The Machine (Un)Certainty Theorem revisisted.

     So lets say I see a light 20 feet away.  I take my light meter and
I go up to the light and I measure its output, and the meter reads etc.
I touch the light and feel the heat, I throw the switch and it turns off
and back on again etc.

     Then I wake up.

     Then I see an identical light 20 feet away and I do the same
experiments on it with the same results.

     So how am I to know which one is the dream (virtual reality) and
which one is actual?


     Is there any instrument in the dream scene which would tell me it
was a dream and not actual?

     Is there any instrument in the waking scene that could measure the
light in the dream scene?

     Where would it find that light?  10 feet away or 'inside my head

     Konchok has the idea that an object must have non zero dimension to
be actual.

     This is an arbitrary, there is no philosophical or even scientific
reason to assert this.

     He says 'show me something that is zero dimensional!'

     Well everything you are looking at, because all of it is zero

     He says but it LOOKS like it is dimensional!

     Yes it does.

     Things that LOOK like what they are not are called illusions.

     He says well prove it they aren't dimensional.

     So I say prove they are.

     The idea that things have dimension just because they LOOK like
they have dimension is the exceptional idea, so those that promulgate
such nonsense must show evidence!  :)

     Prove you aren't dreaming right now.

     You can't, because it can't be done.

     There IS no difference between the dream and waking states, and
thus both must be considered either dreams or waking.

     I meet a girl while awake and have a wonderful time, I cry when it
     I meet a girl in a dream and have a wonderful time, I cry when
the dream ends.

     What's the difference?  Who is to say one girl is actual and the
other merely real?

     If one can admit that dreams are illusions of dimension in our
mind's eye, then we should be able to admit that the waking state might
be the same thing.  Hubbard called it 'space is a viewpoint of dimension'.

     The mathematics of space time isn't anywhere near as interesting
as the *PHILOSOPHY* of spacetime.

     Since both space and time are illusions in consciousness, there can
be no way that consciousness is made of space or time or anything in it.

     The Proof proves that the conscious Looker and the Looked AT are
one and the same because of the perfect certainty between them, so there
is no space/time distance between the I that is aware and the color
forms that the I is aware of.

     If A and B are not separated by an actual space/time distance, then
they are on the same 'point'.  
     That point could be a 3 dimensional point with measurement {0x0x0}
or it could be a zero dimensional point with measurement {}.

     Is there any difference?

     Which is more likely?

     How much *ACTUAL* space/time distance is there between that which
sees red and that which is seen to be red?

     It is an important question, because it leads directly to the
notion that consciousness is completely and utterly non Newtonian in

     Consciousness doesn't work via space/time laws of cause and effect,
it CANT because if it did, it could never be certain of what it was
seeing or perceiving.

     There is no time between the exitence of the red and
the perception of the red, they are one and the same event.

     Where ever you have space/time objects learning about each other,
they can only do so by being the effect of each other.

     If A has qualities about it that do not affect how it affects B,
then B can never learn about those qualities in A.

     In space time mechanics, the ONLY qualities B can learn about A
are those qualities that have to do with how A affects B, namely A's
causal qualities over B.

     B learns about A by changing state in response to cause coming from
A.  All B knows is its own change in state.

     That's called learning by being an effect.

     B's change in state IS its learning about A.

     If you are learning by being an effect, you can ONLY learn about

     But the joke is, receiving an effect does not absolutely imply
cause because correlation does not imply causation, so learning by being
an effect at best gives you a theory about cause, never a certainty about

     Any real scientist will tell you this.  A machine that learns
merely by being an effect of causes can never even prove there ARE
causes because it can't prove from effects that every effect is caused!
(An effect is any change in state in the machine).

     The idea that cause exists at all is an anthropomorization placed
on the physical space time universe from observations we have made
from our own consciousness!

     Consciousness is certain of cause within itself just because it is
spaceless and timeless and there is neither space nor time between
conscious cause and conscious effects.

     When a conscious unit does something, it KNOWS it is agent and it
can verify instantly that what it wanted and intended, it got.

     After the conscious unit has caused a looked at to appear, the
conscious Looker can then be certain about cause between the Looked AT,
and itself which allows itself to know that the Looked AT matches
what it wanted to create in the first place.
     Thus the Looker can not be learning about the Looked AT by being an
effect of the Looked AT.  If it were, the Looker could never be certain
of the Looked AT.  It would never even SEE the looked at, it could 'see'
only the effects the alleged looked at incurred in the looker.

     That's physical think:

     "I changed state here, so there must be something out there."

     No, the Looker can SEE its looked-ats out there, directly.

     The looker is learning by looking at CAUSE, not by looking at

     That's conscious think.

     Learning by looking at cause can't happen across a space/time
dimension, thus the looker/looked-at system we call a conscious unit
doesn't have any space/time dimension.

     It's scalar, meaning zero dimensional, with no dimensions
in which to have any extension including zero extension.

     You have to have a dimension to have an extension of zero length.

     Thus if you have no dimensions at all, you can't have
any extensions (size) of zero or not zero length.

     Since consciousness is scalar, and all the evidence it ever had of
external dimensionality were looked-at *EXPERIENCES* that were in fact
scalar themselves, there really is no evidence at all that there exists
anything that is dimensional.  We can suppose it, but how would you
prove it?  All the evidence you will ever have comes through your
looker/looked-at unit, which is scalar!

     Looking through a scalar TV will never give you evidence that a non
scalar world exists out there even though pretty holoraphic images of
non scalar objects are written all over the scalar TV screen.


Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com    In the Line of Duty    http://www.lightlink.com