I first came across the proof in 1973 when both L.  Ron Hubbard in
the Phoenix Lectures, and Mahatma Rajiswar of Divine Light Mission told
me that the world was a dream.

     I had known for years since I was a kid that there was no way of
proving that I was not dreaming at any particular time, but it never
occurred to me that if the world was a dream it should be provable that
is WAS a dream.

     The problem was, in trying to conceive of the world as a dream, I
was leaving space and time in place, but removing all the matter and
energy from it, replacing it with dream images in my conscious picture.

     But putting all that space and time out there, and then putting
nothing in it except dreaming conscious units never made any sense.

     So in the end I never made progress with the matter until in 1973 I
finally realized that space and time were part of the dream and that the
dreamer himself belonged to a world that had no space or time.  In fact
space and time just didn't exist at all except as dreams in the minds of

     The first idea I had on the proof was that if an object existed but
had absolutely no effect on me, then I would never be able to know it
existed nor anything about it.

     Thus I understood, that in the physical universe at least, we learn
by being an effect.  No effect, no learning.

     This became the foundation theorem of the proof:

     If A and B are two different objects, then the only way that B can
learn about A, is if A effects B and causes a change in B.  It doesn't
matter how much effect B has on A, if A has no effect on B, then A might
a well not exist at all for B.

     I then started working on the philosophy of words, and realized
that objects can have two kinds of qualities, qualities of being, and
qualities of relation.

     Qualities of being were those that an object had alone, and
qualities of relation were those qualities that an object had by virtue
of being unalone, i.e.  its relation to other objects.

     Existence is a quality of being.

     Cause and effect are qualities of relation.

     There are also spacial, temporal, material, and energetic

     Qualities of being can be stated as "object is quality."

     The ball is round.

     The ball can be round and be alone.

     Qualities of relation can only be stated as a relation between two
different objects.

     The fork is next to the knife.

     The fork can not be 'next to' anything and be alone.

     Thus 'next to' is a quality of relation between two different
objects, in this case fork and knife.

     The second idea I had about the proof was that since the only way I
could learn about anything 'out there' was to be the effect of it, then
the only qualities I could learn about it had to be qualities of causal

     In other words the only thing B can learn about A, by being the
effect of A, is HOW A EFFECTS B.

     Thus if things out there had qualities that did not relate to how
the object affected me, then again I could never learn anything about
them.  This included ALL QUALITIES OF BEING.

     I might be able to deduce a few possible qualities of being from
the onslaught of causal relations hitting me, but my actual contact was
with causal relations, all possible qualities of being were mere
theoretical fantasies.

     Now in the physical universe the qualities of red and green are
qualities of causal relation, because 'red' objects reflect light of a
certain frequency.  In fact there are no red objects, and no red light,
red is a quality of consciousness, not photons, but photons in theory
are the causal precursor to our experience.

     In the physical universe redness means object reflects light, so
redness is a strict causal relation and thus open for learning, about in
the physical universe.

     We SAY the physical object is red, but we MEAN the object reflects
light.  So we have two objects in relation to each other, the object and
the light it reflects.  An object can not 'be red' and be alone!

     But I soon came to realize that the true qualities of red and
green, which were qualities of conscious experiences, and not physical
objects nor photons, were qualities of BEING, not qualities of CAUSAL

     There is nothing reflected in consciousness when I see red, the
experience IS merely red, and it is quite alone while it is self glowing
red.  This is in part why we call it self luminous consciousness.

     We say the experience IS red, and that's it, it is.


     Thus it is a quality of being, not a quality of relation.

     Notice however the experiencing of redness by the self is a quality
of relation!

     "I experience redness" is a quality of relation between me, the
looker,and redness, the looked at.  But the looked at is red, period, so
that is a quality of being of the looked at.

     I have never figured out how anything could learn about a quality
of being by direct perception, but it remained true to me that across a
distance I only had access to qualities of causal relation.  Thus,
however I was learning about qualities of being, it wasn't across a

     Thus was born the idea that consciousness was in fact a zero
dimensional phenomenon of NO size, not zero size, and that yes it was
quite possible, and in fact highly likely that the external world of
space and time is a dream.


Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty

Tue Nov 13 22:45:09 EST 2007