Destiny Matrix

Sunday, August 15, 2004

On Aug 15, 2004, at 5:23 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Aug 15, 2004, at 4:18 PM, Scott Littleton wrote:

Whether the "Visitors, " or what I've come to call, collectively, the "Alien Raj," come from our own future, an alternate future in a parallel dimension/universe, or, as I still suspect, from somewhere relatively nearby in THIS universe and THIS galaxy,

All three are distinctly possible and likely given the very recent discovery of anti-gravity dark energy as the dominant, albeit "virtual" stuff of the multi-verse. Dark energy is the "exotic matter" of Kip Thorne in his mid-1980's star gate wormhole paper triggered by Saul-Paul Sirag and also Alcubierre's early 90's weightless warp drive paper. Little did they, or anyone know, how easy it was to find it. Indeed, it is our "real" form of stuff that is truly exotic - only ~ 4% of the whole. This was the missing link. I only understood it in 2002. The first evidence only came in 1999! Hal Puthoff still does not understand how the zero point energy really works gravitationally. Why? Because he rejects Einstein's theory with tensors and all that and is off on a wild goose chase ALLEGEDLY wasting, I hear, a lot of "black" UFO money over a long time with essentially nothing of relevance to good flying saucer data. I have no idea if these persistent rumors sent to me by more than one source are true. Hal denies what I am told. Hal has never acknowledged the key importance of my basic metric engineering exotic vacuum field equations

Guv + /\zpfguv ~ 0

/\zpf a simple function of the macro-quantum vacuum coherence.

/\zpf > 0 is the repulsive anti-gravitational field zero point energy source of negative pressure

/\zpf < 0 is the attractive gravitational field zero point energy source of positive pressure

/\zpf = 0 is the ordinary non-exotic common sense vacuum that has no "weight", i.e. is not a source or sink of gravitational connection field flux and tidal curvature.

Indeed Puthoff never even defines precisely what he means by "metric engineering" and how his concept applies to the flying saucer data found, for example, on the NIDS website where is a member of the Science Advisory Board.

Note in the Newtonian static limit my equation is simply

Laplacian of the vacuum's gravitational potential energy per unit test particle ~ c^2/\zpf

Puthoff has never written such an equation before me. This equation has nothing to do with the quantum electrodynamic Casimir ZPF force, which in most applications is an obstacle to the objective of metric engineering the fabric of space-time for the kind of advanced exotic military space weapons systems we observe in our skies. So who is fooling who here? I tell it like it is. Dark energy is the key to the economy and technology of the Alien Raj. You are witness to the timeline of my discovery of this. You recall that in the Joe Firmage ISSO days I did not have this idea, but was fumbling in the dark just like Hal Puthoff is doing still today but not admitting it. We did learn from ISSO that no one out there in the New Age alternative energy field is competent. I am not talking about solar, wind and geothermal energy of course, but of all the wackos that we tested and that Puthoff still tests I understand? It's not worth the time and the money.

you're certainly correct in asserting that they've been here for a very long time. My own estimate, based on an assessment of Upper Paleolithic iconography (e.g., the sudden appearance "lenticular" images on cave walls, etc.), is that that they established themselves as Earth's clandestine "colonial" overlords ca. 13,000-15,000 years ago, that is, toward the end of the Pleistocene. Indeed, I suspect that it was their awareness that this planet was on the verge of a fundamental (and rapid) climatological change-the imminent melting of the great icecaps-that initially convinced them to settle in, as they must have been curious to see how the exceedingly primitive, albeit intelligent indigenous inhabitants (i.e., our early modern hominid ancestors) would adapt to this change. Sometime later, the biological (hybridization, DNA-harvesting, etc.) and psychological (e.g., indoctrinating their human subjects with a variety of "religious" ideas, testing our reactions to crop-circles, etc.) experiments began, and have continued to the present, in large part driven by what appears to be an increasingly desperate need for human DNA and/or hybrids. The reasons underlying this need are still unclear. However, I think David Jacobs (see his THE THREAT, 1998) is essentially correct in his assessment of the situation here, even though he still insists that the "Phenomenon" doesn't date back much past the late 19th century.

That you (Jack) could have received a "phone call from the future" in 1953 is not inconsistent from the foregoing hypothesis, especially if, as many serious ufologists strongly suspect, the "Alien Raj" has long since evolved a technology that allows them to manipulate space & time so as to facilitate travel across tens or hundreds of light-years.

I essentially now know how all that works. It is no longer a mystery. Prior to 2002 I did not know. Of course, I was set to work on this back in at least 1953 by a black USG project master minded by Eugene McDermott and based in New Mexico of course - where Richard Doty is today allegedly working for the local coppers - of course. This project was obviously an effect of the Roswell Incident in 1947.

However, this capability has probably yielded a great many other dividends. I've often suspected that the aliens may have been monitoring you (Jack) since early childhood.

They were quite direct about it.
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html
Also with Uri Geller.
Did Hal Puthoff also have direct contact as a child? It's quite possible. He may have repressed that. Hal is definitely part of "the others" as is Russell Targ and all the usual suspects.

"My banner bravely unfurled" Man of La Mancha

"For I am a Pirate King." http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/pirates/pirate_king.mid Raise The Jolly Roger!
KING:
Oh, better far to live and die
Under the brave black flag I fly,
Than play a sanctimonious part
With a pirate head and a pirate heart.
Away to the cheating world go you,
Where pirates all are well-to-do;
But I'll be true to the song I sing,
And live and die a Pirate King.
For I am a Pirate King!
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King!
For I am a Pirate King!
ALL:
You are!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
KING:
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King.
ALL:
It is!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
KING:
When I sally forth to seek my prey
I help myself in a royal way.
I sink a few more ships, it's true,
Than a well-bred monarch ought to do;
But many a king on a first-class throne,
If he wants to call his crown his own,
Must manage somehow to get through
More dirty work than e'er I do,
For I am a Pirate King!
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King!
For I am a Pirate King!
ALL:
You are!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
KING:
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King.
ALL:
It is!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!

http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/pirates/html/pirates_home.html

It's time now to achieve the impossible dream and reach for the stars and beyond to the eschaton!

"Pour oh pour the Pirate's sherry, fill o fill the Pirate's glass ..."
http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/pirates/brandani/pirates_01.mid

In the process, they may have noticed in an alternate timeline what you would discover twenty years later, and then did their best to ensure that you would do the same thing in THIS timeline. Indeed, I've often wondered whether you're still an ongoing, albeit unconscious alien "subject."

I am alien from the neck up. My mind is definitely alien.

Any significant missing-time episodes, etc. in recent years? Or any weird dreams that might indicate that you've been a "guest" of the "Alien Raj" from time to time?

Those aliens got more than they bargained for! That's for sure. ;-)

In any case, I'm currently working on a book that will assess these matters from an anthropological perspective. Tentatively entitled ALIEN RAJ: AN ANTHROPOLOGIST LOOKS AT THE UFO PHENOMENON, it should be finished in about a year. So please stay tuned!

Cheers,
Scott

C. SCOTT LITTLETON
Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus
Occidental College
Los Angeles, CA 90041
TEL (323) 255-5477
FAX (323) 982-0264
http://faculty.oxy.edu/yokatta/

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic"
--Sir Arthur C. Clarke

"I think we're property. . ."
--Charles Fort

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 8:55 PM
To: Dan Smith
Cc: Al K.; Alan P.; Bruce M.; Christopher G.; David Williams; Hal P.; John A.; John Brandenburg; Joseph Stefula; Judith Sutter; Nick C.; RAY HUDSON; Ron P.; Saul Paul Sirag; Stephen Bassett; Scott Littleton; Victor Martinez; Dick Farley; David Gladstone; Bill L.; d wanek
Subject: Re: eschaton focus group

PS Real metric engineering of warpdrives and wormholes with time travel
to the past means that in a deep sense reality is closer to The Matrix
movie concept than not. The discovery of dark energy and dark matter
means that the parallel worlds are mostly virtual in both key senses of
the word as "off-mass-shell" and as an emergent self-organizing
macro-quantum holodeck display from a micro-quantum bit substratum
where the algorithms adapt.

On Aug 13, 2004, at 8:32 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Aug 13, 2004, at 2:44 PM, Dan Smith wrote:

Jack, et al.,

It does appear that Jack, as usual, is game for most anything. Now
we'll
have to see about the rest. The less we have to bother Ron about
issues of
authorization, the better off we'll be, considering the prime
directive and
all that.

A big issue is voluntarism, given that a salient characteristic of us
creatures is our alleged free will. How does this jibe with the idea
of a
salvation economy, i.e. cosmic plan?

I imagine that we are like the actors in a play, we can only get away
with
so much ad-libbing, and since we don't know the script, we hardly
know what
we get away with.

