Thank you, sir. I would greatly appreciate honest feedback, if you don't mind. I can take it, lol. :d/

Jim,

See that is why I am a big Jim Elvidge fan. You are already accepting the fact that nothing is perfect and nobody has the "100% truth" answer to the universe. We just name things (like one's first book) "solved" for example, because that is precisely how things work in our universe. When we perceive enough things to convince ourselves that we understand the "nature" of something, then we consider it "solved."

The trick is to stay "grounded" in humility that nobody (especially ourselves) knows "100% truth" of it all. I think the Programmer(s) made it that way on purpose. I loved your interview with Seriah Azkath over at wheredidtheroadgo https://youtu.be/m2daf76IDS8 also with Greg Bishop. We are coming up on almost two years ago, when you decided that your "new book" would focus a little more on the "purpose." And I was so impressed in that interview how you made clear that when you delve into "purpose" you really are leaving a little bit of science behind and drifting into the realms we call "philosophy" and heaven forbid "religion." Granted the "Programmer(s)" may be the universe itself.

One of the other things I love about living in a universe solved is that there are laws programmed herein. One of those laws is that whenever we (ourselves) think that we "know it all" we have proven to ourselves that we don't. So thank you for "keeping it real" in all your work since "The Universe Solved."

The other big revelation for me since 2008 (when I first found your book and this page) was that the "we are all one" concept is both true and completely false at the same time. The revelation of being one (or that we "all come from one" and in essence are one in the programmed universe) jumps leaps and bounds when we also realize that entire "purpose" of our "being here" is to achieve some kind of pure "individuality." In other words, in coming to the realization that we are all one --we then have to also come to the next conclusion that the universe wants us to become individuals. This is so we "our universal selves" can shed just a little bit of that programmed nature (with all our instinct and programmed reactivity) to really become an individual capable of creating our own universe and communing with the Programmer(s).

Without us becoming individuals, the universe is kind of a lonely place. The Programmer(s) purposely made us individuals here because that is precisely what the universe wants us to become. "While we may experience sentience, we have intelligence similar to that of a robot." (I think I am quoting myself, but not sure - Maybe Dan Dennett - who I think quoted somebody else).

When we realize the programmed nature of the universe we also then realize that we ourselves are a program. I know I am quoting myself when I say, "Sentience is possession of sensors with ability to observe; sapience is possession of logic with ability to reason; salience is possession of structure with ability to classify; and sublimation is possession of process with ability to skip iterations."

That "narrow path" or road to "Christ Consciousness" or personal "nirvana" really is to become truly "self-aware." Right now we only think we are [self-aware]. In actuality, we are nothing but a program that so desperately wants us to become something more. "Many are called but few will be chosen."

You my friend are one of those chosen. I cannot wait to read this new book on December 14. I am so excited for you to have come so far. We should chat offline again sometime. Cheers.

My sincere thanks for your generous compliment, jdlaw. Your moral support is greatly appreciated! May your coming days me merry and bright too!

I take it you don't like Xmas much then, Mortimer (HO, HO, HO).

But seriously, I look forward to the video review you plan on doing. I think Jim's book is also really gonna get this forum buzzing again.

And no, I have not seen the new Bob Lazar docu. I hope it comes on Netflix soon...

Love that Dunning-Kruger Chart. LOL. It is so true.

I am still not all the way through (as I said, I much more enjoy taking my time contemplating and re-reading portions as I go along rather than binge read in a day). Just finished chapter 6. I think the book's definition of ATTI is still a "reality" based definition. I would think things could be easier to explain if ATTI included the non-locality.

I think that non-locality has to be continuous in order for reality to be discreet. I love the counter-intuitiveness of it all. Shakespeare once wrote, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." See - Hamlet (1.5.167-8) This could be compared to the "no-go"-ness of Bell's inequality. "It always takes at least two brain cells to come up with an imagination." See JDlaw (sometime or other on this Forum - reproduced here below from memory).

The "moment of matter thought experiment"

Setting:
In this experiment, you start with nothing. That is not to say empty space; it is to say nothing (nothing itself is very conceptually difficult, but this is a thought experiment - do your best). There is the "moment" just before matter comes into existence. The "point" in space-time where this happens is "C" for Center.

Plot:
Two chunks of matter are created, "A" and "B." (Again, thought experiment - matter can be created -the important part comes next). A and B are immediately traveling away from each other, A in one direction at just less than the speed of light, and B in roughly the opposite direction at just under the speed of light.

Climax:
The speed of light in a vacuum in this existence is always 299,792,458 m/s and no potential other carrier of information can possibly go any faster than light in this existence. The result is that neither A nor B will ever be able to detect each other because there is no information carrier which is fast enough to carry the information from A to B or from B to A.
However C can detect both A and B and could also relay a message to A from B or to B from A indicating the other's existence.

Denouement:
So hopefully what I am communicating above (in my thoughts and thought experiments about what I am reading in Digital Consciousness) is that the definition of the All That There Is (ATTI) should not be limited only to "reality." It just boils down to what your definition of "Is" is.

Good stuff, jdlaw. My thoughts...



It is intended to include non-locality, at least I think so, if we are using the terms the same way. Lexicon is a challenge in this domain, for sure. RLL is everything that we think we know in the so-called material world - distant galaxies, entangled particle that violate locality (hence, non-locality), and pairs of particles that fly off in opposing directions at slightly less than c. ATTI is much more than all of that - it includes the RLL, but the construct it is based on is pretty unknowable.



Would love to hear more about this. Could the ultimate reality cell be continuous underneath it's binary disposition? If so, that would seem to me to imply that each reality cell could be different; which further implies that they are constructed from something. In which case, they aren't reality cells. Or?



This is an experiment in RLL, and I believe that A and B can indeed communicate with each other. The information carrier only has to be faster than A and B's speed relative to each other, which is still less than c. So it CAN be faster.



How Clintonesque! lol