The primary delusion is that something exists independent of what
we perceive.  He sees a car and thinks it is a *CAR*, rather than a
colorform picture of a car in his conscious unit.

      Say someone gets out of his body with full perception.  Chances
are he will be seeing more than the usual physical universe around
him.  This universe seems to a a composite universe, with perhaps
multiple universes intersecting and interacting, and higher and lower
levels of each universes interplaying like a layer cake.

      With the body's eyes we see the lowest layer of one of the
universes, the one we call the physical universe.  Go exterior and
perhaps you start seeing higher levels of the physical universe, and
perhaps intersection areas of other universe.

      So say this guy goes exterior and he sees a shadowy figure off in
the distance through the wall etc and his first reaction is "I see a
Ghost!" Ok that's fine.  But now he says "It *IS* a Ghost!", or "It
ISN'T a Ghost!" or "I'm not going to believe you are a Ghost until
someone else proves to me you are a Ghost!"

      This is going to dry up his perceptions.  Why?  Because it is
evaluation.  He is evaluating for the experience and like evaluating
for a pc, it is death to the experience.  He is trying to overlay a
frame work of *TRUTH* on this experience, but its an add on, and an

      The truth is "I perceive something that looks like a ghost", anything 
more is evaluation.

      There are people who don't want to perceive anything that isn't
real.  Perhaps they consider it impolite to the God of Reality.

      This presumes that things exist independent of our own
perceptions, because "if they exit only in our own perceptions, they
aren't real!"

      This also puts the person into the problem of determining what is
actual or not.  It's easy to determine what you perceive, if you
perceive it, you perceive it.  But how do you determine if something is

      Unfortunately most people determine if something is actual by
whether or not other people perceive it also.  But how did THEY
determine it was actual?  It's sort of a catch 22 endless regression,
and what they don't realize is that ultimately actuality had to start
with someone who said "It's actual because I perceive it." That allows
everyone else to say "Well its ok for me to perceive it because its
actual, and I know its actual because Goober says so!"

      This is the framework upon which the science of proving actuality

      Science is stuck in the fundamental catch-22 that in order to prove
something is actual it must be observed by 'others'.  But how does one
prove the other's exist in the first place?

      You can't use others to corroborate your evidence that others

      You gotta go it alone.  Once you have determined ALONE that others
exist, you can then feel better if others agree they exist too!

      Notice that science itself has little to do with proving the
actuality of things, that's an alter-is twist that certain meatballs put
on it.  The scientific method of observation, theory, prediction,
verification and peer revue, actually has nothing to do with
establishing the 'actuality' of anything, only the dependability of the
theory of interactions between these observations and predictions.

      Its a further alter-is of things to claim that if things are
dependable, they must be ACTUAL.

      Now The Proof has an underlying principle that is usually left out
of the discussions.  By far the most important line in the proof is
number 2.

      2.) Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Looking at

      It's simple enough to model, put a video camera out there attached
to a TV screen, and look at the world through the TV screen as your only
mode of perception.  If the video camera is pointed at a red car say,
light waves come onto the car and bounce off the car and head for the
camera lens.

      The change in the direction of the light waves records the
existence of an external cause out there called the red car.  The car is
cause and it EFFECTS the light waves by causing them to bounce.

      The light waves go to the video camera and now THEY cause the CCD
screen, the 'retina' of the camera to emit electrical signals, which
travel to the TV set which cause the scanning electron gun to change its
intensity, which causes the phosphors on the screen to light up, which
causes light waves to be emitted from the TV screen towwards your eyes,
which causes YOUR retina to emit eletronic signals to head for your
brain, which causes activity in the visual cortex, which causes
conscious picturs to appear and you see them.

      YOU end up looking at effects, namely the pictures in your
consciousness, in order to learn about cause, namely the car many levels
of cause and effect back.

      Notice that at no time is the video camera in contact with the car
out there, it is only in contact with light waves that were caused to
change course by the car.  The video camera doesn't even actually know
if the car is out there because the light waves could have been bent by
God to make it look like there was a car out there.  The video camera
only knows about the effects in itself and those effects do not prove

      OK, so this is Learning across a Distance by Looking at Effects,
and does not produce certainty of cause.

      Now what's left out is a deeper analysis of why learning across a
distance implies learning by looking at effects.

