and 15 billion years old’. [endquote]. I should like to add here that when we say that when we say that the distance between galaxies becomes bigger we don’t mean that the galaxies are moving, but the space is expanding. And I make the question, how can one already infinite space, as you say, expand?

RICHARD: As I do not say that space is expanding your question has no relevance to what I report ... and as there are many other ways of explaining red-shift it is not a ‘FACT’ that the universe is expanding no matter how big the letters are that you write it with.

RESPONDENT: And when you say that you know through a PCE that the universe is infinite, what exactly you mean?

RICHARD: I mean ‘exactly’ what I say and I say ‘exactly’ what I mean ... do you think I am writing poesy when I say that, as this flesh and blood body only I am the universe experiencing itself apperceptively and that, as such, this infinite, eternal, and perpetual universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude?

RESPONDENT: Do you mean it literally?

RICHARD: When I say ‘apperceptively’ I mean it literally, not fancifully.

RESPONDENT: Because if you can not know in a PCE what exist behind a door, then to say that you know what happens beyond millions of light years, then you are entering a metaphysical state.

RICHARD: No, the unmediated experience of infinitude – the apperceptive experience of boundless space, unlimited time, and perpetual matter (mass/energy) – is not a metaphysical experience ... the metaphysical experience, during the eleven years of spiritual enlightenment, was of a timeless and spaceless and formless ‘infinitude’ known as God or Truth or Ground of Being or Implicate Order and so on.

RESPONDENT: And may be that a PCE is one ASC.

RICHARD: Only in your dreams and schemes ... as I have intimate knowledge of both the on-going altered state of consciousness (ASC) popularly known as spiritual enlightenment (night and day for eleven years) and the on-going pure consciousness experience (PCE) I chose to call an actual freedom (night and day for over a decade now) you are talking to the wrong person if you plan on convincing somebody by logical argument.

In other words: actualism is experiential ... not abstract theory.


RESPONDENT: Concerning the distinction between ASC and PCE and taking into account that you experientially (via direct perception) know that this Universe is infinite, I wonder if it is not consciousness that let you know this to be a fact.

RICHARD: I have made it clear on many occasions that unmediated perception (aka apperceptive awareness) is how infinitude is directly experienced.

RESPONDENT: I don’t think you have arrived at this thanks to one of your senses.

RICHARD: You may find the following exchange to be of interest, then:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Since the universe is ‘immeasurably vast’, how can it be an ‘objective actuality’?
• [Richard]: ‘Something does not have to be measured to be objective (existing in its own right). Infinitude simply cannot be calculated as ... um ... as beginning here and ending there. Infinitude is beginningless and endless; boundless and limitless; perpetual and perdurable; unborn and undying ... and, as I said, it cannot be grasped by either thought or feeling.
If you gaze deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars you will be standing naked before infinitude.

And by ‘standing naked’ I mean sans identity in toto (unmediated perception/ apperceptive awareness): the direct experience of infinitude thanks to visual perception first happened one night in early 1981 whilst looking at the space between the stars, and not the stars themselves as one might normally do (due to the preponderance figure usually takes over background), and when more stars became apparent in that space, looking into the space between them, and so on, and so on, until infinitude became apparent as an experience of itself ... or, to put that another way, being the actual experiencing of infinitude (which is what all flesh and blood bodies are anyway) as a sensory organism.

Further to this point, six e-mails after the e-mail the above excerpt is from the following line, which refers to visually seeing infinitude wherever one looks, may very well give pause to reflect upon just what it is that is being conveyed by the term ‘unmediated perception’ (aka apperceptive awareness):

• [Richard]: ‘Then you will see it (the absolute) even when looking at your own hand ... for example.

The entire discussion about the direct experience of infinitude thanks to visual perception may be of further interest if only because of the dominance abstract logic can have over sensible reason (especially when acting in concert with spirituality). The full exchange starts here:

It may take some wading through.