It's Jazz! Improvise. However in my own timeline I detect a clear
weird pattern.

WRT the eschaton, it can only be marginally voluntary, while being
maximally
participatory.

It does appear that most of you, like Paul Allen, would not mind
participating in a rapture like exercise of 'loosing' our earthly
chains.

What's that about Paul Allen?

Most of us, however, are reluctant to cut short our appointed sojourn
on
Earth. We are happy to hire astronauts to set up bases on Mars. It
is
partly a question of carrot vs. stick. What are the trade-offs
between
Earth and Elsewhere? There are many variables and unknowns to
consider.

Those saucers can go a lot further than Mars in quick time without
propellants.

This issue becomes more problematic if the likely destination is not
the
planet next door, but the universe next door.

But is such concern not academic at this point, i.e. very premature?
Maybe
yes, maybe no.

No, since The Visitors have been here for a long time according to
Scott Littleton's research and according to my own contact.

It depends on the state of the 'technology'. The working assumption
for
most of us is that the technology already exists, but is presently
unavailable. We have a simple choice: physical engineering or social
engineering. I am hardly alone in suggesting the latter. My
reasoning is
both orthodox and unorthodox.

Soviets tried social engineering. The technology is becoming fast
available with some bumps in the road.

I suggest that the primary problem is choreography.

Chorus line!

The Earth was constructed on the basis of a planned obsolescence. It
was
never intended to be our permanent home. Moving day may be just
around the
corner.

Obviously. Childhood's End.

Almost every society has been founded on the assumption of an ultimate
transience. Thus have we been prepared for this inevitability.

Up to this point, a primary portal has been the grave: it's low tech,
and
universally affordable. I know that Jack is hoping to move up-market.

Remember Rabbi Yeshua's Promise.

We
then have the issue of transplanting vs. transmigration. Up to this
point
the choreography has favored the individual transmigration via natural
attrition. But, if Jack and I are right, we soon begin the
transition to a
transplanting scenario, via craft and physical portals. We move from
the
heaven's gate scenario to the stargate scenario. This will be
necessary if
we are to achieve an historical closure relative to our earthly
experience.

Yes, that's what metric engineering is all about. Isn't it odd that
Hal Puthoff has never given a clear definition what he means by
"metric engineering" and what its applications are?

The point is that our future, for the most part, lies elsewhere. Deep
ecologists may wish to remain behind, but their abode will be
transformed
both physically and metaphysically. In either case, life will be
radically
altered. For most of us it will be 'moveon.org'.

Correct. Have brains will travel - that's Fred Alan Wolf's Marching
Song. BTW I just saw Gary Zukav's updated introduction to Dancing Wu
Li Masters. The man is certifiably mad as well as boring. My biggest
mistake was inviting both him and David Finkelstein to Esalen in
January 1976,

The EFG now has only to help choreograph the early evacuation phase.
What
would be our best possible evacuation plan?

Learn how the saucers work, how consciousness is generated and how to
cancel out Hawking's time travel barrier from infinite blue shift to
infinite red shift - a mere fizzle when we engage time warp to the
past.

Our success in this regard
would be expected to hasten the turnover of the relevant technology.

It's happening.

At the outset I would strongly recommend that Jack & Co. should
continue
their promethean quest to steal the 'dark energy' fire from the gods.

http://stardrive.org/cartoon/MagicBean.html

But
there is no reason why not, and good reasons why we might choose to
cooperate in this two-pronged endeavor to participate in our cosmic
destiny.

In the meantime, we may let the counter-intelligence chips fall where
they
may.

The Darling Nano Buds of May. Or did you mean Chipman?

PS typo correction to my formula earlier today

(Entropy of Universe)/kB = (Area of World Hologram)/4(Quantum of Area)

= log[1 + /\(Quantum of Area)R(t)^2] ?

This obviously does not get very large.

Back from my titanium implant for artificial tooth transceiver to the
ET's from J. Edgar Hoova and The Nine provided I can find the correct
exotic vacuum bag. :-)

Do I speak in riddles? Surely I jest.

http://qedcorp.com/London/finalepoint.mp3

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 2:07 PM
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
Cc: ItalianPhysicsCenter; SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com
Subject: Dan Smith Returns From The Magick Mountain!

bcc

I hope you did not drop one of the stone tablets from The Visitors on
your way down Dan. :-)
BTW you can have a column in a new magazine that may be starting up
soon.

On Aug 13, 2004, at 10:01 AM, Dan Smith wrote:

Jack, et al.,

Permit me, please, to use this as an excuse to broach some possibly
new
business.

I have been attempting to reinsert myself into this forum over the
last
several months. The new development is to refine a protocol with Ron
P. for
this purpose.

This is a somewhat delicate matter, which I am trying to simplify so
as not
to make my own communication protocol too complicated. As much as
possible
I would like to keep all of my communication in the open.

I watched Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby head of DIA on C-Span. I am sure
the good Admiral would not like the way our Paul Murad as "UFOguy" is
filtering this kind of information for him. The Admiral emphasized
replacing "need to know" (left-hand does not know what right-hand is
doing) with a wider more liberal public access especially from
alternative unconventional sources. It's hard to make USG
bureaucracies
imaginative enough to connect the dots to prevent sequels to 911 that
would even be a larger magnitude.

I have been away for two weeks and, before I left, I met separately
with Ron
and Kit.

I have tentatively enlisted Ron's support for the formation of an
eschaton
focus group. This is not going to be easy because I know of no
eschatologists hereabouts. The only ones I know of are
fundamentalists, and
they have their already well established protocols, which do not
include the
likes of me!

Our new magazine will be the mass forum for that. I am hoping to
enlist
Uri Geller as a key creative force in it. He will have a column if he
likes and his images of creative art will be prominently featured.

The new gimmick is that Ron will tell a select audience that I may
not
be
crazy in this regard, contrary to his past comments concerning my
sanity.

We all know you are as crazy Dan as Don Quixote, but are you crazy
enough to be important in saving the world? That is what we are
attempting to do is it not? Did you see the movie "King of Hearts"? In
The Country of The Blind the One-Eyed Man is King as long as wily
Ulysses does not pluck it out.

http://stardrive.org/cartoon/dan.html
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/MagicBean.html
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/USSKron.html
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/bovines.html
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/coffee.html
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/Saturn.html

The problem is to justify the change of protocol. I requested that
this be
based on a private admission of an outstanding phenomenological
problem for
the government. This suggesting was rejected on the basis that it
would
subject Ron and others to additional harrassment by ufologists.

Of a most bigoted sort like Wesleyan Methodists!

The counter suggestion was to include the new protocol under the
rubric of
counter-intelligence. The attempts by Ron and others to explain this
rubric
to me have been less than successful, and/or would necessitate
on-going
private communications that would be time consuming.

Let me attempt to put something on the record. It is no secret that
Jerusalem is the focus of much eschatological speculation on the part
of
Jews, Christians and Muslims. It is also no secret that Jerusalem
remains
the focus of political tensions throughout the Middle East and much
of
the
world.

I explain all that in my book "Destiny Matrix" and even more in "Super
Cosmos" as "The Real Da Vinci Code".
Have you gotten in touch with Phil Crane's cousing Robert Dickson
Crane? He can explain much. Ask him about "Tauhid". BTW Read Popular
Mechanics August 2004 on homemade WMD look at p. 77 insert on "dark
energy" - sound familiar?

It is possible that the interjection of a new metaphysical/political
element
into this witches brew might be advantageous for certain clandestine
purposes. I would be happy to do my patriotic duty if this is the
case. No
problem.

The problem would be for the rest of you. How could you participate
effectively in this effort, knowing what I have just told you? This
would
no longer be a serious debate about physics vs. metaphysics. It
would
be a
cover for something else, i.e. a sham. Instead of just Dan being the
useful
idiot, we are now all invited to be useful idiots!

This is not a very subtle problem.

Any suggestions??

Dan

Like public key cryptography?

Better a "useful idiot" than a "useless idiot" that we have too many
of! :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 5:44 PM
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
Cc: SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com; ItalianPhysicsCenter
Subject: Flying Saucers, SRI Demystified, Self-Creation Oroborus &
Dan

On Aug 9, 2004, at 1:29 PM, Scott Littleton wrote:

Hi David,

OK, it's an "engineering problem," I've got a question for you: Who
(or what) "engineered" the Great Engineer? That is, the entity that
so carefully designed the universe so that both you and I were
rendered inevitable some 13.5 billion years ago? Surely, he/she/it
or
whatever had to come from somewhere (or something). Or do you
believe
he/she/it, etc. simply appeared sui generis?

