Re: virus: just to clarify

Rhonda Chapman (
Fri, 14 May 1999 20:42:10 -0700

I've got a couple of questions that aren't all that pertinent to the list? Can I e-mail to you directly? If so, how?

Roni -

-----Original Message-----
From: psypher <>
To: <> Cc: <>; <>
Date: Friday, May 14, 1999 8:01 PM
Subject: virus: just to clarify

> there I was on my walk to wirk earlier today.
>[and this misspelling is deliberate - 'wirk' being that which I do
>against my will to keep myself fed and sheltered as opposed to 'work'
>which is the deliberate and intentional application of my skills and
>aptitudes to the world, for which nobody is willing to pay me any
>...anyways, there I am, trundling along recalling the assertion made
>by somebody that I don't think the universe has properties. Close,
>but no [metaphorical] cigar.
>...the universe very definitely has properties, it has every
>conceivable property, and probably some that we can't conceive of,
>all at once, everywhere. What the universe lacks are PARTICULAR
>properties or PRIORITIZED properties. The universe is zero sum -
>perfect balance.
> we can sit around debating the truth value of the definition of
>a circle all we like, and we can talk about sets, subsets and
>contexts til the [metaphorical] cows come home, but it doesn't alter
>the [imho] fundamental fact that any symbolic communication we engage
>in is a base-level dissection of the universe into component parts,
>which do not add up to the whole from which we took them.
>...Any theorems we put forth about aspects of the universe
>[eg. blue=475nm] or the ways in which those factors relate
>[eg. the ratio embodied in pi] all the way on up to the grandest
>cosmological statements about the event-stream since Planck time are
>particular patterns picked out from the undifferentiated flux. Our
>process of consciousness creates the shape of the manifold in which
>our particular nodes are enveloped. They may be grand and complex,
>they may be far-reaching and delicate - but they're by no means
>necessary or universal.
>...Heisenberg tells us that knowledge of the contents of some sets
>precludes knowledge of the contents of others. Shroedinger tells us
>that once some factors are set, others become necessary. Goedel [sp?]
>tells us that any model is necessarily incomplete. Einstein tells us
>that perspective matters.
>...I don't know that anyone else [metaphorically]here will get it but
>I'll try an example. Anybody with speakers should go to
>and hit the realstream link for "Akasha Gulva". Merzbow [Masami
>Akita] is a Japanese noise sculptor, the content is pretty much white
>noise - full spectrum soundscapes. Within each piece many relations
>of contents are possible, none are necessary, all are real.
>...Same thing with the universe, all possible relations of all
>possible permutations of all possible qualities are present - chaos,
>the sum of all possible orders. Our position has given us a
>particular, internally consistent perspective - reality - in which
>certain relations are necessary. This is not a priviledged position
>in the big system though.
>...these relations have deep significance, being not only necessary
>for the postulates we construct and/or the experiences we have, but
>for our very existence as stable structures in the manifold.
>Everything is changing all the time.
>Nothing ever happened, nothing ever will.
>...those statements are not mutually contradictory, they just refer
>to different levels of the system. From a perspective [like ours]
>embedded in time, everything is flux. But time is a position-
>dependent quality of the universe. From a different perspective time
>does not posess any of the qualities we perceive, it's a field, like
>gravity [which is an analogous phenomenon on a lesser level, closer
>to the heart of the metaphorical onion as it were]. That's why linear
>time isn't strictly necessary to relativity physics.
>...caveat: all of this is presented as a series of definite
>statements. I once had a philosophy professor who told me "I'm
>absolutely confident of my entire system of belief in sum, however,
>I'm simultaneously absolutely sure that one or more of my component
>axioms is incorrect' [or words to that effect]. So while I'm quite
>sure I'm right, somewhere, I'm probably wrong.
>...anyone willing to hook me up with somebody who will teach me the
>math to describe the stuff in my head more clearly is welcome to do
> Fastmail's Free web based email for Canadians