RESPONDENT: Otherwise would have not been such a ‘hot topic’ on this mailing list as a fact is out in the open, cannot be argued with, etc.

RICHARD: It is only a ‘hot topic’ for 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).

I have never made any secret of the fact that actualism is experiential ... for just one example out of many:

• [Richard]: ‘The word actualism refers to *the direct experience* that matter is not merely passive. I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism. [emphasis added].

In what way is infinitude not out in the open, and thus able to be argued with, etcetera, in a PCE?

RESPONDENT: I do intellectually understand that the universe is infinite (the spear analogy) but I also experientially know the limits of our intellect.

RICHARD: It is not so much that the intellect has limits in regards to infinitude per se as it is, rather, that (a) the extent of its grasp is usually circumscribed by a centre (the ‘self’ by any name) in cognisance ... and (b) its intelligence is usually crippled by the affective faculty ... and (c) its ability to sensibly reason is often dominated by abstract logic (mathematical equations have no existence outside of the ratiocinative process for example) ... and (d) it is not an experiential faculty anyway (the wrong tool for the job, as it were, just as is the affective faculty).

Howsoever, in conjunction with apperception the intellect has no difficulty ... else how would these descriptions/explanations get written?

RESPONDENT: I also experientially know that consciousness has no boundaries (for now I only remember) and I can intellectually figure out a major difference between a PCE and an ASC based on my life events. I think that the particular ASC known as Spiritual Enlightenment has the identity projected into Consciousness, for I cannot explain otherwise the holograph-like infinite image of Me; and also that both denominations have a Consciousness word attached to them.

RICHARD: In an ASC the identity is not ‘projected into Consciousness’ as it is ‘Consciousness’ itself (aka one’s True Identity) realising/ recognising/ remembering it is ‘Consciousness’ in a process known as ‘Self-Realisation’.

As there is no identity in a PCE – else it be not a PCE – there is no ‘Consciousness’ to be realised/recognised/remembered: there is only the pure experiencing that the condition of being a flesh and blood body being conscious sans identity in toto can enable ... plus the innocent awareness of being a flesh and blood body being conscious sans identity in toto.

In other words, when stripped of its metaphysical connotations the word ‘consciousness’ means the condition of being conscious – the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition – and nothing more and nothing less. Vis.:

• ‘-ness: forming nouns expressing a state or condition, especially from adjectives and (originally past or passive) participles, as bitterness, conceitedness, darkness, hardness, kind-heartedness, tongue-tiedness, up-to-dateness, etc., also occasionally from adverbs, as everydayness, nowness, etc., and in other nonce uses. Also in extended senses ‘an instance of a state or condition’, as a kindness etc., ‘something in a state or condition’, as foulness etc., and in a few other exceptional uses, as witness. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: So the confusion arises that not the Universe is infinite but that I am, or that I’m the one immortal, not the Universe, etc. I haven’t heard enlightened people say a word about the infinity of this Universe, but instead the same old spiritual refrain: Me, Me and Me.

RICHARD: The ‘Me, Me and Me’ refrain is narcissism (‘self’-admiration, ‘self’-love, ‘self’-conceit) writ large and in such a blatant way that it is a wonder the many and varied saints, sages, and seers have got way with it for so long ... ‘self’-aggrandisement, being for the benefit of the immortal soul, is an extreme act of selfism.

What I find to be of interest here is that now you say that you have not heard enlightened people saying a word about the infinitude of this universe despite stating (further above) that there are hints about achieving an actual freedom from the human condition in the 4th way system and/or esoteric Sufi teachings ... are there no hints about the properties of this universe also in those writings?

Or is it a case of it also probably seeming to them pointless tell other human beings about how the universe actually is as being a fully operational Self was already a difficult thing to achieve for most people?

RESPONDENT: I think the problem was how can you delete something which is infinite?

