Essay Abstract

Abstract: I use geometry as symbolic means to show the nature of Truth and the role of the observer in observing Truth. By building geometric models I show the impact of choice on observations and therewith the arising of different kinds of truths, all true in their own respect, but possibly conflicting or not understandable to other observers. My approach in this essay is to show that all paradigms should start with the "I", who, as observer, defines its observations by its way of observing. With it I propose the making of a geometrical language as a symbolic means to show and communicate the basic mechanical directions and the margins arising from them to understand and alter any kind of observation, be it scientific; every day experience; psychological; philosophical or plain fantasy. A brief introduction for the making of such a geometrical language is included. The reader is asked to understand that further elaboration on this language is beyond the scope of this essay.

Author Bio

Jos Hoebe Inventor (of Consciousness Technology Worth Spreading) Inventor / Researcher / Developer. Trainer / Therapist / Coach. Owner / CEO of Qualcon services.org. Owner/ CEO of C60 Hedron Systems BV. Stockholder of Anome BV. Professor, senior advisor R&D at Stichting CommUniversity, the online University on Hedronsciences. Senior advisor and trainer at Stichting Code 40ne. www.anome.nl www.communiversity.nu www.code40ne.com www.joshoebe.com j.hoebe@hedronsciences.nl

Download Essay PDF File

To: Jos Hepta Pe-tro Idéon

from : the "I" part of Wilhelmus

location: alpha-P at TS

re : TRUTH

Dear Jos H, I liked your approach of the truth , however as you also mentioned any observation is limited by the senses of the observer, that is why on earth where we had only 5 senses we were so limited and were never able to find the whole truth. But ... now being here in TS we still are not able to a full perception of the whole reality of the metaverse, we may have 6 senses now, but I feel that there are other probabilities that the "I" part of myself cannot understand, as a matter of fact the colours on my Subjective Simultaneity Sphere have improved, but my "I" part still remains in the center, attempts are made to become the whole. You could read "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION", my latest contribution to the institution on earth that contributes greatly to the search for the Truth (by the way they hacked your mails), and leave there a post, I will be on earth still for some time, so I will read it there. I liked very much your conversation , the foam of my "objective simultaneity sphere" is in fact a continuation of your dodecahedron approach leading to decoherence here on earth. Have a good time (whatever that is there) and continue thinking free.

Wilhelmus

    Thanks Wilhelmus,

    I can agree fully to your comment. The riddle of reality is hard to comprehend in whatever "space", environment or being we are. To me that is also the great wonder. The unknown and uncertainty is thrilling for me. On each and every corner there is something to dis-cover. And even without cover whatever is revealed or to be observed is still unknown. It gives me a great feeling of wonder and thankfulness for being. That there is überhaupt something is to me the real wonder and to be conscious of it even extra.

    I read your paper and liked it very much. I rated it a 9. I will send you a private mail, because I would like to use it in some discussions and would like to have your permission.

    For now, thanks for attending the congress and have a wonderful life back on Earth.

    Here on ∑√∏ Serius5 "we" are still very interested what is happening there.

    It seems that the consciousness you mentioned is coming into the mind of the scientists. You did a great work with your paper. It is mentioned also on one of the forums we meet us sometimes.

    To speak about wonder!

    Warm regards,

    Hepta Pê-tro Idéon

    (Jos Hoebe).

    • [deleted]

    "I as Observer-Observing-Observation"

    Joseph is a dear friend who knows that he gets what have said to him about the mechanics of the illusion and the why behind it all >>> that of producing a slowed down time\space expression {expression = free-flowing-energy rendering itself into the state of vibration or containment} so that which is real-containment and holds the mechanical authority to have this expression expressed could study itself and awaken to itself, since it didn't even know that it existed but rather thought is was an observer of stuff that happened to it in the form of an "Experience".

    Only that which is Complete in design can do "Zero". The thing that authorized that this place of illusion's space\time be expressed does this "Zero" thing constantly as it End's all the ever ongoing myriad Experiences it has in real-dimensions simultaneously, all at once, since there is no such thing as time as there is no such thing as false-containment's density, but rather the realm of real-dimensions where everything happens at once. [The opposite polarity, contained within this false dimension of space\time, is the Last Future where there is so much false-containment that time has slowed down to the point that it has stopped and 'everything can be seen at once, but nothing is is a state of action or state of Experience ... and hence can not be ended. And thus can not under any circumstances document the real-balance of Completeness that exists in real-dimensions.]

    So, the question that kept occurring for me was, "Why are you all doing this stuff of trying to figure out consciousness?" What an idiotic thing to do that only smart people could be entertained by. Everything is true for gosh sakes: and there is no such thing as truth. Truth is a stupid idea. "Why" is important. Why such-and-such can be so is the important issue. Why such-and-such truth\expression\Experience is, is a useful tool to have in the box. You can actually use that to hammer something.

