17 July 2003:

RESPONDENT: Don’t forget that creation continues, it did not took place and continues like machine.

RICHARD: What ‘creation’ are you talking of?

RESPONDENT: If creation stops now everything will collapse.

RICHARD: As there is no ‘creation’ in actuality there is nothing to either stop or collapse.

RESPONDENT: We don’t know many things scientifically, and as David Bohm said 95% of the phenomena are invisible.

RICHARD: Are you referring to what has been called ‘dark matter’ (also called ‘the missing mass problem’), the theory of which was first formulated by the astronomer Mr. Fritz Zwicky in 1933, which has been variously proposed to comprise of between 90-99% of the mass of the universe?

Or are you referring to Mr. David Bohm’s unmanifest ‘implicate order’ (which he proposed in contrast to the ‘explicit order’ of time and space and form)? Being timeless and spaceless and formless, and thus metaphysical, it would have to be invisible ... but you may be referring to something else, of course, because in another e-mail you wrote the following:

• [Respondent]: ‘Bohm was a physicist and was speaking for physical facts’. (Re:‘Phenomena’; Jul 13, 2003).

I say ‘of course’ because neither ‘dark matter’ nor ‘implicate order’ are physical facts. Mr. David Bohm, self-acknowledged to have been strongly taken by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘the observer is the observed’ phrase, had many dialogues with him ... the following excerpt may be of interest:

B: ‘Just going back to what we were saying a few days ago: we said we have the emptiness, the universal mind, and then the ground is beyond that’.
K: ‘Would you say beyond that is this movement?’
B: ‘Yes. The mind emerges from the movement as a ground, and falls back to the ground; that is what we are saying’.
K: ‘Yes, that’s right. Mind emerges from the movement’.
B: ‘And it dies back into the movement’.
K: ‘That’s right. It has its being in the movement’.
B: ‘Yes, and matter also’.
K: ‘Quite’. (‘The Ending Of Time’; page 153; 1985. Harper and Row, San Francisco).

He clearly has [quote] ‘and matter also’ [endquote] having its being in the movement that the mind emerges from as a ground (which has been called ‘the mind of god’ by Mr. Paul Davies, another theoretical physicist, who was awarded the 1995 ‘Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion’, which carried a monetary award of $1 million, for his efforts to resolve the dichotomy between science and religion).

As you are familiar with the writings of Mr. Stephen Hawking you may have heard of Mr. Paul Davies already? If not, put briefly, he initially becoming interested in the theory of quantum fields in curved space-time at the University of Cambridge – focussing much of his research in that area – and in the early seventies he joined fellow-physicists Mr. Stephen Hawking and Mr. Roger Penrose, who were researching the thermodynamic properties of black holes at the time. He published ‘The Physics of Time Asymmetry’ (1974), the first of more than 20 books directed to either his professional colleagues or the general public. Mr. Paul Davies’ most recent publications were ‘The Matter Myth’; then one of his most influential works, ‘The Mind of God’; followed by ‘About Time: Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution’ and ‘Are We Alone?’.

The basis of what the above theoretical physicists write about may be a lot of things ... but science it ain’t.

RESPONDENT: So why you make dogmatic statements like the infinity of the universe?

RICHARD: Here is what the word ‘dogmatic’ can mean:

• ‘dogmatic: of philosophy or medicine: based on a priori assumptions rather than empirical evidence; concerned with propounding opinions; esp. (of a person, writing, etc.) asserting doctrines or views in an opinionated or arbitrary manner; of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a (religious) dogma or dogmas; doctrinal. [dogma: opinion, a belief; spec. a tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, esp. by a Church or sect; an arrogant declaration of opinion; doctrines or opinions, esp. on religious matters, laid down authoritatively or assertively]. (Oxford Dictionary).

First you propose a (continuing) ‘creation’ as if that were an established fact, plus you refer to Mr David Bohm as ‘speaking for physical facts’ when very little of what he spoke of was either physical or a fact, then you say ‘so why you make dogmatic statements ...’ as if I were the one making a priori assumptions, propounding opinions, or asserting doctrines, in an arrogant or arbitrary manner.

What on earth is the connection between the theoretical physics you keep on presenting to this mailing list and the direct experiencing of pure consciousness that would make you say ‘so why you ...’ as if there were some relationship?

September 30 2005

RESPONDENT: The goals of actual freedom appear very attractive to me.

RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list ... just which goals are they that appear very attractive to you?

RESPONDENT: However, I have difficulty in understanding the role ‘experience’ plays in relation to science, especially quantum physics.

RICHARD: As the word ‘experience’ refers to a sentient creature participating personally in events or activities then the role it plays in relation to science – ‘the intellectual and practical activity encompassing those branches of study (the natural sciences) that apply objective scientific method to the phenomena of the physical universe’ (Oxford Dictionary) – is fundamentally that of determining causation (as in cause and effect) ... as opposed to invoking miracles (as in postulate as an explanation).

Mr. Werner Heisenberg, of the uncertainty principle fame, dispensed with the main plank of science – causality (cause and effect) – altogether:

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

RESPONDENT: I gather that a quantum chemistry model of DNA such as proposed at [www.geocities.com/moonhoabinh/ithapapers/auto.html] and interpretations of quantum physics for society which relate to animist perceptions of the world would be rejected by the protagonists of this website?

RICHARD: The following should be self-explanatory:

• [Richard]: ‘I do understand the value of pure science (theoretical science), as contrasted to applied science (practical science), in the area of research and development – just as I understand the value of pure mathematics as opposed to applied mathematics – as evidenced by the technological revolution and the main point I am emphasising is the dangers of taking the latest (supposedly) scientific discovery to be fact, as propagated by the popular press for instance, because theoretical science does not describe the universe ... mathematical equations have no existence outside of the ratiocinative and illative process.
Perhaps this might go some way towards explaining what I mean:

• ‘It must be realised, however, that the world of experience and observation is not the world of electrons and nuclei. When a bright spot on a television screen *is interpreted as* the arrival of a stream of electrons, it is still only the bright spot that is perceived *and not the electrons*. The world of experience is described by the physicist in terms of visible objects, occupying definite positions at definite instants of time – in a word, the world of classical mechanics. When the atom is pictured as a nucleus surrounded by electrons, this picture is a necessary concession to human limitations; there is no sense in which one can say that, if only a good enough microscope were available, this picture would be revealed as genuine reality. It is not that such a microscope has not been made; it is *actually impossible to make one* that will reveal this detail’. ~ (Prof. Sir Alfred Brian Pippard; ©1994; Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Once the not-observable as objects in space and time basis of sub-atomic particles is established – (as distinct from “visible objects occupying definite positions at definite instants of time” that is) – the mathematical processes involved unfold further mysteries accordingly. Vis: 