      Here is what the proof has to say on it.

      The primary assertion is if A and B are two different objects, then
then only way B can learn about A is if A is cause and has an effect on
B.  B must change state because of A in order for B to learn about A.

      This implies that if A has no effect on B, then B can never learn
about A no matter what it does or how much cause B has on A in return.

      This also implies that the ONLY thing B can learn about A, is how
A's cause affected B, in other words the only qualities that two objects
can learn about each other are causal relations.

      The Proof further says if A and B are separated by a actual
distance, then A and B are two different objects.

      So we have

      2a.) If A and B are separated by a distance, then A and B are two
different objects.

      2b.) If A and B are two different objects, then the only way B can
learn about A is by looking at effects in itself caused by A.


      2.) If B is learning about A across a distance, then B must be
learning by looking at effects.

      So you see how 2.) is derived?

      Ok now notice that the proof says if A and B are two different
objects, they must learn about each other by looking at effects in
themselves caused by the other, and therefore can't have certainty of
each other at all.

      Notice this is true even if A and B are NOT separated by a
distance.  Even if A and B are on the same point, but are nonetheless
two different objects, they must learn by looking at effects in
themselves caused by the other, and therefore may never enjoy certainty
of each other's existence or cause.

      Thus the only way for A and B to learn with certainty about each
other, they must be the same object!


      As long as cause and effect are two different events or objects,
even if they happen on the same point of space and time, then effect
can never prove cause with certainty.

      Effect can prove cause with certainty only if cause and effect
are one and the same object, in which case one is learning about
the cause by looking at the CAUSE.

      That is an oxymoron to normal established physics by the way.

      Since the conscious self is able to learn with certainty about
the existence of cause in its conscious picture color forms, one
therefore has to conclude that the self IS the same object as its
perceived color forms.

      In other words you ARE what you perceive.

      Self = Effect.

      Effect = Cause.

      Therefore Self = Cause and Effect at the same time.

      Now a meatball will start saying "Homer is saying I am a tree!"

      No, trees do not exist, only your perception of the tree exists as
a colorform picture in your conscious unit.  Yes you are the colorform
when you perceive the tree, that is why you can perceive the existence
and cause of that colorform, because you are learning by looking AT
CAUSE, and not learning by looking at effects.

      Even if we believe that trees exist, its still not true that you
are the tree, you are however the colorform you see of the tree, even
though holographically the colorform looks like it is 'out there' where
you fancy the tree to be.

      The virtual reality theory of the physical universe however claims
that trees do not exist at all, nor does space or time of any kind, only
colorform pictures of such in the eye of each conscious unit.

      Each person has his own colorform of the tree, we aren't all seeing
the same physical conscious picture.  The pictures may look alike, but
are individual pictures for each being.  Each being sees only his own
colorforms at all times.

      Since space itself is an illusion, all observers are on the same
point/place, and the idea that someone else is 'over there' in your
picture is just plain wrong.  Everyone is 'here' where you are.

      So if you take a look at Quantum Mechanics, its primary departure
from Newtonian mechanics, aside from a bad case of fuzzy wuzzies, is
that 'what actuality is' depends on the process of observation itself.

      They say that actuality doesn't actually exist until it is
observed, and that the process of observation kind of precipitates pre
actuality into actual actuality according to the process of observation
itself.  This means that different events of observation might
precipitate slightly different final actualities.

      If you take a look at what they are saying in the context of the
proof and the idea that the entire external universe is a hologram of
coloforms, then you can see where it might be leading.

      The proof says that the perceiver and the perceived are one and
the same thing because certainty of cause and existence of cause flows
between perceived and perceiver.

      Perceived = Cause

      Perceiver = Effect or Learner

      The only way perceiver can be perfectly certain of perceived is if
the perceiver is can perceive the CAUSE and NECESSITY of correctness
flowing from the perceived to the perceiver.

      The virtual reality theory says that all there is are perceivers
and perceiveds and that therefore things are only as actual as they are
perceived, no more and no less.

      Thus of course the process of observation 'precipitates' actuality,
as observation IS actuality.

      Hopefully some day the Quantum Boys will wake up, and hopefully we
have made a few meatballs roll over in the graves they call their life.

Tue Jul 26 15:30:38 EDT 2016