Now we know in the physical universe (PU), the only way to see a
radiator (anything that radiates) is to receive and be affected by its

     In the absence of radiation it is impossible to see the radiator.

     In the presence of 'seeing', all we can see is the radiation, no
matter how close we are to the radiator.

     We also know that radiation is a second different object from the
radiator itself, thus if the radiator is the original referent, then its
radiation or its future effects, become the radiator's symbols of final
authority, anyone of which can be chosen to learn from about the
original referent radiator.

     Thus we learn about the radiator by interacting with the radiation
which produces theoretical learning about the radiator.

     The radiation as symbol is evidence for the radiator as referent,
and the radiator as referent is a model for the radiation as symbol,
(for how the radiation could be and got there in the first place.)

     Evidence and model make up theory.

     Thus learning by being an effect, by being a symbol of a causal
referent, never produces perfect certainty of the alleged causal
referent, but only theory made of model and evidence.


     The third party law intervenes here, if A causes B to change state,
then by looking at B, we don't know if B changed state truly because of
A, or because of a third party C causally above A and B, that made B
change state AS IF A had caused B to change state.

     The third party is the great hidden orchestrator.

     The photon on your film plate may have come from a star, or it may
have been made by God mid flight to look like it had come from a star,
or it may be been an accidental spontaneous quantum flux that marked
that area of the film plate exposed when nothing had hit it at all.
Taking more film plates that all agree decreases the probability that
the spot is an accident, but does not reduce the probability to an
absolute perfect certainty, and if God is messing with you then all bets
are off.

     Although Occam's Razor tells us to ignore third parties until
absolutely necessary, when one is trying to understand the nature of a
virtual universe, the third party rule becomes tantamount, because the
virtual universe IS a simulation or projection created in the 3rd party
actual universe.

     Usually what is virtualized in a virtual universe are not only the
existence of the objects in the virtual universe, but the existence of
any cause between them.  If the objects themselves do not actually exist
as represented, then surely actual cause between them is also absent.


     The idea of a self symbolizing event is almost impossible to
conceive of until one actually takes a look at one.  One couldn't just
imagine such a thing up out of whole cloth.  What would it be like?

     But the easiest way to understand it is very simple, any 3rd grader
can get this.

     You can't see the cube on the table directly, so you have to look
at the light rays reflected off it.

     But you can't see the light rays directly, so you have to look at
your retina which has an image of the cube on it.

     But you can't see your retina directly, so you have to look at the
resultant spread of data in the brain's visual cortex.

     But you can't see your brain activity directly, so you have to look
at your conscious experience (rendition) of the cube.

     But NOW YOU CAN SEE YOUR CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE directly, there is no
further symbol to chase, because you aren't seeing your conscious
experience by looking AT SOMETHING ELSE.

     Thus that last symbol, your conscious experience, then gets looked
at directly, as if it WERE the next symbol in line, but the next symbol
in line IS ITSELF.

     Thus we call a conscious event a self symbolizing event.

     Notice there is a cube rendered on your retina, just as there is a
cube rendered in your conscious experience.

     Does the retina KNOW it is seeing a cube?

     No the retina is merely being in a state, it isn't knowing

     But your conscious experience is both being in a state and knowing
it is in that state.

     Knowing about being is what we call self luminousness, or self

     Further there is no TIME between the state your consciousness is
being in, and the knowing it is in that state.

     Any machine can be in a state, and then via causal pathways enter
another state that represents that it is in the first state.  But the
two states of being and knowing about being are always separated by a
causal pathway and TIME.

     Thus the state that the machine knows it is being, is a PRIOR
state, never the same state that the knowing about being is.
     Thus a machine can only 'know' about itself in the past.  NOW can
only know about THEN, and those are two different objects and thus can
not produce certainty and the causal pathway between them can neither be
perceived or verified.

     The conscious being however can BE and KNOW IT IS BEING at the same
time because the whole process is timeless.

     Yes there is still a causal pathway between the conscious state of
BEING and the causally related state of KNOWING BEING, but since the
referent IS the symbol, there is no time between cause and effect, and
thus the conscious unit can only be self aware of itself as it is NOW.

except through the mechanical trick of memory, which is fundamentally

     Thus self awareness for a machine is theoretical indirect awareness
of how it was.

     Self awareness for a conscious being is perfectly certain direct
awareness of how it is NOW.


     The entire PU is simply casual wave after casual wave rippling
through space and time from originating referent to symbol.  Each symbol
in turn becomes its own referent and passes the causal wave onto the
next symbol in line.

     Everything is a symbol to some earlier referent, and everything is
a referent to some later symbol.

     Everything this is the effect of something prior, and everything is
the cause of something later.

     Anything that is neither referent nor symbol, well just isn't
partaking in cause and effect.