• ‘The process of transformation from a classical description to an equation of quantum mechanics, and from the solution of this equation to the probability that a specified experiment will yield a specified observation, is not to be thought of as a temporary expedient pending the development of a better theory. It is better to accept this process as a technique for predicting the observations that are likely to follow from an earlier set of observations. Whether electrons and nuclei have *an objective existence in reality is a metaphysical question to which no definite answer can be given*. There is, however, no doubt that *to postulate their existence* is, in the present state of physics, an inescapable necessity if a consistent theory is to be constructed to describe economically and exactly the enormous variety of observations on the behaviour of matter’. ~ (Prof. Sir Alfred Brian Pippard; ©1994; Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Almost needless is it to say, once this postulation is accepted – and as “an inescapable necessity” at that – there is no prize for guessing what will happen. Viz.:

• ‘The habitual use of the language of particles by physicists *induces and reflects the conviction* that, even if the particles elude direct observation, *they are as real as any everyday object*’. [emphases added]. ~ (Prof. Sir Alfred Brian Pippard⁾ ©1994; Encyclopaedia Britannica). Videlicet:

Thus the sub-atomic postulates (i.e., ‘particles’ aka ‘corpuscles’) have become “as real as any everyday object” and thereby assume the status of factoids in the minds of theoretical physicists and thusly to the general public – as revealed unequivocally by Prof. Pippard, a leading theoretical physicist in his day, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1994 – via a sleight of hand (or, rather, a sleight of mind) which would be the envy of many a confidence trickster.

(Richard, The Actual Freedom List, No. 103, 30 September 2005)

RESPONDENT: The human being is behind the instrument, behind the measurement: as such, the instrument represents the observer.

RICHARD: Are you saying that, even if the imamate instrument is set up to measure and all the human beings then moved away – went home to bed even and slept through it all – and the inanimate instrument measured as automata in the empty laboratory, that the sub-atomic ‘thingamajigs’ would somehow suss out that ‘behind the instrument, behind the measurement’ there is a human being and somehow intuit that ‘as such, the instrument represents the observer’ ... and therefore be affected by the ‘observer’?

RESPONDENT: I don’t think science has found an independent means of observation free from this intrusion of the observer, as has been pointed out.

RICHARD: When I look at the inanimate instruments measuring ‘the observed’ on the planet Mars – and places even further removed – I do wonder how the ‘intrusion of the observer’ (the human being) can travel that far.

RESPONDENT: So some of us are saying that there is a limitation inherent to scientific observation.

RICHARD: What I am asking, then, is this: what is the nature of this limitation? What is it that the ‘observer’ does to the ‘observed’ in scientific measurements done with inanimate instruments when there are no human beings present while the measuring is going on?

RESPONDENT: Notwithstanding this fact, the individual must still ascertain the truth of the matter between the observer and the observed for himself, without the imposition of any ‘instrument’ to do so.

RICHARD: The ‘truth of the matter between the observer and the observed’ when measuring sub-atomic ‘thingamajigs’ is that, as the sub-atomic ‘thingamajigs’ exist only in the imagination of the ‘observer’ (the human being), then anything imaginable can happen ... and does. Prof. Sir Brian Pippard explains what the basic premise behind quantum mechanics is:

• ‘It must be realised, however, that the world of experience and observation is not the world of electrons and nuclei. When a bright spot on a television screen *is interpreted as* the arrival of a stream of electrons, it is still only the bright spot that is perceived *and not the electrons*. The world of experience is described by the physicist in terms of visible objects, occupying definite positions at definite instants of time – in a word, the world of classical mechanics. When the atom is pictured as a nucleus surrounded by electrons, this picture is a necessary concession to human limitations; there is no sense in which one can say that, if only a good enough microscope were available, this picture would be revealed as genuine reality. It is not that such a microscope has not been made; it is *actually impossible to make one* that will reveal this detail’. [emphases added]. ~ (Prof. Sir Alfred Brian Pippard; ©1994; Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Once the not-observable as objects in space and time basis of sub-atomic particles is established – (as distinct from “visible objects occupying definite positions at definite instants of time” that is) – the mathematical processes involved unfold further mysteries accordingly. Viz.:

▪ “The process of transformation from a classical description to an equation of quantum mechanics, and from the solution of this equation to the probability that a specified experiment will yield a specified observation, is not to be thought of as a temporary expedient pending the development of a better theory. It is better to accept this process as a technique for predicting the observations that are likely to follow from an earlier set of observations. Whether electrons and nuclei have *an objective existence in reality is a metaphysical question to which no definite answer can be given*. There is, however, no doubt that *to postulate their existence* is, in the present state of physics, an inescapable necessity if a consistent theory is to be constructed to describe economically and exactly the enormous variety of observations on the behaviour of matter”. [emphases added]. ~ (Prof. Sir Alfred Brian Pippard; ©1994; Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Almost needless is it to say, once this postulation is accepted – and as “an inescapable necessity” at that – there is no prize for guessing what will happen. Viz.:

▪ “The habitual use of the language of particles by physicists *induces and reflects the conviction* that, even if the particles elude direct observation, *they are as real as any everyday object*”. [emphases added]. ~ (Prof. Sir Alfred Brian Pippard⁾ ©1994; Encyclopaedia Britannica). Videlicet:

Thus the sub-atomic ‘thingamajigs’ have become ‘as real as any everyday object’ ... and to a child Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny are ‘as real as any everyday object’ too. Also for a person who believes ardently in their god; for them their god is real – not actual, mind you – but real. Usually they say that their god is more real than ‘everyday reality’ ... that is how real their fervency makes of their belief.

Etymologically, ‘belief’ means ‘fervently wish to be true’.

*

RICHARD: Mr. Victor Stenger writes about the ‘holistic quantum mechanics’ advocates in rather mordant terms: <SNIP> I submit these quotes purely in the spirit of questioning whether quantum mechanics even remotely supports Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘the observer is the observed’ proposal ... and not because I claim any proficiency in quantum physics whatsoever. I do note, however, that more than a few mystically inclined peoples have enthusiastically jumped upon the quantum band wagon by claiming that science now supports and proves what mystics have been saying for centuries. I also note that the recent probes to the planet Mars – and to all other destinations for that matter – were predicated upon and guided by the very ‘Copernican Principles’ and ‘Newtonian Mechanics’ and ‘Euclidean Geometries’ so scorned by the latter day ‘popular-press’ pseudo-scientists posing as quantum experts.