Yes, quite possibly IF time travel to the past is what is happening.
Contrary to what Stephen Hawking says officially the Tourists from
the
Future seem to be here and have been for thousands of years. Prime
Directive? Nah! Ideas literally create themselves. This idea was
already discussed in the tape recording Saul-Paul Sirag has of my
meeting with Brendan O Regan, Hal Puthoff, Russell Targ et-al in 1973
and Saul-Paul wrote an opera based on that idea in 1974 that was
produced at Berkeley. More details are in the book "Destiny Matrix" -
this time loop self-creation is basically what I mean by "Destiny
Matrix." Dan Smith prefers this to the WAP in an infinity of
parallel
universe. However, one does not preclude the other actually. The
Destiny Matrix Oroboros scenario explains WHY "The Visitors" are
here,
i.e. WHY "The Alien Raj."

-----------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Littleton [mailto:yokatta@oxy.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 6:58 PM
To: d1494@copper.net; rainman.hudson@verizon.net;
rc-losee@carolina.rr.com
Subject: RE: RE: The Hyksos, etc.

HI David,

Well, now we're getting onto some firmer ground: you say you're not
positing a deity in anything like the traditional sense. At least
one
that
need not be worshipped and cajoled to cure sick kids, make the crops
grow,
see to it that Suzie falls in love with me, etc. OK, fine, but the
idea of
a Supreme Intelligence, a creating entity of some sort, is still
redolent of
a divinity, even if not an anthropomorphic (or anthropocentric) one.
Are
you suggesting that this whatever-it-is simply wrote the basic
program, as
it were, and then absented itself from the result? If so, it reminds
me of
18th-century Deism, which had such an impact on our Founding Fathers,
including Jefferson & Washington, although the latter's worldview was
also
profoundly shaped by Freemasonry, which wasn't all that incompatible
with
Deism, especially at that time.

When you say the universe "created itself," it seems to me that
you're
implying in different words essentially what I've been saying: that
a
bunch
of random stuff (to put it crudely) happened by chance to come
together in
some vastly larger matrix (i.e., the multiverse) and bingo, we have
the Big
Bang and everything that has followed. That is, the "program" I just
mentioned began to unfold. At this point, "chaos theory" would
appear
to be
relevant, e.g., the so-called "butterfly effect," as even tiny random
events
can have a profound impact on how the "program" unfolds at any given
point
in space-time.

BTW, speaking of the multiverse, to wax speculative to the max-I'm
sure
Jack will have a lot of fun with this one!-I'm beginning to suspect
that our
universe, and probably others as well, may not be an expanding ball,
but
rather an expanding, oblong "pancake" with an overall configuration
fundamentally analogous, albeit at an impossibly vaster level, to a
spiral,
Milky-Way-type galaxy. I even suspect that it may have the
equivalent
of
spiral arms that are slowly rotating around the point where the Big
Bang
occurred, each rotation expanding its overall dimensions. This comes
in part
from observations that there is at least one vast region of space
that
is
lightly populated by galaxies and galactic clusters (I believe it's
sometimes called "the Great Wall" by astonomers); could it be part of
the
visible space between two of the spiral arms (it's probably crammed
with
"dark matter")? To follow this speculation a bit further, these
dimensions
may be roughly proportional to those of a spiral galaxy, in the case
of our
universe, about 30-40 billion light years on its long axis, say, 20
billion
on the shorter axis, and about 15 billion light years "thick."
Moreover, I
suspect that there is probably an infinite number of other universes,
some
of which have different configurations, out beyond ours in all
"directions"
on the same plane (indeed, some of them may be colliding with our
space-time, just as we know that galaxies often collide), as well as
an
equally infinite number of universes on wholly different planes that
intersect our plane; these would be the ones that are separated from
us by
potentially traversable "branes." And yes, I suspect that
non-localized
consciousness is almost everywhere-or at least in this universe-a
part
of
the overall "program," that it can cross the boundaries between
universes,
both on our own and other planes, and that our alien "visitors" are
well
versed in how to manipulate this phenomenon.

I should emphasize that, with the exception of the last sentence of
the
preceding paragraph, the forgoing grand speculation is lightly held.
Indeed, it's simply a highly tentative guess as to what MIGHT be the
case on
the part of an educated layman who's done a bit of reading on the
subject,
and may well be utterly absurd... But it does make some sense to me,
at
least...

Again, back to you, amigo, and

Cheers,
Scott

--Charles Fort

-----Original Message-----
From: d1494@copper.net [mailto:d1494@copper.net]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 6:00 PM
To: Scott Littleton; d1494@copper.net; rainman.hudson@verizon.net;
rc-losee@carolina.rr.com
Subject: RE: RE: The Hyksos, etc.

Many people feel that any mention of the creation of the universe is
ipso facto referring to GOD and all the attendant superstitions.
I don't believe in that kind of universe. The universe was engineered
to support life- as Ray Hudson seconded before. I don't think that we
are obliged to act any particular way or do anything one way or the
other in order to curry the favor of a deity. I don't think the
creator is a deity actually.

On Aug 15, 2004, at 12:24 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Aug 15, 2004, at 9:59 AM, Dan Smith wrote:

Jack,

The Death Cults are working overtime. They do not stand on ceremony.

I agree 100%.

You give the impression here of doing the latter. You want to continue with
Physics as Usual.

No. I think you misunderstand. I am doing Physics as Unusual.

The real understanding of the physical nature of consciousness, dark energy/matter and the emergence of what we misname the "classical world" of curved space-time is essential to The Mission. The test of real understanding is the spin-off exotic advanced technology that we actually see in the flying saucer phenomenon including the psycho-tronic paranormal mind-control that Colonel Phillip J. Corso et-al wrote about.

Wait. What exactly is it that you want?

Yet to be determined. That is in the process of emerging in Wheeler's "Twenty Questions."

"The Question is: What is The Question?"

I have suggested more money

Is that an offer I can't refuse? :-)

More money spent in the right places is always a good idea. Right now almost all the money for metric engineering of advanced exotic smart space-weapons in the Black Budget is being flushed down the toilet like Halliburtan's exorbitant hotel room fees in the Iraq operation - well not as bad as that of course.

and
better peer review,

Yes, we love our House of Peers. Problem is that there really are no competent peers in this outlaw field. There are some minds who could be when pressed into service with the right information. I mean people like Roger Penrose and a few others of course. Hack minds simply are not be able to connect the dots correctly.

but you have said that these are unnecessary.

No, you misunderstand. I said not necessary for me personally at this time. So far I am a One Man Show. If you want a Chorus Line you need to pay for it. Also their stage sets are expensive - Union wages and benefits for the New Manhattan Project.

What then is your timeline?

3 - 5 years at most - if we have that long.

What is the next concrete step?

WYSIWYG. I am doing it. A detailed gedankenexperiment for weightless warp drive flying saucer --> working toy model. Also my immediate access to any captured alien device we might have as described by Jacques Vallee in "Fastwalker" - since that obviously is not 100% fiction.

How long will it take, and what are the probable results?

Who do you think I am Merlin? The Oracle at Delphi?

Meanwhile, the death cults march on. The doomsday clock keeps ticking.

Indeed.

You are NOT fulfilling your counterintelligence function if you are not
giving heed to Ron. There is no indication that you are presently doing
that.

Huh? Not true as far as I know.

I am relaying to you Ron's suggestion for immediate action. Your response
is to demand a private meeting. What is there to discuss? My counter-offer
is a meeting with Rick .... There is plenty to discuss there.

Like what? I thought he was some Army sergeant on the periphery. Are we talking about the same guy?

The email address that I was given, ..., failed. I am
confident that there are people on this list who can put us in contact with
him.

Rick remains a major loose end in the whole aviary affair. It must be
resolved before we can move further on the political/intelligence front.

You need to fill me in. We can do it privately if need be. You have lost me.

Are you going to continue to filibuster the effort on that front? I don't
filibuster the physics, I urge that you not filibuster the necessary
politics, mundane or otherwise.

What politics? Do you mean I should not make fun of Paul Wolfowitz and his Neo Con Pit Bulls in The China Shop? That's the only conventional politics I am aware of indulging in. What do you mean? Do you mean my chiding of Hal Puthoff & Co to either &*%# or get off The Pot? You speak in Riddle Dan? Do you Jest? Where is The Glory?

Corrected 2nd draft for the official historical record:

On Aug 15, 2004, at 9:08 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc
On Aug 15, 2004, at 7:56 AM, Dan Smith wrote:

Jack,

I gather that Dublin was witness to a continued hardening of the Physics
arteries.

No not at all. That's too simplistic.

The experimental cosmological/astrophysical physics is going very well! WMAP observations of CMB, Type 1a supernovae of the cosmic antigravity field called "dark energy", blackholes and all that. LIGO, LISA, Gravity Probe B (frame drag) coming online soon. Computer simulations of Einstein's gravity applied to real phenomena making good advances.