     We call these causal waves causal pathways.  The sun emits a
photon, which hits an atom, which absorbs it, which starts to vibrate,
which emits another energy, which is picked up by a sensor, which rings
a bell, which is heard by a technician, who comes in and turns on a
light switch to see what all the hubbub is about, who writes down a
report, which is read by his supervisor who talks about it to a large
audience of scientists, who go home and do their own experiments with
their own photons and sensors....  etc

     It just goes on and on forever.  Causal waves probably never stop,
they just bounce around forever growing colder and colder as time goes

     Each moment of spacetime is called an event or an object, same

     An event or object is simply a moment of spacetime in one state or
another.  Even a totally empty moment of space time is an event or

     Every object in a causal pathway through spacetime has imprinted on
it a change in state that causally relates back to the nature of the
prior objects in the pathway.  We call this a data imprint.

     The data imprint happens in the rendition zone of the symbol
object, and is a rendering of the nature of the many prior referents
that were involved in the causal chain up to that point.

     Remember that objects have quality sets which describe everything
there is to know about that object, including its position in space and
time, AND its relationships to other objects in the universe.

     When an object has a datum about a prior object imprinted on it,
only part of its quality set is changed.  That subset of the quality set
that gets changed is the rendition zone, the area that is changed.  The
new set of qualities in that rendition zone forming the data imprint
itself is the rendition, in other words the rendering of the nature of
the prior causal object.

     Take a video camera attached to a computer, and the video camera is
aimed at a rubic's cube lit by the sun.  The computer scans the video
image and turns it into a graphics display list.

     A display list is a long list of the vertices of triangles, which
represent the image gleaned from the cube.  The computer then sends the
display list to a rendering program which rerenders the data onto a high
resolution graphics screen, and voila, there is the 3D cube in 2D

     Turning the data coming from the original cube into a display list
is an act of rendering in and of itself, and the display list is a
rendition in symbol form.

     But then turning the display list back into a graphics image on a
CRT monitor is yet another act of rendering, and the image on the
monitor is the rendition, again in symbol form.

     The cube is the original referent.

     The display list is a later symbol.  The display list has high data
content but almost nonexistent geometricity, or geometrical similarity
to the original referent.

     The graphics image on the monitor is yet a later symbol.  The image
also has high data content but with very high geometricity, as it looks
like the original cube.

     Notice the monitor then becomes the symbol whose state is changed
by the data imprint imposed upon it by the computer.

     It is NOT true that the whole monitor changes, most of the monitor
in fact is left quite alone, it is still quite recognizable as a monitor
for example.  Its base and power cords, and what it is made of, and all
of its circuitry, remain as they were, although there are changes in
state in much of that also going on.

     But the real change in state takes place on the glass surface of
the monitor where the image is finally rendered.

     Thus that glass surface is the rendition zone, because it is that
subset of the monitor that actually gets changed when the causal wave
emanated by the computer gets done with the monitor and eventually
passes through and becomes heat going off into space.

     Take another simpler example, there is a small refrigerator magnet
lying on a table.

     It too has a quality set, including where it is, and what time it

     As time passes, let's pretend this object does not change much
except to move forward in time as all objects are doing.  So it is
sitting there, going pocketa pocketa pocketa (LRH) in time and no other
change is taking place except moving along in time.

     Then with your hand you take another magnet and move it near the
magnet on the table causing it to move towards you and then follow you a
bit, then stop moving once you remove your magnet far enough away again.

     So the magnet was sitting there, doing nothing but keeping time,
and the suddenly it starts to change state, and it moves in an arc as it
follows your hand and ends up in a different place than where it

     Well that magnet is still a magnet, not much about it has changed,
but the small subset of its quality set that describes where the magnet
was and is, has certainly changed.  THAT part of the magnet, and THAT
subset of its quality set, is the rendition zone of the event, and the
new state it is in, IS the data imprint about the object that caused it
to move.

     In fact by studying its new position, and the course it took from
its old position to the new one, one could probably theorize quite a bit
about the nature of what had moved it.  Thus the data imprint becomes
symbolic knowledge, knowledge encoded in symbol form, that can be used
to interpret back to the possible theoretical nature of the original
referent, the magnet that moved it.

     One can ask an important question here with a subtle answer.

     Once the magnet on the table is moved, and becomes imprinted with
data due to the nature of the causal referent, does that magnet actually
know anything about the causal referent.

     Does the magnet KNOW, just because it IS?

     Take a simpler example, it is very easy to imprint data or symbol
form knowledge on an object.  Say we are in a class room with 20 other
kids and one's name is Julie.  So I write on a piece of paper (the
symbol) the words 'This class contains a girl named Julie.'

     Now clearly the words I write on the paper are symbols representing
the nature of the class, and clearly they got there because I saw Julie
walk in, so the causal pathway from Julie's presence to the words on the
paper is obvious, and the paper itself is the object with the imprint,
so it too has now become a symbol to the whole event.