RESPONDENT: I don’t think ‘quantum mechanics’ is trying to deny the validity of knowledge, only the misplaced importance science tends to give knowledge – which has proven very unfortunate indeed.

RICHARD: In what way has the ‘importance science tends to give knowledge’ been ‘misplaced’ ? What else can science give importance to except knowledge? How is it ‘very unfortunate indeed’ that knowledge be given precedence over ... um ... fantasy?

RESPONDENT: I think ‘quantum mechanics’ ties the proper place of knowledge, of matter, to a much broader spectrum of the universe, one which we have yet to fully realize.

RICHARD: Okay ... what is the nature of this ‘much broader spectrum of the universe’ (such that ‘knowledge’ and ‘matter’ must be tied to a ‘proper place’ in relation to it)? What could possibly have primacy over ‘knowledge’ and ‘matter’?

RESPONDENT: I also think it is a gross mistake for anyone to discount wholesale the work that such people as David Bohm have done in this area, work which may well prove to hold the keys to enriching our scientific understanding about how everything is interrelated.

RICHARD: Are you referring to his ‘implicit order’ wherein ‘information unfolds’ (from the region of ‘no form’ and ‘no time’ and ‘no space’) and manifests as ‘explicit order’ (into the region of time and space as form)?

It all sounds very, very familiar to me ... how will this re-hash of the ‘ancient wisdom’ possibly ‘enrich scientific understanding about how everything is interrelated’ and still remain science?

*

RICHARD: Although I am more than willing to be advised otherwise on the matter.

RESPONDENT: Let us see how one ignoramus can take it from another!

RICHARD: Oh, I am taking it very well indeed. I am also interested to find out in what way my thinking is ‘second-hand thinking’ and why my questions about the validity of ‘the observer and the observed’ relationship in quantum mechanics vis a vis Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘the observer is the observed’ proposal is a ‘quasi-intellectual rehashing of someone else’s words’ ... as explained by yourself in another post? Also, what is this ‘predilection’ I have for ‘running off at the mouth’? Viz.:

• [Respondent]: I would call [Richard’s post] a quasi-intellectual rehashing of someone else’s words to fit one’s own predilection for running off at the mouth! Not that there isn’t some truth to it. But the way [Richard] slung those quotes around to include areas where they did not belong, to me, indicates second-hand thinking’. [endquote].

What are these ‘areas’ where these quotes ‘do not belong’ ... is it an area somewhat akin to the ‘wonderland’ that one enters into when one steps through the looking-glass, perchance? (Richard, List B, No. 30, 30 November 1999)

November 30 1999:

RESPONDENT: What matter actually is, in the quantum view, is a probabilistic event, and does assume an observer, implicit or implied.

RICHARD: Yet this implies that human beings create actuality ... such solipsism is somewhat puerile, surely.

RESPONDENT: This in my view is the relationship between Quantum Mechanics and observer-observed analogy.

RICHARD: Okay ... saying ‘the observer is the observed’ is the same as saying ‘I am everything and everything is Me’, eh?

RESPONDENT: Bohm goes as on to posit consciousness as the third ingredient in which the universe manifests itself (as matter, energy, and consciousness). Please check www.wie.org/j11/peat.html for more details.

RICHARD: Yet the universe already always is (it does not ‘manifest itself’ from, or out of, something unknowable) and matter arranges and rearranges itself endlessly in innumerable forms with delightful variety. And, on planet earth, matter has arranged itself as carbon-based animate matter (life and/or nature) and also sensate animate matter wherein matter is conscious. In one such species, such conscious animate matter can think and therefore reflect and consciousness is thus conscious of being consciousness. No need to posit an ‘unmanifest’ realm at all ... here, all that exists exists now.

Infinitude has no secret reservoir.

*

RESPONDENT No 46: I refer you to the Heisenberg Principle as an excellent example – one cannot measure both the speed and the position of an electron simultaneously.

RICHARD: Firstly, are you saying that ‘the act of observation of an electron with an inanimate instrument perturbs the electron such that the inanimate instrument cannot completely measure both its speed and position’? Does the inanimate instrument give off ... um ... an electromagnetic field or some such similar force? If not, what is it that the inanimate instrument’s measuring activity is doing to the electron? Secondly, if I am to apply this ‘excellent example’ to a human being’s observation of themselves – as the applicable correlation – in what way does one’s observation of oneself cause what one is observing (oneself) to be perturbed? In what way, shape or form does this perturbation manifest itself? And why (as in what is the principle involved) would one be thus perturbed? And so as to be up-front as in regards myself, I have always enjoyed immensely finding out what made ‘me’ tick ... down to the finest, the most minute examination of the tiniest, the most trivial-seeming detail. After all ... it is me that gets to live this life.

RESPONDENT: I think the way in which this uncertainty (indeterminism) arises in such measurements is that matter itself has wave-like properties. These waves are too small (being in 10 to the power of -15 or so meters’ order) that they don’t interfere with ‘gross’ measurements (for example, motion of a baseball ball), but at the atomic and sub-atomic level, where the size of the particle is of the same order as the order of waves associated with the particle, it is not possible to determine simultaneously both the velocity and the position of the particle accurately.

RICHARD: I fully acknowledge there is matter such that cannot be ascertained with the naked senses and requires extensions to the senses (such as telescopes and microscopes and all the rest) but I am sure that you are aware that the ‘sub-atomic level’ is the realm of mathematical equations and has no actuality whatsoever?

RESPONDENT: At any given moment of time, the material world is but a probabilistic wave (function).

RICHARD: Yet this material world is what it irrefutably is each moment again ... there is nothing ‘probabilistic’ about actuality.

RESPONDENT: What I find intriguing is what is that gives this (apparently chaotic) mass-energy function a stability and order. I think Bohm refers to this order as the ‘implicate order’ of things.

RICHARD: His ‘implicate order’ is a dimension where there is no time or space or form ... and his ‘explicit order’ is the world of time and space and form.

RESPONDENT: In his world-view, the ultimate reality of the (material) world cannot be determined with any certainty, but the ‘implicate order’ of nature/universe can be grasped intuitively (and non-verbally).

RICHARD: Yes ... this is the same-same as ‘The Truth’ is ineffable and can only be accessed in a thoughtless mindless state.

RESPONDENT: The entity that thus grasps the ‘order’ is but that ‘order’ itself.

RICHARD: Aye ... ‘I am God’ or ‘I am That’ or (if one is really cunning): ‘There is only That’.