RICHARD: The way to delete the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Consciousness’ which arose out of an extreme act of selfism for the benefit of the immortal soul was via an extreme act of altruism – altruistic ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body and that body and every body – just the same as deleting the ‘being’ or ‘presence’, which the instinctual passions automatically form themselves into, will be for anybody else upon arriving at the culmination of the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition.

Only a lot less traumatic – if at all – and nowhere near as just plain silly – if at all – as the word ‘Consciousness’ is just another word for ‘being’ or ‘presence’ (usually capitalised, upon self-realisation, as ‘Being’ or ‘Presence’).


RESPONDENT: Another point is that you are saying that the universe always was existing. So you are speaking about something that has not being created but although always existing.

RICHARD: Yes, the universe is a veritable perpetuus mobilis.

RESPONDENT: So you reject the law of cause and effect for the first time in human logic.

RICHARD: Ha ... Mr. Werner Heisenberg, of the uncertainty principle fame, for just one instance, dispensed with causality (cause and effect) before I was even born:

• ‘The law of causality is no longer applied in quantum theory’. (p. 88, ‘Physics and Philosophy, the Revolution in Modern Science’, by Werner Heisenberg; ©1966 Harper and Row, New York).

RESPONDENT: Not even something create its own self, because this is absurd, for something to create its own self must exist prior of its own creation, which is absurd.

RICHARD: What has this got to do with what you said (further above)? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘So you are speaking about something that has not being created but although always existing.

The words ‘always existing’ not only indicate ‘not being created’ but also indicate ‘not creating itself’ ... the words ‘always existing’ means no creation, period.

RESPONDENT: Do you understand what it means ALWAYS existing?

RICHARD: Yes ... do you?

RESPONDENT: Means trillion of trillion of years, and even that is nothing in front of ALWAYS.

RICHARD: Yep, forever is a long, long time ... beginningless and endless time, in fact.

RESPONDENT: THAT ALSO MEANS THAT LIFE WAS ALWAYS EXISTING, dna/rna, amino acids, etc.

RICHARD: As it is entirely reasonable to assume that wherever the conditions are ripe some life-form has been, is now, and will be, existing then ... yes (although as to whether it would necessarily be ‘dna/rna, amino acids, etc.’ is another question).

RESPONDENT: Life consciousness was always existing.

RICHARD: If by this you mean the condition of a life-form being conscious – which does not include viruses for example – then again it is entirely reasonable to assume that at some place, at some time, there was, is now, and will be, some-such creature ... meaning that if a human creature does not get it act together it makes no difference to the universe per se.

It makes a lot of difference for that human, however.

RESPONDENT: Where is space for oblivion then?

RICHARD: Hmm ... oblivion is not a place: the expression ‘going into oblivion’ is a way of describing what happens, for example, upon being anaesthetised, being knocked-out, fainting, or in any other way being comatose (unconscious) ... even each night upon going to sleep (unless there be dreaming).

RESPONDENT: You accept oblivion ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? Have you never been anaesthetised, knocked-out, fainted, or in any other way been comatose (unconscious) ... even each night upon going to sleep? Or, to put that another way, have you been conscious, night and day, for the 50+ years you have been on this planet?

Only if it be the latter can you truly say you have no idea of what oblivion is.

RESPONDENT: ... but from the other hand you accept that life that is all that exist has no beginning and no end.

RICHARD: I do no such thing ... I clearly say that the universe has no beginning or end (either spatially, temporally, or materially) and that a life-form, by being born and then dying after living for x-period of time, does have a beginning and end.

RESPONDENT: Are you noticing a contradiction and one conundrum here?

RICHARD: No ... and that is because there is none. What I do notice is that you are determined to make one, or the other or both, out of what I have to report (presumably so as to have something to refute) no matter how convoluted or silly it may be.

What I have to say is actually very, very simple ... and sensible.


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.

*

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: 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.

*

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.

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: 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.

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 caesium 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 caesium 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.

*

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: 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: 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.


SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON THE UNIVERSE (Part Four)

RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED 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