Yes, on the pure theory side. M theory strings and loop quantum gravity are basically Laputan and "not even wrong". The pure math is of course interesting, and a few ideas may survive, but basically they are both hype and do not at all deliver on their promise. Nevertheless, Brian Greene's NOVA Elegant Universe good because it has many of the same ideas I have been talking about including when Brian steps inside the telephone booth and talks to ET! http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html Nice that Brian & Co is catching up. ;-)

String theory cannot derive the standard local gauge invariance lepto-quark U(1)SU(2)SU(3) electro-weak-strong model of elementary particles with the vacuum coherent Higgs origin of lepto-quark inertia (pre-hadronic bag) and Einstein's theory of gravity as smooth curved space-time with black hole event horizons and tornado "whirls" of space (gravimagnetic frame drag even without Soviet torsion fields) as a natural limiting case - still handwaving. Loop theory cannot derive Einstein's theory either as a limiting case even though it starts with Einstein's theory but loses it along the way.

Penrose gave the best theory talk putting everything in its proper place in

"Fashion, Faith and Fantasy" that you can see on video online.
http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/

I think I have solved Penrose's problem with inflation as "fantasy", i.e. a natural explanation for the low entropy of the post-inflationary universe before the heating of matter to thermal equilibrium sets in to create the "first light" CMB from the "last scattering surface" ~ 400,000 years after the Big Bang that we see in WMAP showing us a 3D flat universe (k = 0 in FRW cosmic metric with Einstein's cosmological constant /\ that I also derive simply). That is, I can resolve Roger Penrose's dilemma of why the irreversible Arrow of Time of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is synchronized to the accelerating expansion of our universe in the dimensionless FRW R(t) trajectory.

When can we give ourselves permission to appeal to a higher authority:
higher than the Scientific Establishment?

Never, unless the advanced beings (Angels and Aliens and Demons) in their fancy flying machines land on the White House lawn. The Scientific Establishment, like at GR 17, is the worst form of authority except for EVERY OTHER! Do you want Usama Bin Laden's authority? Or the Shias in Teheran? Religious authority is dangerous whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim. A Curse on all their Houses as far as I am concerned. Look at the Jewish religious extremists in Israel. The secular Sabras despise them and for good reason. They do not serve in the Army, and yet they cause all the problems! In terms of authority I choose Organized Science over Organized Religion even though the former is also corrupt, it is not as corrupt as most forms of Organized Religion. I see little connection between Religion and Spirituality BTW.

The science establishment has been spooked by the phenomenological problem
ever since Donald Menzel (Navy phenomenologist, Harvard astrophysicist) laid
down the gauntlet with his crude debunking: 'Flying Saucers' (1953).

True.

Wheeler in the '80s ripped into the AAAS Parapsychology Section. Now
Hawking has put another nail in the coffin: physics is an hermitically
closed system.

Yes, that is true. However, Wheeler in his old age has changed since 1980. He is much more interested in consciousness now. Of course he is past 90. He still may reject parapsychology but no matter. Wheeler is like Moses at the edge of The River Jordan.

An historical crisis looms. Death Cults proliferate. The science
establishment maintains a strict head-in-the-sand posture.

Yes, that is true. Most physicists are over-specialized and afraid to ask the Big Questions. Also most of them are in fear of losing their funding if they go too near the fringe. Only Wheeler and Penrose and a few others like Freeman Dyson can get away with it.

The political establishment has made its offer to us: Ron. Have we taken full advantage of this offer?

Not yet, but we will as soon as we understand it more precisely in private Pow Wows in the Inner Sanctum of Skull and Bones in The Den of The Super-Illuminati, The Wizards, Shamans, Alchemists of The Priory - The Real Da Vinci Code to criss-cross Michael Crichton's Time Lines without getting our minds and bodies scrambled inside The Destiny Matrix of the Enchanted Web where Einstein's smooth coherent Reality emerges from the random Virtual Dirac Sub-Stratum. Order out of Chaos. Oil calms the Waters. This is The Cipher of Genesis Decoded as Qabalist Carlo Suares bade me, as Parsifal, to decode in Paris in 1973-7 along with Frank Malina et-al at the Center of The Cyclone whirling about the aether of The High Castle Graal!
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/MagicBean.html

And what does Ron offer? Ron offers us Rick. Rick offers us the EBEs. The
EBEs offer us a physical conduit to cosmic intelligence. Are we taking
advantage? Need we wait on a better offer?

Who exactly is "Rick" and why is he important? I have my own hotline to EBE remember?
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/
What does Rick bring to the table here?
Stalin wanted to know how many mechanized divisions The Pope could field. How many equations/devices does Rick have? Of course, The Pope won in The End! ;-)

I am not sure what you mean and we should reserve the details of that for private meetings. Look Dan, the problem is simple in terms of USG - just show them how the saucers really fly with detailed enough theory to make a working model. The closest working model we have may well be Ken Shoulders "charge clusters" if my model for them is correct.

See August 2004 Popular Mechanics p. 77. The tech details are sloppy and inaccurate, but the political point is on target.

It is too soon to tell if I am correct or not, but what I propose is better than what Hal Puthoff proposed for them. Also I have some ideas from my reading of Ray Chiao on how maybe we can use the quantum Hall effect to control the macro-quantum phase of the vacuum coherence to get the desired distributions of positive dark matter and negative dark energy micro-quantum zero point pressures to metric engineer globally faster-than-light weightless warp drive and large traversable wormholes for fast space travel and even time travel to the past where Hawking's WMD infinite blue shift is reversed to a harmless infinite red shift.

We offer the only visible alternative to the Death Cults. That is our
counterintelligence function. Are we fulfilling it?

I am, I don't know about you. You need to tell me details in private meetings. ;-)

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 12:36 PM
To: Dan Smith
Subject: Re: eschaton focus group

On Aug 14, 2004, at 6:22 AM, Dan Smith wrote:

Gordon,

Why an eschaton? It's just about coherence which demands an historical
closure.

"Coherence" yes in many senses. (wrote Jack)

1. We are in more danger of destroying Earth materially now than ever
before, indeed of destroying the Universe. Read Sir Martin Rees's "Our
Final Hour" in relation to August 4, 2004 Popular Mechanics (flawed
though it may be on secondary technical details). Remember we have
Death Cults on all sides (even extreme right-wing Jews like the ones
that killed Rabin who are the mirror images of Al Qaeda - BTW I spent
several hours with Rabin and Ed Teller ~ 1990 at Rabbi Lipner's house
in San Francisco). These Death Cults are not lacking in IQ and they
want to acquire WMD to destroy everything in Gotterdamerung. This is an
obvious political fact. That's the Dark Side of The Force. The Force is
obviously exotic vacuum with anti-gravity dark energy and gravitating
dark matter as two sides of the same zero point energy density coin.

2. Then there is The Light. Like H.G. Well's in "Things to Come" we
have the "Airmen" in their amazing flying machines the saucers whose
flight shows the reality of metric engineering though not the way Hal
Puthoff proposes to USG DOD Intelligence Community and to Aero Space
Community like Bigelow Aerospace, European Royalty et-al. Hal is
looking for The Right Stuff but in the wrong way. There is complete
consensus that Hal is wasting his time on his theories from the Big
Wigs at GR 17 in Dublin who know about Hal's ideas. They all associated
Hal with NASA's defunct BPP BTW and they all said it was good that NASA
BPP lost its funding because the physics was no damn good - meaning
primarily the sort of theory Hal sold to Nick Cook in "The Hunt for
Zero Point" and to the guy who wrote the Aviation Week and Space
Technology "To The Stars" back in what March 2004? Ditto for the letter
to New Scientists from the anti-Big Bang cosmologists. I was surprised
to hear this reference to NASA BPP independently from several of the
people I spoke to at the Dublin Royal Society without even bringing it
up myself. Mentioning Hal's name was the trigger. On the other hand
Matt Visser who wrote the first metric engineering book "Lorentzian
Wormholes" thinks anyone trying to control zero point energy is a
crackpot so I would be included along with Hal. Of course all of the
mainstream guys do not think flying saucers are real. They reject that
all important evidence. But Matt does not understand the role of vacuum
coherence and how both dark energy and dark matter are the same stuff
of negative and positive pressure respectively. No one at GR 17
understood that. Of course, if vacuum coherence = 0 there is no way to
control zero point energy. Given their assumption they are right,
however, they do not realize that without vacuum coherence there is no
Einstein gravity either! Hal does not understand that as well. The key
is the proper understanding of the emergence of the classical curved
world of local physics from phase ripples in the macro-quantum vacuum
coherence - The Cipher of Genesis.

You describe a new heaven and new earth. Your ARV/RAM circuit is just
my
Ouroboric hyper-dimensional closure. The eschaton is our portal to a
not
easily imagined cosmic consciousness. 'Hieros Gamos' is another term
that
is useful here. Cultures are replete with references to whatever is
'beyond
space & time' (Erewhon) (Jack 1975). We've been dying to get there,
but now
it's just around the corner, especially if that corner is in the Area
51
vortex/complex. We coud ask Judi's Eduardo about that.