RESPONDENT: That is the best that I can do so far in explaining the observer-observed paradigm in Quantum Mechanics/ Bohmian terms so far. This view also seems to tally with the Vedantic view of the world (the inner reality being the same as the outer reality) that I posted on this forum two days back.

RICHARD: But of course it ‘seems to tally with the Vedantic view of the world’ because it is derived from Vedanta. In the west, the nineteenth century was optimistically called the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ (knowledge enlightenment) until eastern mystics came onto the world stage at the turn of the century with spiritual enlightenment ... busily being hell-bent on returning a burgeoning thoughtful part of humankind to the darkness of superstition. Western civilisation, which has struggled to get out of superstition and medieval ignorance, is in danger of slipping back into the supernatural as the Eastern mystical thought and belief that is beginning to have its strangle-hold upon otherwise intelligent people is becoming more widespread.

Prior to the recent influx of eastern philosophy, if one realised that ‘I am God’, one would have been institutionalised ... and, to some degree, rightly so. One has stepped out of an illusion, only to wind up living in a delusion. However, the trouble with people who discard the god of Christianity and/or Judaism is that they do not realise that by turning to the Eastern spirituality they have effectively jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. Eastern spirituality is religion ... merely in a different form to what people in the west have been raised to believe in. Eastern philosophy sounds so convincing to the western mind that is desperately looking for answers. The Christian and/or Judaic conditioning actually sets up the situation for a thinking person to be susceptible to the esoteric doctrines of the east.

It is sobering to realise that the intelligentsia of the West are eagerly following the East down the slippery slope of striving to attain to a self-seeking divine immortality ... to the detriment of life on earth. ‘Implicate order’, for example, is simply another term for ‘God’ (aka ‘The Truth’). At the end of the line there is always a god of some description, lurking in disguise, wreaking its havoc with its ‘Teachings’. I have been to India to see for myself the results of what they claim are tens of thousands of years of devotional spiritual living ... and it is hideous.

If it were not for the appalling suffering engendered it would all be highly amusing. (Richard, List B, No. 33b, 30 November 1999)

July 06 2004

RESPONDENT: Would you care to study quantum physics?

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

• [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.

As quantum theory is based upon a mathematical device (Mr. Max Planck’s ‘quanta’) initially designed to solve the hypothetical problem of infinite ultra-violet radiation from a non-existent perfect ‘black-box’ radiator, and never intended to be taken as being real (until Mr. Albert Einstein took it up for his own purposes), I have no interest whatsoever in studying it.

RESPONDENT: Consider Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle: The more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum is known. Under what you classify this phenomenon? Classical Physics, Quantum Physics, or nonsensical misreading of actual phenomenon?

RICHARD: If you were to re-read my detailed response to your question (further above) you would see that I classify it as ‘the imaginative/intuitive speculations of [a] theoretical physicist’.

Put succinctly: what is known in the trade as ‘sub-atomic particles’ have no substance ... they are sub-atomic postulates. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘I do understand the value of pure science (theoretical science), as contrasted to applied science (practical science), in the area of research and development – just as I understand the value of pure mathematics as opposed to applied mathematics – as evidenced by the technological revolution and the main point I am emphasising is the dangers of taking the latest (supposedly) scientific discovery to be fact, as propagated by the popular press for instance, because theoretical science does not describe the universe ... mathematical equations have no existence outside of the ratiocinative and illative process.
Perhaps this might go some way towards explaining what I mean:

• ‘It must be realised, however, that the world of experience and observation is not the world of electrons and nuclei. When a bright spot on a television screen *is interpreted as* the arrival of a stream of electrons, it is still only the bright spot that is perceived *and not the electrons*. The world of experience is described by the physicist in terms of visible objects, occupying definite positions at definite instants of time – in a word, the world of classical mechanics. When the atom is pictured as a nucleus surrounded by electrons, this picture is a necessary concession to human limitations; there is no sense in which one can say that, if only a good enough microscope were available, this picture would be revealed as genuine reality. It is not that such a microscope has not been made; it is *actually impossible to make one* that will reveal this detail’. ~ (Prof. Sir Alfred Brian Pippard; ©1994; Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Once the not-observable as objects in space and time basis of sub-atomic particles is established – (as distinct from “visible objects occupying definite positions at definite instants of time” that is) – the mathematical processes involved unfold further mysteries accordingly. Vis:

• ‘The process of transformation from a classical description to an equation of quantum mechanics, and from the solution of this equation to the probability that a specified experiment will yield a specified observation, is not to be thought of as a temporary expedient pending the development of a better theory. It is better to accept this process as a technique for predicting the observations that are likely to follow from an earlier set of observations. Whether electrons and nuclei have *an objective existence in reality is a metaphysical question to which no definite answer can be given*. There is, however, no doubt that *to postulate their existence* is, in the present state of physics, an inescapable necessity if a consistent theory is to be constructed to describe economically and exactly the enormous variety of observations on the behaviour of matter’. ~ (Prof. Sir Alfred Brian Pippard; ©1994; Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Almost needless is it to say, once this postulation is accepted – and as “an inescapable necessity” at that – there is no prize for guessing what will happen. Viz.:

• ‘The habitual use of the language of particles by physicists *induces and reflects the conviction* that, even if the particles elude direct observation, *they are as real as any everyday object*’. [emphases added]. ~ (Prof. Sir Alfred Brian Pippard⁾ ©1994; Encyclopaedia Britannica). Videlicet:

Thus the sub-atomic postulates (i.e., ‘particles’ aka ‘corpuscles’) have become “as real as any everyday object” and thereby assume the status of factoids in the minds of theoretical physicists and thusly to the general public – as revealed unequivocally by Prof. Pippard, a leading theoretical physicist in his day, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1994 – via a sleight of hand (or, rather, a sleight of mind) which would be the envy of many a confidence trickster

(Richard, The Actual Freedom List, No. 49a, 06 July 2004)

17 July 2003:

He [David Bohm] clearly has [quote] ‘and matter also’ [endquote] having its being in the movement that the mind emerges from as a ground (which has been called ‘the mind of god’ by Mr. Paul Davies, another theoretical physicist, who was awarded the 1995 ‘Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion’, which carried a monetary award of $1 million, for his efforts to resolve the dichotomy between science and religion).