     Further we can say that the rendition zone is the area of the paper
where the words are written, and the words themselves are the rendering
or rendition on the paper of Julie's presence in the class.

     Remember renditions do not have to LOOK like the original referent,
only be causally connected to the original referent.

     Lastly someone can look at the symbol paper and read the symbol
words, and interpret them back to the nature of the referent they are
referring to.

     So all the parts of a complete learning event are in place.

     So here is the 64 dollar question.


     Just because something has become or IS symbolic knowledge about
something prior, does it mean that same something KNOWS anything at all?

     We are going to leave a deeper analysis of this question for later,
but the difference between BEING knowledge and KNOWING knowledge are two
very different things.  Surely knowing knowledge would also imply being
knowledge, but any imprinted piece of paper can BE knowledge with out
knowing anything.

     We say the paper has been imprinted with data or knowledge in
symbol form.  The paper is the symbol substrate which suffers the change
in state representing the symbolic knowledge imprinted on it.

     The change of state, the new state plus what is left of the the old
state, IS the data imprint, it is data about how the prior object caused
the present object to change state.

      Alright let's continue.

     By studying any particular object and its present state, we can
theorize about the causal nature of prior objects in the chain going
back to the beginning of time.

     Notice that by studying the changes in state that such prior causes
can effect, all one can ever learn about past objects by looking at the
present state are causal qualities in the preceeding events.  If the
preceeding events have qualities that do not causally partake in the
proceedings, you will never know about them by looking only at the
effects and changes in later objects.

between the referent and the symbol.


     The prior object in the causal chain you are trying to learn about
is called the original referent.

     The later object in the chain you are trying to learn from is
called the symbol of final authority.

     We call it a symbol because it's state is a causal function of the
prior referent.

     We call it a symbol of authority, because it has authoritative data
imprinted on it via direct cause about the prior referent or chain of
referents.  That is as close as close comes to authoritative veracity in
the physical universe.

     We call it a symbol of FINAL authority, because no later symbol is
being inspected to glean the imprinted data about the prior referent.
We COULD use an earlier or later symbol to glean our knowledge of the
original referent, but then whatever symbol we use becomes the symbol of
final authority for that particular learning event.

     The symbol of final authority can be ANY symbol after the referent,
it is merely the one you choose to study in order to learn about the

     The symbol of final authority happens to be you in case you hadn't
notice.  If you don't insert yourself into the chain of causal events,
take a reading WITH YOUR OWN HAND so to speak, by being an effect of
what is going on, you won't even know the chain is taking place as it
passes you by.

     Thus for YOU to learn anything, YOU must become a symbol of final
authority for the referent you are trying to learn about.

     In the case of a direct conscious experience which is a self
symbolizing event, the referent experience itself becomes the symbol.
That's how consciousness learns about itself.

     You do not look at some later other experience to know about the
frist original earlier experience, you see it directly.


     Where there is no effect, there is no learning.

     Where there is learning there is always an effect, and the effect
IS the learning.

     No effect = no learning.

     Learning = theory, because effect does not prove cause.

     Correlation does not prove causation.

     Radiation does not prove radiator.

     Thus nowhere in the PU is there a perfect certainty.

     Why exactly is this?

     Because you are always trying to learn about event A earlier by
looking at event B later.

     B is always separated from A by a finite amount of spacetime no
matter how small.  And worse, B just simply isn't A, B is some OTHER
object that was either emanated by A, or was hit by A's radiation or
causal emanation, and which then caused B to change state.

     Since learning by being an effect can only produce evidence, model
and theory, there can be no learning with perfect certainty anywhere in
the physical universe as long a you are trying to learn about A by
looking at B.

     Notice the correct way to say that is 'trying to learn about A by

     If you and your consciousness aren't personally being the symbol of
final authority, you aren't learning anything period.

     In any given causal chain, *YOU* have to be the symbol of final
authority, or YOU won't ever learn anything at all about that chain.


     In general all events that happen in the PU, pass on causal waves
through them, to the next event in line.

     Thus each prior referent event immediately creates a different
later symbol event imprinted with the causal nature of the referent on
it.  That symbol then becomes a referent event in its own right, as IT
passes on the causal wave to yet another symbol down the line.

     This is the referent and symbol continuum.  Each causal wave is a
continuum of events, each one of which is a symbol to prior events, and
a referent to later events.

     Each event in the causal chain is a symbol to events PRIOR to it
and therefore distant in spacetime no matter how small.

     Each event in the causal chain is a referent to events LATER to it
and therefore also distant in spacetime, no matter how small.

     Thus referent and symbol are ALWAYS two different objects, and thus
perfect certainty between them is impossible as learning between them is
limited to interpretation of evidence into theory and model at best.

      Alright let's take a break, get some coffee and a donut.


Sun Mar 28 23:21:54 EDT 2010