This is the probable provenance Rick Doty's EBEs: Charlie, Charlene &
Co.

Shouldn't we be getting Rick on the line? Do you have his number.
Let me
try this email address...

Dan

Sunday, August 08, 2004

On Aug 8, 2004, at 10:23 AM, Tony ... wrote:

Jack, in your correspondence with Z, you say:
"... Pre-inflation is flat sans gravity.
Post-inflation is curved i.e. gravity
and this is a NONUNITARY process! ...".

How does your process of getting curved spacetime gravity
differ from the process of starting with flat "background"
spacetime and then using an infinite series as done by Deser and
described on pages 424-425 of Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler?

I don't know off-hand since those pages had no influence on what I have done.
I do know that Deser knew nothing about ODLRO nor did he have the idea of vacuum coherence for the emergence of Einstein's field equations as a low energy effective c-number local field theory in anything he was doing back thirty + years ago when MTW was written. Therefore, I suspect there is no connection
there.

Do you think that General Relativity, which is nonlinear,
violates unitarity ?

That's comparing apples with oranges.

General relativity is a classical theory emergent from macro-quantum theory.

Unitarity is a property of micro-quantum theory which has Hermitian operators acting on QUBIT spaces.

Unitarity depends upon the Born probability interpretation, which Bohmians like Valentini have shown is not at all fundamental. Throw out the Born probability intepretation with its signal locality and you no longer have unitarity. Kip Thorne at GR 17 mentioned that the Feynman path integral technique that Hawking uses is general enough to include non-unitary post-quantum theory beyond unitary micro-quantum theory. Penrose's OR also introduces a new level of non-unitarity. Kip Thorne did mention the divide between high energy particle physicists and classical general relativists - the latter do favor NONUNITARITY BTW in the black hole information loss problem. I also note that Feynman and Hibbs in 1965 said they could not do superfluid helium and superconductivity with UNITARY micro-quantum path integrals! On the other hand, Hagen Kleinert years later says he solved the ODLRO problem using Feynman path integral method but I have not seen that detailed paper as yet. PW Anderson also said that Feynman could not solve the superconductivity problem and that Wigner's biggest blunder was his superselection rule on charge and mass that missed the important principle of "More is different."

Now the simple fact is that micro-quantum unitarity does not apply to the ODLRO part in a More is different BEC phase transition because

1. The intensity of the ODLRO parameter has a definite scale and cannot be normalized to 1 as is the case with projective ray micro-quantum waves as explained in beginning of Dirac's text book.

That is |ke> --> z|ket>

z is any complex number, is a projective ray symmetry of micro-quantum theory that is BROKEN in macro-quantum theory where

PSI --> zPSI is not a symmetry any more!

2. The phase rigidity of PSI means it DOES NOT COLLAPSE like the micro-quantum |ket> does in

|ket> = c^k|k>

p(k) = |c^k|^2 = Born probability for |ket> to collapse into the eigenket |k> of the measurement operator K for an esemble.

What does unitarity mean? It means, using summation convention on repeated pairs of sub/superscripts

c*k(t)c^k(t) = 1

for all t.

This whole game does not apply to macro-quantum ODLRO PSI!

There is NO ensemble for one thing. You have a BIG POT of superfluid Helium sitting there not 10^23 pots like the single neutrons in a beam you scatter off a crystal! One must look at the total experimental arrangement before simplistically applying concepts out of their initial physical context. Theoretical physics is in decline because too many formalists with little physical intuition have usurped control of the field with little to show - like M theory and Loop Quantum Gravity. Small bangs for big bucks and major media coverage. On the other hand, experimental physics and astronomy/cosmology are booming leaving the theorists in the dust like when Ed Witten considers the discovery of dark energy in Type 1a supernovae to be the greatest crisis in his career of passing off interesting mathematical conceptual art as if it were physics. Same for John Baez et-al who admitted to me at GR 17 that he could not recover Einstein's c-number field equation from his much hyped quantized area and volume operators and spin-foam formalism. Baez presented a cover theory that does not cover. Penrose showed that the extra space dimensions of M theory and brane theory quickly collapse like the classical electron in a classical hydrogen atom! Such is the sorry state of theory today.

This is the essential meaning of PW Anderson's 1967 insight that "More is different" emergence theory of new orders of complexity in the spontaneous breaking of ground state symmetries. That is, where the symmetry group H of the individual vacua in a space of degenerate vacua is a subgroup of G that is the symmetry group of the dynamical action S. This gives rise to multiplets of complex order parameters whose topological defects studied by Thouless, Berry et-al determine the new emergent properties that are NON-REDUCIBLE to the properties of the initial FALSE VACUUM SUBSTRATUM that is DESTROYED in the PHASE TRANSITION. You have a NEW GAME with NEW RULES i.e. MORE IS DIFFERENT! As Penrose insinuated in his GR 17 talk "Fashion, Faith and Fantasy" Hawking's application of micro-quantum unitarity to 3-Geometry is an act of pious faith with Lenny Susskind as Hawking's "Grand Inquisitor" getting Hawking, like Galileo, to recant to the Mystery of the Holy Unitarity! ;-)

Also, with respect to unitarity,
how do you reconcile your position with the following statement
of Weinberg, in Vol. II of his books The Quantum Theory of Fields
(Cambridge 1996) at page 352:

"... In this appendix we shall show that
in general spontaneously broken gauge theories
it is always possible to adopt a 'unitarity' gauge ...".

Good question. When I understand what he means by that, I will get back to you. You cannot always tell a book by its cover. The Question is: What is The Question? Does Weinberg say that the time-evolution of a macro-quantum wave PSI of a pot of superfluid helium is UNITARY? Where does he say that explicitly? That would mean that

Space integral of |PSI|^2 is a constant of the motion. I can easily disprove that statement and I doubt that Weinberg says that?

What you can prove is that the space-integral of the sum of the superfluid density + normal fluid density is a constant of the motion. That is very different.

In the exotic vacuum application for the emergence of Einstein's smooth c-number vacuum equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

from the Goldstone RIGID phase of the ODLRO vacuum coherence, the "normal fluid density" is precisely the "dark energy density" when its micro-quantum pressure is NEGATIVE with ANTIGRAVITY or is "dark matter density" when its micro-quantum pressure is positive.

I do not need unstable extra space dimensions for any of this. I do need Penrose's massless 4D twistors with 15 parameter conformal group symmetry for the pre-inflationary FALSE VACUUM however!

That appendix immediately follows section 21.6 entitled "Superconductivity",
so it seems to me that Weinberg intends that the statement in that
appendix to apply to superconductivity as well as to electroweak
particle theory.

You have made a too vague unwarranted false inference from one to the other I know that - unless you mean that the Higgs mechanism in electro-weak theory is a small scale version of the inflation field in my theory. That is true, but there is no contradiction here because electro-weak theory is still a MICRO-QUANTUM FIELD THEORY with the U(1)xSU(2) group internal symmetry and a Poincare group space-time symmetry with a vacuum condensate only affecting the SU(2) part. There is no contradiction with what I am saying because there is NO GRAVITY in electro-weak theory. Indeed, that is why it is essentially incomplete if not inconsistent. Hence Penrose's attempt to derive both QFT and Einstein's GR from a common theory. The key is that GR is NOT RENORMALIZABLE and must be BACKGROUND-INDEPENDENT, i.e. a dynamical player on equal footing with all the other fields. That is easy to do using "More is different" and you get both dark energy and dark matter as the bonus as observed! That's the point!

Note that the curvature of Einstein gravity is like the disclination defects of a nematic liquid crystal as shown by Hagen Kleinert - and they can be gotten from the phase singularities of the vacuum condensate.

Wednesday, August 04, 2004

I make some comments at the end. Brian and Roger are both Fellows of The Royal Society and Brian has a Nobel Prize in physics. So this is a Cambridge vs Oxford Debate of sorts not quite Beyond The Fringe but definitely at the Jagged Edge. :-)

"Roger Penrose, The Large, the Small and the Human Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 185 pages, £14.95 ISBN 0-521-56330-5 (hbk).

The Large, the Small and the Human Mind consists of Roger Penrose’s 1995 Tanner Lectures, together with commentaries by Abner Shimony, Nancy Cartwright, and Stephen Hawking. Large parts of it are contained in his previous books The Emperor’s New Mind and Shadows of the Mind (Penrose 1994), and the ideas have been discussed in a number of articles in this journal, so they may be familiar to many readers, although some new material is included. Penrose’s general claim is that there are a number of situations that pose problems for current science, whose resolution will demand the development of radically new theories. The kinds of issues he addresses himself to are major ones: for example, the degree of order of the cosmos, the relationship between mathematics and the physical world, whether human mentality can be duplicated by a computer, and whether there is a fundamental connection between quantum mechanics and the human mind.