As you are familiar with the writings of Mr. Stephen Hawking you may have heard of Mr. Paul Davies already? If not, put briefly, he initially becoming interested in the theory of quantum fields in curved space-time at the University of Cambridge – focussing much of his research in that area – and in the early seventies he joined fellow-physicists Mr. Stephen Hawking and Mr. Roger Penrose, who were researching the thermodynamic properties of black holes at the time. He published ‘The Physics of Time Asymmetry’ (1974), the first of more than 20 books directed to either his professional colleagues or the general public. Mr. Paul Davies’ most recent publications were ‘The Matter Myth’; then one of his most influential works, ‘The Mind of God’; followed by ‘About Time: Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution’ and ‘Are We Alone?’.

The basis of what the above theoretical physicists write about may be a lot of things ... but science it ain’t.

RESPONDENT: So why you make dogmatic statements like the infinity of the universe?

RICHARD: Here is what the word ‘dogmatic’ can mean:

• ‘dogmatic: of philosophy or medicine: based on a priori assumptions rather than empirical evidence; concerned with propounding opinions; esp. (of a person, writing, etc.) asserting doctrines or views in an opinionated or arbitrary manner; of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a (religious) dogma or dogmas; doctrinal. [dogma: opinion, a belief; spec. a tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, esp. by a Church or sect; an arrogant declaration of opinion; doctrines or opinions, esp. on religious matters, laid down authoritatively or assertively]. (Oxford Dictionary).

First you propose a (continuing) ‘creation’ as if that were an established fact, plus you refer to Mr David Bohm as ‘speaking for physical facts’ when very little of what he spoke of was either physical or a fact, then you say ‘so why you make dogmatic statements ...’ as if I were the one making a priori assumptions, propounding opinions, or asserting doctrines, in an arrogant or arbitrary manner.

What on earth is the connection between the theoretical physics you keep on presenting to this mailing list and the direct experiencing of pure consciousness that would make you say ‘so why you ...’ as if there were some relationship?

Are the ... um ... the axioms of theoretical physicists facts for you? (Richard, The Actual Freedom List, No. 44b, 17 July 2003)

16 July 2003:

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?

January 27 2004

RICHARD: I copy-pasted the words <steady state universe> into my search engine and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to return nil hits; I copy-pasted the words <steady state> into my search engine and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to return nil hits. In short: I make no mention of ‘a steady state universe’ ... let alone ‘assert’ one.

RESPONDENT: Your pedantry can’t help you here.

RICHARD: If by ‘pedantry’ you mean clarity in communication you will find it stands me in good stead ... just as it does for anybody interested in conveying what they have to say accurately.

RESPONDENT: Just because you don’t use the term ‘steady state’ does not mean your cosmology is not classified as one. Here’s the Actualist position: [quote] ‘Time: time is eternal – as in beginningless and endless time – which means only now is actual. Space: space is infinite – as in limitless and boundless space – which means only here is actual. Form: form is perpetual – as in continuously rearranging itself – which means only this is actual. [www.actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ3.htm]. Here is an outline of steady state theory: [quote] ‘... holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in it and at every time ... Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there could have been no beginning or no end’. [www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/univ_steady.html]. Your cosmology is a steady-state theory by virtue of eternal time ...

RICHARD: Interestingly enough the web page you provide the link to says, in the sentence immediately preceding the first sentence you quote (above), that the ‘steady-state theory’ is based on an extension of something called the perfect cosmological principle. Here it is (with the sentences you quoted highlighted):

• ‘... the steady-state theory was based on an extension of something called the perfect cosmological principle. This *holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in it and at every time*. (This applies only to the universe at large scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the space between them.) *Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there could have been no beginning or no end*. This struck a philosophical chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s’.

A theory based upon an extension of a principle (which is itself an extension of another principle) is in no way the same thing as the direct experience of infinitude ... as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE).

You would have to be grasping at straws to present the above as some after-the-act demonstration that your hypothesis (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) was in any way valid when you first published it on December 30, 2003 at 20:00 PST.

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.

17 February 2004

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. Viz.:

• ‘... 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, The Actual Freedom List, No. 27g, 17 February 2004)

23 May 1999:

RESPONDENT: And I have taken the liberty to snip as I don’t feel much inclined or competent to discuss the theories of the origin of the universe right now. Maybe, after reading more about the current state of the science, I will pick up that thread. The Einstein example was just an illustration of what clarity means to my mind.

RICHARD: Maybe it is indeed an illustration of what clarity means to your mind ... yet that clarity – and the meaning of that clarity to your mind – is not being conveyed successfully by your illustration. May I ask? Am I writing to the same person who wrote: ‘Putting things across logically is the first requirement of any discussion. If that requirement is not met, there is no communication. Then ‘X’ can write any crap and assume no responsibility’?

It is not necessary that you ‘discuss the theories of the origin of the universe’ either now or at any other time ... I was merely presenting a logical follow-through of what is implied and indicated in Mr. Albert Einstein’s statement (which is the statement that you enthusiastically endorsed in the snipped part of the post. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘General Relativity says – ‘take away matter and space vanishes as well’. That, to my mind, is clarity’.

I also sketched out a brief resume of what his devout followers have made out of his General Theory of Relativity ... and I indicated where theoretical physics was heading to. But, of course his statement does not have to mean ‘the origins of the universe’ to you at all ... but it does means something to you, does it not? Otherwise why introduce it as an example of clarity? What does it mean to you? Why is it, to your mind, clarity?

I do so look forward to having a logically consistent correspondence with you; a discussion with someone understands and accepts that some people do not have the required training or education to engage in consistent discussions ... like you so aptly pointed out in a previous post. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘Some on the list may not have the required training or education to engage in consistent discussions. I can completely understand and accept that. But what about those whose profession itself is to be consistent, logical, and clear? I find such lack of consistency and clarity in such people shocking. But maybe illogic runs in all places’.

But I also understand, seeing that I am but a lay-person dabbling in the science as presented by the popular press and that I have no formal training or academically acquired knowledge whatsoever whilst you do (before you switched from physics to MIS), that you may feel disinclined to pursue the subject with me. Yet from this undisciplined position I do discern two strands of science:

1. Physical science (which properly contains ‘pure science’ and ‘applied science’)

2. Metaphysical science (which properly contains ‘science fiction’ and ‘mystical science’).

Where would you place the theoretical physics that is exemplified by such mathematical physicists as ... um ... Mr. Paul Davies, for example? In case you have not heard of him, he was awarded the 1995 ‘Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion’, which carried a monetary award of $1 million, for his efforts to resolve the dichotomy between science and religion. He initially becoming interested in the theory of quantum fields in curved space-time at the University of Cambridge – focussing much of his research in that area – and in the early seventies he joined fellow-physicists Mr. Stephen Hawking and Mr. Roger Penrose, who were researching the thermodynamic properties of black holes at the time. He published ‘The Physics of Time Asymmetry’ (1974), the first of more than 20 books directed to either his professional colleagues or the general public. Mr. Paul Davies’ most recent publications were ‘The Matter Myth’; then one of his most influential works, ‘The Mind of God’; followed by ‘About Time: Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution’ and ‘Are We Alone?’