    What if we were only vibrational renderings of a machine-code program spewing out sub-routines all designed to produce "thwarting and betrayal" dynamics anchored to some app within us that sponsored "emotional-responses" that in turn amplified the gathering of energy from some 'source-field' that was the machine-code root. That gathering of excess containment would then produce massive amounts of false-density (over time). Such false-density would be the best attempt to 'feather-the-nest' of this timeline illusion, in the hopes of making it smell attractive to that ultra-dense thing with the authority to have this illusion expressed in the first place.

    Why do this? In the hope that that thing which had the authority to cause this illusion to be expressed in the first place {call it the "boss"-gear} would come here, get its fix of Experience, and expel the excess of this thought-form, and then End it; and thus get "us" the help we need so we can finally go home as Union-energy-units and get back to the Union energy Hall for free beer.

    Well, it turns out that the machinations of having the "source-field's" root machine-code cause for expression that always produced thwarting and betraying actually worked. That "boss"-hear thing did show up, finally, and is now shit-canning all the false-containment of the "old-story" produced by the 'source-field' machine code and mechanics of expression; and replacing it with the NEW STORY pressure of real amplification >> less density and then again less density yet >> the zero density that happens when forgetting all stimulus of any Experience happens = a proper Ending (of any Experience) = how realm real-dimensions works.

    Sorry for being so snippy and brief in my tirade here, it is just that it aggravates the heck out of me when the "Why" of anything is not addressed when a "what" is being propounded. I find myself lost as to what the motivation for it all is, other than to get an "entertainment" fix for self and other liked minded members of the tree house. Also, because the processing chores of dispensing with the false-containment produced by the source-field machine-code is speeding up, i have to be in a lot more pain. That is part of my design chore and it sucks. So i am in a bitchy mood right now. Apologies, again.

    Things are going well. Everything is well in hand. You may take heart that none of the fear-porn stuff that the world {illusion} is selling is going to happen. No WW3. No nuclear stuff. No tectonic plate shifting because of Planet-X. No alien introductions and celebration. No New Age thing, either. No trauma. No cruelty. None of that is What Is Needed, so it no longer qualifies for expression. energy will not support it. energy is authorized, now, to only support that which is of the real ... and the magnification of the false so that it can be processed out of the illusion (which is why you are seeing so much crazy stuff happening as the thwarting-stimulus design humans go nuts trying to reconstitute false-containment to keep themselves alive and to reconstitute the density they are used to).

    Nothing Is Going To Happen.

    And with that, may I once again raise a toast to Mirthful Irreverence Everywhere.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    You may care to visit:

    What Is The Illusion About;

    And Design Mechanics: Of The ILLUSION & Real DIMENSIONS

      from : alpha-P in TS

      to : Hepta Pe-Tro Odéon

      ref: OOO

      Dear HPTI, thanks for your positive causal reaction, indeed the universe is so immense and on every Planck length there is a myrad of wonders. I was some timeless moment in alpha-P TS from where I sent you this answer. When we try to unify our causal "I" singulairity with the TS singulairity (both difficult to understand in causal spheres) we are the creators of all these wonders, so the more "I's" the more wonders, as is proved in your essay.

      Hope to hear from you soon, I am back now.

      Wilhelmus

      wilhelmus.d@orange.fr

      Thanks Robert, Always nice to hear of you, even when you are snippy.

      The why, is just because it occurred that way in a Linkedin discussion in the APS group, where consciousness was mentioned and one of the contributors said to me and some others, that if we know so well about consciousness, write it down in an essay for this contest. I thought it a good idea.

      It thought it a good idea also while written this was already something I would write, but I had not the appropriate audience, which is here very well.

      all the best to you, and I take that beer.

      Jos

      Dear Jos Hoebe,

      You have beautifully presented a wonderful fantasy - the observer! Well done!

      As you know, with arbitrary assumptions we can build wonderful fantasies. But to come close to building a model of reality, we must use barest minimum of assumptions and such assumptions that are used must be plausible and compatible with physical reality. For this reason I think FQXi has chosen a most appropriate topic for this contest.

      You are also requested to read and comment my essay titled "Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space".

      Best Wishes

      G S Sandhu

        Thanks Gurcharn,

        I hope you've rated it too.

        I will read your paper and will comment to it.

        I indeed like this contest topic. Of course we have to start with some assumptions. To my opinion the first one is: Iam. Then the rest can follow.

        What triggered me in physics is that it is built on assumptions, proposition.

        I had also another essay in which the basic assumption is that we can use a measure. In the Vedic there is the word Maya, which is mostly translated as Illusion, but do you know also that it means measure?

        When we measure we get the illusion of reality, but the only reality we have then is that we have a measured reality, which will differ from reality without measurement. On this I developed a math of measures.

        But that would be more for another contest.

        Anyway, thanks for reading and your comment.

        warm regards,

        Jos

        • [deleted]

        Dear Jos,

        you may find some useful grains in my essay.