In the first chapter he uses a formula of Beckenstein and Hawking concerning black holes to argue that the early universe ought to have been highly disordered, a result inconsistent with the observed uniformity of the cosmic background radiation. He rejects the standard explanation for this uniformity based on the inflationary model of the Big Bang claiming it to be invalid, and suggests that a more advanced and as yet unformulated physical theory may resolve the problem. His candidate for this role is quantum gravity, a theory that would combine the two highly successful theories of the twentieth century, Einstein’s theory of gravitation and the quantum theory, which have so far defied attempts at integration, into a single whole. This unified theory might explain the observed uniformity by imposing constraints on space-time geometry. But the whole argument hinges on taking the Beckenstein-Hawking formula out of the context in which it was originally demonstrated, and it is far from obvious that it is valid to do this.

Quantum gravity is additionally invoked to explain away the ‘Schrödinger’s cat paradox’. Under standard quantum theory, paradoxical states are possible in which two seemingly inconsistent possibilities are actualised simultaneously (in Schrödinger’s original exposition, a cat being fully alive and at the same time dead). The fact that we do not find such states in reality demands explanation. A number of explanations, or rather perhaps ways of talking around the problem, have been proposed, such as the many-worlds interpretation, the transactional interpretation, the decoherence point of view, and spontaneous collapse caused by additional terms in the Schrödinger equation: but none of these has gained universal assent. Other proposals have implicated consciousness or mind as the agent of wave function collapse, a suggestion due originally to Eugene Wigner, and taken up more recently by Henry Stapp (e.g. Stapp 1996), which may have some affinities at any rate with the ‘Platonic world’ aspect of Penrose’s exposition which I shall return to shortly, if not with the quantum gravity idea.

Penrose’s exploitation of quantum gravity to dispose of possibilities such as a paradoxical ‘dead-alive mixture’ depends on a very tenuous line of argument. Nature, he supposes, abhors indefiniteness regarding space and time even more than it abhors superpositions of live and dead cats (space and time are more real to Penrose than cats, perhaps?). In Einsteinian gravitational theory, gravity is equivalent to a distortion of space and time, so it is logical to invoke gravitational influences as an agency that can prevent space and time getting unacceptably ‘out of step’. The gravitational field of a cat turns out to be strong enough for the task, but unfortunately, as in the case of the earlier problem of accounting for the order of the cosmos, no proper mathematical theory is as yet on offer. Hameroff and Penrose have recently reviewed (Hameroff and Penrose 1996) their ‘Orchestrated Objective Reduction’ (Orch OR) approach and made it clear again that space-time is the thing that they consider special, but still without giving reasons to justify this belief sufficient to satisfy people such as this reviewer.

Penrose also discusses the by now familiar hypothesis of Hameroff and himself that microtubules can become integrated into large scale quantum computational systems, perhaps connected with consciousness. Scepticism has been expressed as to the possible existence of such kinds of system (e.g. Scott 1996), though the existence of SQUID rings where the macroscopic and the quantum come into intimate contact as discussed by Srivastava and Widom (1987) (in this type of system, superimposed states of a macroscopic system involving only a few quanta are important in determining the behaviour of the system), perhaps makes such scepticism misplaced. We have here a perhaps familiar territorial pattern, where it would seem that the biologist rejects proposals implying that physics of a kind that he or she does not fully understand may be important. The large amount of research being carried out at the present time on quantum computation, some of which indicates (e.g. Chuang et al. 1995) that this possibility is not necessarily damped out by thermal fluctuations, suggests this is not an idea to be dismissed too readily.

On a more cognitive level, The Large, the Small and the Human Mind elaborates upon an idea touched upon in previous writings, involving three worlds, physical, mental, and Platonic, arranged in a triangle that depicts their mutual influence. The mental world, in accord with conventional wisdom, is presumed to be dependent on something physical such as the brain, while the Platonic world, concerned with universal truths such as mathematical truth, is one to which our minds have special access: we are supposed to be able to get at such truths because they are in some sense ‘out there’ for us to get at. In its turn, the Platonic world, in the light of the striking way in which the physical world conforms to mathematical description, is regarded as the source of the physical.

Non-locality (the idea that some influences act at a distance), and non-computability (that some physical processes cannot be computed by a finite computer program) enter into this equation as well. The predictions of quantum mechanics, as shown by John Bell, cannot be accounted for by models where there is no action at a distance while, correspondingly, it seems impossible to localise conscious experience in any one place; and so it is natural to imagine that the two might be connected. And, according to Penrose, mathematical thought cannot be reproduced by a computer program, and so must involve some special physics. Quantum gravity comes in as a candidate for such physics since one attempt to produce such a theory, the Geroch-Hartle scheme, involves classifications which are ‘non-computable’. As an added bonus, the same process which it is suggested might prevent mixtures of dead and alive cats from being realised in nature could prevent our conscious minds being overwhelmed by vast numbers of ideas at the same time.

It requires considerable optimism to speculate that in due course all these ideas will come together, resulting in a theory which will not only unite quantum theory and gravity but also resolve the problem of incompatible combinations of possibilities, as well as including the subtleties of the mind within its scope, although such is the pace of developments in fundamental physics that one cannot rule out such possibilities altogether. However, many scientists see Penrose’s problems as being really non-problems, whilst others have proposed alternative ways of overcoming some of the difficulties. It is unclear in any case that one needs to go to quantum gravity to find non-computability. Non-computability in some sense already arises in what are known as chaotic systems, a point I shall return to later.

In any event, there appears to be widespread agreement among specialists in modelling the mind that Penrose’s arguments for the non-computability of mental processes, based on Gödel’s theorem, are misconceived. What these arguments actually disprove is one version of mind model, namely a piece of code that could be run on a computer to give the correct answer to any mathematical question. To treat the question in such terms is to ignore a distinction made many years ago by David Marr, between a theory of how a process is executed, and a corresponding computer simulation. These two entities may differ from each other in various ways, one being that in general a real computer program only approximates to the idealisation to which the theory refers. A theory of how we acquire mathematical skills might be based on the way networks of neurons can be trained to perform particular skills, and might be correct in the limit of an infinitely large neural network, but only approximate for any finite computer simulation. The Gödel-Turing type arguments that Penrose uses presume a system that has both a finite specification and perfect abilities, and thus simply cannot be applied to that kind of situation.

Neither is the attempt to defend Penrose’s ideas against such criticisms (in particular those of Grush and Churchland (1995)), made in a recent article by Penrose and Hameroff (1995) especially convincing. What follows their remark ‘it may be helpful to clarify the issue’ can be classified as clarification only with difficulty, since the argument can be followed only by looking concurrently at the Penrose and Hameroff defence, the Grush and Churchland article, and Shadows of the Mind. In the end, all that Penrose and Hameroff seem able to come up with is a statement asserting in effect that ‘correct mathematical reasoning’ (to be construed as ordinary mathematical proof, according to the clarification) cannot be encapsulated in any formal system that is ‘acceptable to mathematicians as ... reliable ...’. But supposing one adopts the point of view that the capacity to perform ordinary mathematical proof is the outcome of a process of familiarisation with particular ideas where one’s initial difficulties with the ideas evolve to familiarity with them, and then to confidence in the correctness in the arguments that others use, till eventually one uses them confidently oneself. With such a scenario in mind one would be in error to consider any formal system which captured the processes one had learnt to accept as valid as being totally reliable. But taking as valid this potentially erroneous step, regarding it as ‘correct in principle’ (see p.104 of Shadows of the Mind), seems to be just what Penrose and Hameroff are trying to force upon us.

But there may be another twist to the story. How actually do we come to understand abstract mathematical concepts such as continuity or infinity? Do we come across approximations to them, apply a process of abstraction to them as a result of some brain circuitry, and then learn rules which we become confident at applying, more or less the story suggested above? Or do the approximate realisations point us instead towards their ideal equivalents in a Platonic realm which then becomes the arena of our thinking, as Penrose or Gödel would probably claim? Penrose may be correct after all, but not on the basis of the arguments given in his writings. Would this postulate be just philosophy, or something more? I suggest it would, or could, be science. The Platonic realm would have its own characteristic laws which we could explore and systematically test, and concerning which we could make mathematical theories. Non-computability in the sense of Turing (as utilised by Penrose) may fit naturally into such a scheme, since if the Platonic realm is in some sense eternal then it may instantiate the outcome of ‘infinite computations’ rather then ordinary finite ones, and in virtue of this feature genuinely provide a source of mathematical truth, to the extent that it can be accessed by human beings.