RESPONDENT: Allow me to substitute another [illustration of what clarity means to my mind]: Richard tells me it is raining outside. I look out of the window and see it rain. Richard’s statement is clear to me.

RICHARD: Hmm ... this illustration is a far cry from ‘General Relativity says – take away matter and space vanishes as well’ would you not say? It falls distinctly into the commonsense category that Mr. Albert Einstein dismissed so cavalierly. Viz.: ‘Common notion is when you take away matter, space remains’ ... and you clearly endorsed his uncommon notion (General Relativity) as being clarity: [Respondent]: ‘That, to my mind, is clarity. And I try to apply that criterion to myself’.

A trifle inconsistent, non? You did say, did you not: ‘I find such lack of consistency and clarity in such people shocking. But maybe illogic runs in all places’?

Perhaps you could clarify something for me that I find illogical? I will give an example: I have a fruit bowl with one apple in it ... the apple is matter existing in the space delineated by the sides of the bowl. I take the apple (matter) out of the bowl ... and the space (delineated by the sides of the bowl) quite obviously remains. In fact, with the apple removed, there is more space in the bowl than before ... yet Mr. Albert Einstein would have me believe that the space vanishes! Now, as you so clearly understand that, when Richard says ‘it is raining outside’ and you look out of the window and see it rain, you know that Richard’s statement is clear to you. Does Richard’s statement ‘the space in the bowl quite obviously remains’ have the same clarity? I only ask because you enthusiastically endorsed Mr. Albert Einstein’s ‘take away matter and space vanishes as well’ statement by saying: ‘that, to my mind, is clarity’.

RESPONDENT: But I think you don’t need those illustrations as your writing is clear to me.

RICHARD: May I ask? Is my writing clear to you in the same way as Mr. Albert Einstein’s ‘take away matter and space vanishes as well’ statement is clear to you? Because, if it is then I doubt that you will comprehend such a simple question as this one: is it possible to be free of the human condition, here on earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body?

RESPONDENT: So, back to your question – can one live peacefully with malice and sorrow in one’s heart – the answer is ‘no’.

RICHARD: Indeed not. And to think that all this while that Mr. Albert Einstein’s theories have been holding the public’s attention, Mr. Joseph LeDoux (www.cns.nyu.edu/home/ledoux/) has been hot on the trail of empirically finding the genetically inherited cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides.

Is this because he is a practical scientist who does not have his head in the clouds looking for a solution to the human condition in some timeless and formless and spaceless nothingness? (Richard, List B, No. 33, 23 May 1999b)

12 July 1998

RICHARD: If you have something new and original to say that I have not heard about or read about or thought for myself ... then I will listen.

KONRAD: How about the infinite always being a finite concept, because it consists in every case of the pointing to a border, and a negation? (Look at your own proof of the infinity of the universe.)

RICHARD: That does not fall into the category of something new ... I was asked last year to prove the infinitude of the universe without resorting to that ancient Greek one of going to the border and throwing a spear into ... into what? You are asking a logical question and insisting on a logical answer. As all logic is based upon opposites, it is a ‘problem’ that logic cannot solve. What it goes to serve is to show that logic is limited.

The universe, being unlimited in both space and time, has no opposite. Thus the mind cannot conceptualise infinitude. It has to be lived to be known. One lives it by being here at this place in space and this moment in time as this flesh and blood body only. This is a direct experience of the actuality of infinity and eternity and beats that specious immortality so beloved by the metaphysicians hands down ... for the immediate is the ultimate and the relative is the absolute.

‘I’ can never know infinitude.

KONRAD: How about Olbers paradox? These two things just for starters.

July 13 1998:

KONRAD: How about the infinite always being a finite concept, because it consists in every case of the pointing to a border, and a negation?

RICHARD: I was asked last year to prove the infinitude of the universe without resorting to that ancient Greek one of going to the border and throwing a spear into ... into what?

KONRAD: And did you? Where is the argument?

RICHARD: I told the person that that example was the same as the one I learned in high school: ‘what is at the edge of the universe ... a long brick wall? And when you lean on the wall and look over ... what are you looking into?’

*

RICHARD: You are asking a logical question and insisting on a logical answer. As all logic is based upon opposites, it is a ‘problem’ that logic cannot solve. What it goes to serve is to show that logic is limited.

KONRAD: From this I infer, that you either did not answer that fellow on the other mailing list, or you gave an illogical answer.

RICHARD: Not so. I pointed out that the spear throwing example and the looking over the wall example were not examples of the use of logic. They are exercises involving the use of the imaginative faculty of visualisation. I went on to explain that – contrary to popular opinion – infinitude does not just mean endless space and endless time. It means that the planet earth is situated nowhere in particular in space ... which means we are anywhere at all. Similarly, this moment is situated nowhere in particular in time and we are also ‘anywhen’ at all. This means that infinitude is everywhere and anywhere all at once. Thus, any place and any time is whatever one arbitrarily chooses to make it be.

An actual freedom is an enormous freedom.

KONRAD: Although thought is limited, logic, being the description of the laws of thought, is not.

RICHARD: Do you really mean that? Consider what you just wrote and see the obvious flaw in your reasoning.

KONRAD: This assertion is somewhat analogous to the statement, that although in every single case language expresses something finite, the totality of things that language can express is not finite.

RICHARD: Not necessarily so. For starters the single word ‘infinite’ does not express something finite.

KONRAD: In logic this is even more precise. There exists axiomatic systems in logic, containing an infinite number of axioms. These axioms are generated by something called: axiom schemes. These axiom schemes contain, as special cases, every tautology. This can be proved. And since every tautology is equivalent to a number of valid logical arguments, and there is no logical valid argument that is not equivalent to a tautology, this axiom scheme contains implicitly all valid logical arguments. So logic is not limited.

RICHARD: I find logic to be very limited. I can give a high school example: An arrow is shot at the target and takes two seconds to reach the bullseye. After it passes the half-way point, logically it starts to halve the remaining time taken ... a half a second to go ... a quarter of a second to go ... an eighth of a second to go ... a sixteenth of a second to go ... and so on and so on indefinitely. This is the classical example given to shown the infinity of fractions. Thus, logically, the arrow never reaches the target.

Now you know, and I know and everybody knows, that it does ... but logically it never does.

