PhD's AND THE PROOF

> What do the philosophy of science types at Cornell think about the proof?
> You must have shown it to them and sat, arms folded, waiting for them to
> comment...

     Nope, I have failed too many times with the PhD's, they are
meatballs through and through.

     It KILLS them to try to look at their conscious rendition AS a
conscious rendition rather than as the physical object it purports to
be.

     I asked a Math Professor once if one cut open the brain would one
see any 'red' there.  He said "Of course there would be lots of red,
there would be red blood all over the place."

     The idea of a scalar operating actuality exceeds their willingness
to look.

     To them love and shame can of protein, fat and sugar be made :)

     Remember Theory 2 is a THEORY.  It may get stated in strong
assertions, but in the end the test is in the pudding.

     Einstein lived on thought experiments, so we do also.

     Imagine a full exteriorization from the body, easy to prove if it
happens strongly enough.

     One can nag about where are the people who can do this, as if
surely they would want the world to know.

     And we can nag back about being a weapon of war and prime
directives to protect ourselves and our loved ones.

     But beyond that what does a full provable exteriorization say about
physics, to be able to see the world without eyes and lens, and live
again as we have lived before, not just on earth but many other places
and other universes?

     That physics is wrong?

     Or that it is virtual?

     Love and shame can not of force and mass be made, neither can pain,

     Trying to get a unified theory of everything that contains only
forces and masses will never explain consciousness.

     And since perfect certainty is only possible in a self luminous scalar 
object (ZEV, Zero Emission Visuals), they had better start figuring out 
how to connect a scalar object into a multi manifold object like the brain 
in order to maintain that the multi manifold object (physical universe) 
exists at all.

     Since there is NO evidence and CAN NOT BE any evidence whatsoever
that the physical universe actually exists, one might as well not
bother to assert it does and work with the virtualization theory
instead.

     That's Occams Sharpening Strap, don't assert what you can PROVE
you CAN NEVER PROVE.

     The produced results of a mature virtualization theory should be 
stupendous once one figures out how we create a dream as creator and get 
stuck in it as creature.

     The responsibility for our own condition is too high for most 
meatballs.

     "Who me?  I CHOSE?  How DARE! you. say such a thing."

     One can not learn with certainty about A (alleged actual space time) 
by looking at B (conscious rendition of space and time).

     My only certainty about Theory 1 and Theory 2 is that there IS a valid 
Theory 2 that stands with equal stature to Theory 1, and by now probably 
exceeds it by a few orders of magnitude.

     Enough so that I have long ago stopped worry about death forever,
and now worry about hell forever :)

     Homer



Mon Oct 26 15:23:33 EDT 2015