The rational nature of mathematical thought may make it difficult to rule out explanations for it along conventional lines. Might the case be easier to make for the case of musical intuition? Some years ago I had an opportunity to explore this question in collaboration with an expert on the structure of music (Josephson and Carpenter 1996). We examined the theories of musical perception proposed by cognitive scientists, and concluded that they addressed themselves only to the more superficial aspects of music, equivalent to the question of grammaticality in language, or that they address themselves to musical connotations acquired by association, a model that does not seem to apply to kinds of music that are listened to for themselves rather than being listened to in a particular context of activity. Such theories do not address the more aesthetic aspects of music, or elucidate those features which distinguish a potent ‘musical idea’ from more random patterns of sound. We argued that these have a significance beyond that which can be explained on cultural or genetic grounds. Perhaps, then, the understanding of these aspects of music is to be found in some kind of transpersonal or Platonic realm where music is a symbolism that is capable of evoking knowledge of an archetypal character (Josephson 1995).

The non-computability concept discussed by Penrose could also be of value, perhaps in a modified form, even if the arguments presently used to support it are flawed. For example, chaos theory tells us that real systems may sometimes behave in a way that transcends analysis, because we cannot specify their states with sufficient accuracy to be able to do a definitive analysis. Biological systems might be instances of systems of this type. This idea dates back to Niels Bohr, who was later persuaded by Delbruck that it was ridiculous (the familiar territorial pattern again?). The idea is in fact not unreasonable and holds up under close examination (Josephson 1988). Penrose’s concept of a Platonic mind, with capabilities beyond those fitting into conventional models, can be viewed as a contribution to this tradition.

One might conclude from such considerations that Penrose may be right to emphasise creativity, non-computability, and the Platonic realm, but perhaps wrong to look for the integrative factor within his own discipline of quantum gravity. The most crucial element may be creativity. In the physical realm, creativity shows itself only in the minimalist guise of ‘random fluctuations’. My collaborator Fotini Pallikari-Viras and I have argued (Josephson and Pallikari-Viras 1991) that fluctuations have their systematic elements as well as random ones, and that biological organisms may evolve or develop to make creative use of them. It has proved difficult to put such ideas into mathematical form, but this is perhaps an area where significant new concepts can be developed.

Of the three concluding commentaries, that by Shimony is perhaps of the most interest. He argues for a juxtaposition of Whiteheadian philosophy, where mentality and potentiality play a fundamental role, and quantum physics. Physicists have developed, within the ontology of particles and fields, the framework of quantum mechanics which contains abstract concepts such as state, observable, superposition, and entanglement. His proposal is that similar concepts be applied to other kinds of ontology such as those of minds, or entities endowed with a ‘protomentality’. This activity might lead to a ‘quantum psychology’ in which it could be the case that (in line with Stapp’s proposals) a developed mentality might resolve the Schrödinger cat paradox. Nancy Cartwright also puts the case for going beyond physics in one’s thinking, while Stephen Hawking, once a collaborator of Penrose’s, in his commentary ‘Objections of an Unashamed Reductionist’, makes strong objections to a number of Penrose’s claims.

Penrose’s books are ones that most readers either considerably like or considerably dislike. Ideas are presented at a great rate, but are very speculative, and justified by tenuous and sometimes doubtful arguments. The book was transcribed from a recording of the original talks, with little attempt being made to improve the clarity of the arguments by rewriting, as a result of which following the arguments will prove a considerable challenge for the non-expert, and possibly problematic even for the expert. Nevertheless, it remains a very interesting and stimulating contribution.

References

Chuang, I.L., LaFlamme, R., Shor, P.W., and Zurek, W.H., ‘Quantum computers, factoring, and decoherence’, Science 270(5242), pp. 1633–1635.
Grush, R. and Churchland, P.S. (1995), ‘Gaps in Penrose’s Toiling’, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(1), pp. 10–29.
Hameroff, S. and Penrose, R. (1996), ‘Conscious events as orchestrated space-time selections’, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(1), pp. 36–53.
Josephson, B.D. (1988), ‘Limits to the Universality of Quantum Mechanics’, Foundations of Physics 18, pp. 1195–1204.
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/files/QMlimits
Josephson, B.D and Pallikari-Viras, F. (1991), ‘Biological Utilisation of Quantum Nonlocality’, Foundations of Physics 21, 197–207.
Josephson, B.D. (1995), A Trans-Human Source for Music? paper presented at conference on New Directions in Cognitive Science, Saariselka
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/files/music3
Josephson, B.D. and Carpenter, T (1996). ‘What can music tell us about the nature of the mind? A Platonic Model’, Toward a Science of Consciousness,, ed. S.R. Hameroff, A.W. Kaszniak and A.C. Scott, MIT Press, pp 691–4.
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/files/music2
Penrose, R. (1994), Shadows of the Mind (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Penrose, R. and Hameroff, S. (1995), ‘What Gaps? Reply to Grush and Churchland’, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(2), pp. 98–11.
Scott, A. (1996), ‘On quantum theories of the mind’, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(5–6), pp. 484–491.
Srivastava, Y. and Widom, A. (1987), ‘Quantum electrodynamic processes in electrical engineering circuits’, Physics Reports 148(1), pp. 1–65.
Stapp, H. (1996), ‘The hard Problem: a quantum approach’, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(3), pp. 194–210.

A few comments

1. "In the first chapter he uses a formula of Beckenstein and Hawking concerning black holes..."
See Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell." The formula is

Entropy of a Black Hole/(Boltzmann's constant) = (Area of Event Horizon of Infinite Red Shift)/4(Gravity Quantum of Area)

i.e.

S/kB = A/4Lp^2

Lp^2 = hG/c^3 ~ (10^-33 cm)^2 = 10^-66 cm^2

h = Planck's quantum of action

G = Newton's constant of gravity

c = speed of light in classical or non-exotic vacuum that weighs nothing because it has vanishing net zero point quantum pressure.

Lenny Susskind & Co then say that given any volume V of 3D space with a boundary of area A, that the total information that can be packed inside it is not ~ V/Lp^3 but is also A/4Lp^2. However, it is not clear if Lenny means "qubits" or "c-bits" - probably the latter is required by thermodynamic entropy. The issue is whether the Universe (or Universes) is (are) micro-quantum computer(s) or a classical computer, or something else? Is the Universe a "conscious computer" having Hawking's "Mind of God"?
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html

Current observations from WMAP NASA Space Probe, gravity lensing of quasars, Galactic dark matter halo, type 1a supernovae standard candles ... show that ~ 96% of the "stuff" of the universe is not made of ordinary matter (i.e. lepto-quarks and gauge force bosons like photons in the "real" on-mass-shell state), but is made of "virtual" off-mass-shell exotic forms of physical vacuum that has "weight". Indeed 73%, on the large scale at least, is exotic vacuum of negative micro-quantum zero point pressure that forms a strong anti-gravity field. This is The Right Stuff to make weightless warp drives and star gate time machines with an infinite photon red shift rather than Hawking's infinite photon blue shift at the moment the star gate allows travel back through time! Not an explosion, but a whimper. Hawking's chronology protection conjecture is proved wrong daily by tourists from the future in their flying saucers. What is at stake here is how to value the evidence. The Mainstream Pundits reject evidence like the Cardinals refusing to look through Galileo's telescope. The Truth, nevertheless is Out There and the Military Intelligence "Black Ops" is fully aware of that essentially paranormal reality. Furthermore, on this theory of "partial vacuum coherence" out of which Einstein's gravity emerges, like the elasticity of a crystal emerges from atomic physics, dark matter detectors have as much chance of clicking with the right kind of exotic particles whizzing through space as did the Michelson-Morley interferometer had of showing the motion of Earth through the mechanical aether of Galileo's relativity prior to Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity. All this supersymmetry stuff is wrong.

The Super Cosmos we live in is not only stranger than mainstream scientists imagine, it is stranger than many of them can imagine. Indeed many live in Fear and Loathing of facing The Question.

"The Question is: What is The Question?" John Archibald Wheeler. It's time to come out of Plato's Cave.

Dingle Bay, Ireland

2. "to argue that the early universe ought to have been highly disordered, a result inconsistent with the observed uniformity of the cosmic background radiation. He rejects the standard explanation for this uniformity based on the inflationary model of the Big Bang claiming it to be invalid, and suggests that a more advanced and as yet unformulated physical theory may resolve the problem."

This is the arrow of time problem of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The problem is that modern inflationary cosmology is ad-hoc. There is no dynamical reason for the complex scalar field the "inflaton" introduced with the classical Einstein-Hilbert action of general relativity. Penrose points out that one still needs to ad-hoc fine tune to set the direction of the cosmic clock ticking correctly so that we age as the Universe expands.

My theory here is different and may answer Roger's objection. The inflaton and the Higgs field are the same field at different scales and they both come from a false vacuum dynamical instability that results in an entropy lowering collapse of the phase space volume of the false vacuum to a smaller phase space volume of the true vacuum we live in. Entropy is the logarithm of the phase space volume.