*

RICHARD: Infinitude does not just mean endless space and endless time. It means that the planet earth is situated nowhere in particular in space ... which means we are anywhere at all. Similarly, this moment is situated nowhere in particular in time and we are also ‘anywhen’ at all. This means that infinitude is everywhere and anywhere all at once. Thus, any place and any time is whatever one arbitrarily chooses to make it be.

KONRAD: Let me take a look whether I can make sense of this. Do you know what a hologram is? It is a piece of glass, that has recorded the interference patterns of waves from two light sources. The first is the monochromatic light that is coming directly from a laser. The second is the light that is coming from an object, that is hit with the same light. This is achieved by use of a mirror that lets half of the light go through it to the glass plate, and the other half is directed to the object, that is illuminated by it. The interesting thing is, that when this same monochromatic light falls on this glass plate, and you are also looking through this glass plate, you see the original object, even when it is removed. And you even see it in three dimensions. And if that is not enough, if you break the glass plate, and let the monochromatic light fall on just a piece of it, the whole image appears in just this fragment. So every fragment of the piece of glass contains the complete image! But even this is not all. You can move the object while recording the hologram. As long as you take care that the glass plate rotates while recording takes place, you can record even the movements! What you must do to see the movement of the object is letting the monochromatic light fall on the glass plate, and turn it with the exact speed at which it turned when recording took place. When you study this glass plate, containing a recording of the three dimensional image in ordinary light, the only thing visible on it are interference patterns. So you can say, that at every location of the glass plate the complete image is present. And not only that, you can even deduce, that the flow of time is present on this glass plate, but not as a flow of time, but as a moment containing the complete happenings of everything that happened, happens, and will happen. So if I understand you correctly, you say that the world is not the three-dimensional manifold + time we observe, but there is a deeper structure that causes everything we observe. And this deeper structure is analogous to this hologram, containing in every part of it the structure of the world how it was, is, and will be. And you assert, that in your state of actualism, you are able to observe this? This is more than remarkable. This is unbelievable!

RICHARD: It is unbelievable for I never meant all that at all. I simply meant that 1998 is an arbitrary date plucked out of nowhere for convenience. Also, when scientists state that the planet earth is in the bottom left-hand corner of the galaxy which is somewhere to the top left-hand side of the universe (or wherever) I seriously question their intelligence. We are, as I wrote above, nowhere and ‘nowhen’ in particular ... which is to be anywhere or ‘anywhen’ at all. Infinitude is all over the place and nowhere in particular. It defies logic ... and it is an enormous freedom to live this boundless awareness of being the universe experiencing itself as a sensate reflective human being.

KONRAD: Let me go on with my version of small-talk. There is a simple logical definition of the infinite, and it uses very simple finite concepts. Let me give a simple example from the theory of sets. Suppose I consider the set of all integers, all natural numbers. {1, 2, 3, ... }. And I consider the set of all integers dividable by 2. {2, 4, 6, 8, ... } Now I can form a so – called 1 – 1 correspondence, like this. 1 < – > 2 ... 2 < – > 4 ... 3 < – > 6 ... 4 < – > 8 ... Now I can see, that with every even number there corresponds an integer, and vice versa. I can also express this as follows: I am counting the even numbers. The important point is, that I understand, from this correspondence, that every even number corresponds with every natural number. This is the infinite logical way of expressing it. Or, to say it in a logically equivalent way, there is no even number that does not correspond with a natural number. This is the finite, but logically equivalent way of expressing it. Both facts can also be expressed by simply saying, that the set of even numbers has exactly the same size as the set of natural numbers. So we have two facts. Obviously the set of even numbers is a real subset of the set of natural numbers. With this I mean, that every element of the set of even numbers is present in the set of natural numbers. But on the other hand the set of natural numbers contains elements that cannot be found in the set of even numbers. Still, both sets are, in spite of the fact that they are both infinite, seen to be equally large, for they contain exactly the same number of elements. If you were able to count infinitely long, and you were finished, you can say that you have counted every element of the set, without missing one. This is seen to be true, in spite of the fact that you also see, that such an action cannot be performed in practice. The conclusion of equal size follows from the observation, that every even number corresponds with a natural number and vice versa. These last insights have made some mathematicians define infinite sets by this characteristic. Infinite sets distinguish themselves from finite sets because every infinite set and only infinite sets have real subsets that have the same size as the set they are a subset of. So in general an infinite set is defined as a set containing a real subset of the same size as the set it is a subset of.

RICHARD: I do understand basic mathematical logic ... but what has this got to do with the infinitude of the physical universe? Look, you tell me that before the ‘big bang’ there was nothing, and that past the edge of the ‘expanding universe’ there is nothing, right? Now – since you are a self-confessed worshipper of logic – I will posit to you a similar question by rephrasing the one you posed to me: How about this ‘nothing’ always being only a logical concept, because it consists in every case of the pointing to a border, and then a negation? In other words, you cannot say that ‘nothing’ is unless ‘something’ is first.

Therefore, ‘something’ is what is primary, not ‘nothing’ ... as eastern metaphysics would have us believe. Eventually you will abandon logic – and intuition – and actually be here at this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space for the very first time.

*

RICHARD: The universe, being unlimited in both space and time, has no opposite. Thus the mind cannot conceptualise infinitude. It has to be lived to be known. One lives it by being here at this place in space and this moment in time as this flesh and blood body only. This is a direct experience of the actuality of infinity and eternity and beats that specious immortality so beloved by the metaphysicians hands down ... for the immediate is the ultimate and the relative is the absolute. ‘I’ can never know infinitude.

KONRAD: Well, don’t you think I did a pretty good job in my example of the infinite set of natural and even numbers?

RICHARD: Being honest with you ... no. It was a valiant – but ultimately futile – attempt to contain the physical universe in an abstract equation.

*

KONRAD: How about Olbers paradox?

RICHARD: Also not new. In fact, this ‘paradox’, which was discussed in 1823 by the German astronomer Mr. Heinrich Olbers and its discovery widely attributed to him, can be traced back to Mr. Johannes Kepler. Mr. Johannes Kepler, in 1610, advanced it as an argument against the notion of a limitless universe containing an infinite number of stars. The ‘paradox’ relates to the hypothetical problem of why the sky is dark at night. If the universe is endless and uniformly populated with luminous stars then, the proponents of this theory say, every line of sight must eventually terminate at the surface of a star. Hence this argument implies that, contrary to observation, the night sky should everywhere be bright, with no dark spaces between the stars. Various resolutions have been proposed at different times. If the assumptions are accepted, then the simplest resolution is that the average luminous lifetime of stars is far too short for light to have yet reached the Earth from very distant stars [according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica].