The pre-inflationary false vacuum is essentially the massless quantum twistor space of Penrose, i.e. in more mundane form it is globally flat quantum electrodynamics with the 15 parameter conformal space-time symmetry group. There are no rest masses because there is no gravity as yet. Gravity and inertia are equivalent but there is no sign of either in this false unstable conformal vacuum where electrons have zero rest mass. There are no real electrons or anything else - all is virtual. There are no quasi-particle excitations in the pre-inflationary false vacuum. Then the instability happens and the virtual electron-positron pairs Bose-Einstein condense into a giant macro-quantum coherent vacuum wave. This vacuum wave is local in the center of mass of the large number of phase-locked virtual pairs. This neatly explains the low initial entropy of the post-inflationary universe, why macro-physics is local with no giant Schrodinger Cat states and how Einstein's gravity emerges, like crystal elasticity (A. Sakharov and P.W. Anderson both circa 1967) with both dark energy and dark matter as a bonus. This macro-quantum coherent order parameter is the "inflaton" on the large scale as well as the Higgs field for lepto-quark inertial rest masses on the small scale in accord with Einstein's gravity and equivalence principle. Wheeler's geometrodynamics with lepto-quarks as micro-geons (quasi Kerr-Newman) "mass without mass", "charge without charge" as quantized "vortex fluxes" actually works because there is a strong short-range effective gravity ~ 10^40G at 1 fermi scale from zero point quantum pressures both negative and positive as required. One needs the Bohm pilot-wave theory with hidden variables (the spatially extended micro-geons) to visualize this. One gets Regge trajectories and the incredible shrinking lepto-quarks in deep inelastic scattering ("partons") from the elementary idea in Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps" where the micro-geon circumference is much smaller than its "radius" ~ e^2/mc^2 ~ 1 fermi for the bare electron without its virtual electron-plasma cloud extending out to 137 fermis ~ h/mc Compton wavelength -- A pretty picture indeed! The stability of the electron is neatly explained without needing "point particles" so there is no infinite renormalizations needed and we do not need the unstable extra space dimensions of M theory to rid physics of the plague of infinite renormalizations! Feynman told me in 1968 that it was a scandal that no one was able to do better. Herbert Frohlich told me in 1967 at UCSD that the idea of the "point electron" was what was wrong with physics. J.P. Vigier has shown how the spatially-extended electron allows a new kind of atomic bomb in principle that is a kind of explosive "cold fusion". This idea was worked on by Maric and Dragic in Beograd during our ISSO period 1999-2000. I lost touch with whether they suceeded after Joe Firmage went bust and ISSO folded along with NASA BPP and the SARA Project in Huntington Beach, CA. I note an article in Popular Mechanics about Eugene Mallove's unsolved recent murder and "Cold Fusion" as it could be applied to terrorist-nukes by Jim Wilson, the Technical Editor on this as well as two in PRAVDA in 2004. See also Sir Martin Rees "Our Final Hour" on this sort of issue.

3. I have no comments at this time on Brian's deep critique of Roger's position on consciousness and Strong AI.
Suffice it to say that I think consciousness is a macro-quantum coherent phenomenon where phase rigidity resists environmental decoherence for the same reason space-time is stiff i.e. G/c^4 making metric engineering of the fabric of space-time for weightlesss warp drive impossible by a brute force approach. Signal nonlocality absent in micro-quantum theory is essential for ordinary inner consciousness as well as the kind of remote viewing and psychokinesis e.g. Uri Geller's spoon bending reported by Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ at SRI in the 1970's under CIA and DOD contracts e.g. James Schnabel's "Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America's Psychic Spies" as well as papers by both Puthoff and Targ and my own three books on Amazon.com.

On Aug 3, 2004, at 8:33 AM, david mosier wrote:

He questions whether or not Hawkin should have
conceded the bet. I'll wait for you to tell us how
accurate/relevant the article is.

I agree with some of Ginsparg's remarks as was clear from my reports directly from GR 17 last week. I do not agree of course with Ginsparg's blacklisting of dissident physicists on the Cornell archive who critique the M-string theory and loop quantum gravity "fashions" on empirical, conceptual, and mathematical grounds. Ginsparg is, in effect, creating a new kind of Lysenkoism. Like in Orwell's 1984, Ginsparg is destroying academic freedom whilst pretending to defend it. I suppose this is the trend of post-modern times in the aftermath of "political correctness", that in modern Academia translates to claques of back-scratching theoreticians taking over key parts of cyberspace. The Cornell archive is the "CNN" of physics on the web. Control of it will shape the course of the history of physics. I discuss this in my new book "Super Cosmos." As Roger Penrose pointed out at GR 17 and elsewhere, the extra space dimensions of M theory are unstable! When I asked John Baez, in front of the entire GR 17 assembly, if he, or Ashtekar could provide a clean formal limiting argument from spin foams to Einstein's field equations, he said no he could not do so. Note that he invoked those field equations at beginning of his talk to make an argument that he could derive black hole entropy. Baez's talk was strangely inconsistent and it appears that loop quantum gravity is a covering theory of classical Einstein gravity that fails to cover! Similarly for M theory that fails to cleanly limit to either standard lepto-quark/gauge force quantum field theory with 19 epicycles or to Einstein's field equations for GR.

Now as to the overblown Hawking-Susskind et-al debate of the last 20 + years:
On Paul Ginsparg's Op Ed in NY Times on Hawking's Biggest Blunder (like Einstein's premature giving up on the Cosmological Constant).

1. Lenny Susskind & Co have been worshiping the Sacred Cow of micro-quantum unitarity too long. It is inappropriate to the problem of cosmology. It is an over-extrapolation of scattering S-matrix theory for beams on targets to the universe and it presupposes the Born probability structure.

2. Macro-quantum theory has completely different rules from micro-quantum theory. Unitarity is out. Probability is out. Nonlocality is out (or hidden). BTW there is a deep connection of macro-quantum theory to Penrose's twistors - more on that anon. Order parameter is really a complex scalar function in 4 complex variables. The imaginary part of space-time is from the internal relative coordinates of the virtual electron-positron pair vacuum condensate. Extra space dimensions of M theory are out - they are unstable according to Penrose.

Unitarity is out. Conservation of probability of channels is out - it precludes the "More is different" ODLRO "condensed soft matter" obvious growth of complexity of organization from the initial smoothness of the universe to the emergence of stars, planets, and intelligent organisms. No one has shown how unitarity preserves information as meaning and what good is mangled information like shuffling the words randomly in the score of Beethoven's Ninth? Also who wants to wait an eternity for bona-fide quantum gravity observables? - utter nonsense! This whole debate between Susskind and Hawking et-al seems amazingly silly and Laputan to my mind. Over-extrapolation of micro-quantum theory beyond its proper domain of validity - quite obviously the Emperor has no clothes here.

Hawking was right the first time. More on this anon. Penrose calls this abuse of micro-quantum theory in cosmology "Faith" in his "Fashion, Faith and Fantasy."

What really happens is this. We have a pre-inflationary unstable false vacuum described by massless globally flat quantum electrodynamics (possibly with SU(2) & SU(3) but no electro-weak Higgs mechanism, all m = 0). The symmetry group is the 15 parameter conformal group closely related to Penrose's twistors. Everything is 3+1 no extra space dimensions. We are not afraid of tachyons. The inflationary phase transition is a Bose-Einstein condensation of the charged massless virtual electron-positron pairs and then we get to standard inflationary cosmology with a smooth low entropy initial condition for the arrow of time from the collapse of phase space volume in the vacuum phase transition. The Higgs mechanism emerges naturally from the partial vacuum coherence of the more stable curved space-time vacuum. Einstein's smooth GR emerges naturally from the ODLRO, a problem John Baez cannot solve. The dark energy and the dark matter also emerge naturally and there is an obvious reason why the cosmological constant is small but not exactly zero. This is a problem Ed Witten cannot solve. There is no such thing as top-down quantum gravity. Einstein gravity is bottom-up emergent from globally flat conformal field theory (i.e., massless twistors). Quantizing gravity is like quantizing elasticity. This is the Sakharov/Anderson idea of "More is different" from soft condensed matter physics. Curvature comes from Berry phase singularities in the partial vacuum coherence field. When you lose all vacuum coherence there is no quantum foam, all you have is conformal field theory. There will, of course, be some spin-2 micro-quantum zero point fluctuations on the background-independent dynamical smooth macro-quantum ODLRO curved space-time background on an equal relational footing with the U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3)/lepto-quark fields. All of The King's Men are Naked Emperors. :-)

Destiny Matrix

Sunday, August 15, 2004

Sunday, August 08, 2004

Wednesday, August 04, 2004

Facebook Badge

Blog Archive

About Me