KONRAD: This last thing is in contradiction with the infinite duration of the universe. For no matter how brief the lifespan of the star is, whenever it exists, it radiates light. Suppose, as you say, that the light of the stars that are present far away has not reached us. And suppose the radiation reaches us only when these stars are already long gone. Then there have to have been stars before this period. No matter how far away the space is, we consider, if we go far enough back in time, there have to have been stars then, whose light reaches us now. These stars are gone, but this does not prevent their light to reach us, and to accumulate in the way I have calculated. So if your argument is valid, the universe is not infinite in time. In other words, even if the lifetime of stars is far too short for light to have yet reached the earth for the very distant ones, the space contained stars before that period containing stars that radiate light that DID reach us. Therefore the simple mathematical argument I have put forward is only refuted if you assume that there has been a period in the past wherein there were no stars whatsoever. But this contradicts the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe in time. And therefore its infinity in time. By reformulating my argument into another one supposed to be equivalent, and then refuting that one, you have not refuted the original argument, but only a straw man.

RICHARD: I beg to differ ... I did not reformulate your argument at all. If you look at your question above you will see that you asked: ‘how about the Olbers paradox’? That is all you put forward ... so where do you get off with this ‘straw man’ business?

KONRAD: You have guts, Richard, to have tried this one. That I must say. This is also, why I like you so much, in spite of our differences.

RICHARD: Oh, there is plenty more where that came from ... if there are infinite stars – and therefore infinite light – there is also infinite space – and therefore infinite dark – which means that one argument cancels the other out. Which is probably why the night sky looks as it does – a nice balance – and a rather pretty display at that. But, so much for logic, eh?

All this while that humans having been attempting to understand the universe logically and intuitively, the universe has been doing its own thing, irregardless of what human think or feel. What one can do, though, is be here at this place in space and this moment in time as this flesh and blood body only and then the universe will be experiencing itself as a sensate reflective human being. This is to experience infinitude as an actuality, rather than thinking out its character or feeling out its nature.

August 01 1998:

RICHARD: If there are infinite stars – and therefore infinite light – there is also infinite space – and therefore infinite dark – which means that one argument cancels the other out. Which is probably why the night sky looks as it does – a nice balance – and a rather pretty display at that.

KONRAD: Well, well. Your resources to find new arguments is apparently another infinity in you. Now, what is wrong with this argument? To begin with, darkness is the absence of light. So, again, no matter how diluted the universe is, the old mathematical argument of the intensity diminishing with the square of the distance, and the number of stars increasing with the third power applies here, too. The light cannot be absorbed by the darkness in such a way, that it disappears. This is because of the law of conservation of energy. All energy that is radiated by the stars must remain somewhere. This argument is now refuted. I am very curious about what you will come up with next.

RICHARD: I am not going to have to come up with anything next as the obvious flaw in your logic above lies in your basic premise. To wit: ‘darkness is the absence of light’. Who says so? We could just as easily say that ‘light is the absence of dark’. If you wish to prove something logically you have to posit an initial fact upon which to build your case and I, for one, cannot buy such a spurious assumption that ‘dark is the absence of light’ as being an established absolute.

Have you heard of the ‘Dark Sucker Hypothesis’?

For years the electrical utility companies have led the public to believe they were in business to supply electricity to the consumer, a service for which they charge a substantial rate. The recent accidental acquisition of secret records from a well known power company has led to a massive research campaign which positively explodes several myths and exposes the massive hoax which has been perpetrated upon the public by the power companies.

The most common hoax promoted the false concept that light bulbs emitted light; in actuality, these ‘light’ bulbs actually absorb dark which is then transported back to the power generation stations via wire networks. A more descriptive name has now been coined; the new scientific name for the device is ‘Dark Sucker’.

This is a brief synopsis of the dark sucker theory, which proves the existence of dark and establishes the fact that dark has great mass, and further, that dark particle (the anti-photon) is the fastest known particle in the universe. Apparently, even the celebrated Dr. Albert Einstein did not suspect the truth that just as cold is the absence of heat, then light is actually the absence of dark. Scientists have now proven that light does not really exist.

The basis of the dark sucker theory is that electric light bulbs suck dark. Take for example, the dark suckers in the room where you are right now. There is much less dark right next to the dark suckers than there is elsewhere, demonstrating their limited range. The larger the dark sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark suckers in a parking lot or on a football field have a much greater capacity than the ones in used in the home, for example.

It may come as a surprise to learn that dark suckers also operate on a celestial scale; witness the Sun. Our Sun makes use of dense dark, sucking it in from all the planets and intervening dark space. Naturally, the Sun is better able to suck dark from the planets which are situated closer to it, thus explaining why those planets appear brighter than do those which are far distant from the Sun. Occasionally, the Sun actually over-sucks; under those conditions, dark spots appear on the surface of the Sun. Scientists have long studied these ‘spots’ and are only recently beginning to realise that the dark spots represent leaks of high pressure dark because the Sun has over-sucked dark to such an extent that some dark actually leaks back into space. This leakage of high pressure dark frequently causes problems with radio communications here on Earth due to collisions between the dark particles as they stream out into space at high velocity via the black holes in the surface of the Sun.

As with all man-made devices, dark suckers have a finite lifetime caused by the fact that they are not 100% efficient at transmitting collected dark back to the power company via the wires from your home, causing dark to build up slowly within the device. Once they are full of accumulated dark, they can no longer suck. This condition can be observed by looking for the black spot on a full dark sucker when it has reached maximum capacity of un-transmitted dark ... you have surely noticed that dark completely surrounds a full dark sucker because it no longer has the capacity to suck any dark at all.

A candle is a primitive dark sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You will notice that after the first use the wick turns black, representing all the dark which has been sucked into it. If you hold a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, the tip will turn black because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. And it is of no use to plug a candle into an electrical outlet; it can only collect dark ... being primitive it has no transmission capabilities. Unfortunately, these original dark suckers have a very limited range and are hazardous to operate because of the intense heat produced.

There are also portable dark suckers called flashlights. The bulbs in these devices collect dark which is passed to a dark storage unit called a battery. When the dark storage unit is full, it must be either emptied (a process called ‘recharging’) or replaced before the portable dark sucker can continue to operate. If you break open a battery, you will find dense black dark inside, evidence that it is actually a compact dark storage unit.

Over to you, Konrad. (Richard, List B, No. 17, 01 August 1998)

Over to you, Konrad. (Richard, List B, No. 17,06 August 1998)