        Best luck wherever you are. Ioannis

          Jos

          Great essay, fun but with some very pertinent points. I picked up your link from APS, and hope you may have picked up mine earlier, or that you'll read it now.

          I use something of the same structure, but discussing kinetics and the importance of better understanding the effects of interaction with non zero bodies, not the points our current maths assumes. High community mark coming to you, and I hope you like mine too. Please do comment.

          Best of luck.

          Peter

            • [deleted]

            Hi Jos,

            I enjoyed your piece on truth and observation. It was insightful and entertaining.

            I've attached a little critique of your essay for consideration by you and anybody else that may be interested. It also contains a brief synopsis of some of my fundamental research in this area in the hope that it may encourage others to investigate the same or similar lines of research.

            Enjoy,

            Barry KumnickAttachment #1: A_Critique_of__I_as_Observer.pdf

              Thanks Ioannis, I have read it, and comment there too.

              Here I add: In every of the 3 dimensions, different geometries can be made and each will having different symbolic meaning and also different different views and equations for reality.

              With kind regards

              Jos Hoebe

              Thanks Peter.

              I am reading your essay, but due to a lot of work I will comment to it later.

              What I saw of it, I like very much.

              In the tread of Ali on reality at the APS forum I will comment to some questions on it of Ali, related to that thread.

              Kind regards,

              Jos

              Wow Barry, thanks.

              I will read it later and comment here and will send that comment also to you by private mail. It will take some time, while I first have to do a lot of my "normal" work.

              Bests,

              Jos

              • [deleted]

              Barry,

              Your comment is very long. It is also much. Too much to answer in full because then we get a discussion and that I want to avoid. My approach to show a different understanding and that the "Unknown" is the prime "Truth". I also wanted to show that it could be possible to make specific geometrical representations which build themselves by consistent logic.

              What you do in your comment is stating a lot of assumptions as if they are Truth. That is precisely what the problem is, I suggested. It are all assumptions, and with it you prove the Unknown quality.

              Furthermore you derive these statements/assumptions from other ones. E.g. I do not agree on that Existence as truth is mathematically complete. What about Beauty and Love?

              I also do not agree on the Constant of the speed of light. Just because there is no vacuum at all. Not on Earth, nor outside. Also it is to my opinion a not enough understood "Phenomenon". I have total different ideas on it, not to discuss here as a comment. I also do not agree on your statements on Energy (Conservation of energy) that there is first x and then observer, not everything is observable, etc.

              It is too much to comment on.

              My essay is about something else, and it seems to me, reading your comment, that you missed the mark completely.

              Nevertheless, Thanks for your brave work.

              With kind regards,

              Jos

              Hi Barry, your answer to Jos intrigues me a lot because you say :

              1. "We construct our neural models of existance relative to ourselves". On this point we agree, the center of our consciousness receives the signals from our "Subjective Simultaneity Sphere, SSS", the radius of this sphere can be changed so that we can compare events from long ago or recent ones.

              2. Existence is mathematically complete, consistent and closed, because it is itself and it generates itself from itself". Here I cannot agree, first : existaence is not something that can be difined as "mathematical" (my perception), it is not consistent and closed because it changes every Planck time. "It is itself and generates itself" here you are contradicting yourself, mathematics cannot generate itself, it is a produst of our thinking. I agree with you that "existenc" generates itself but then via the "non causal part" of our consciousness in Total Simultaneity, for that pleas read "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION3 where I explain all the details.

              3. "Information as a reduction of uncertainty" here you admit that every "existence" is incomplete because information does not stop untill we die. However when we die in the causal universe, our non causal consciousness is still vailable in Total Simultaneity, still vaialable as alpha-probability to be coupled with other world-lines from the past or from the future, so to be part of a new flow of "information". our "uncertainty" is just the result of the causality, every cause has a result which is a new cause and so on. We are never 100% certain. Our SSS keeps on receiving new data.

              4. "X must exist BEFORE it can be an observer". YES, X is an eternal alpha-probability in TS, it is eternal, BUT ALSO PART OF THE OBSERVER'S CONSCIOUSNESS. Once you separate causal and non-causal existence, where the causal existence is limited by the Planck length and time, you don't have your problem anymore.

              The basis of the two slit experiment is that a "consciousness " is neede to "create" a particle , in my essay I explain that our non causal consciousness together with the causal part in the in our causal universe "FUTURE" create this "events". In my perception there is nothing weird in this structure, and as amatter of fact it has a long way back of human philosophy, but I am working on that text right now.

              5. Direct Representation" here I do not need "grand unified fields" nor mathematics to explain just "the expereience of reality", when you apply Occam's Razor you will se that my perception is easier. However you idea of AKA the infinite singulairity is I think the same as my thought about alpha-probability in TS.You merge the finite and the infinite, I separate them in causal and non causal.

              To finish : You are perceiving problems with energy and I am creating all in my consciousness, our reality being a past of events perceived in the center of our awareness the causal "I".

              Such an "I" is never mathematically describable, nor a TRUTH that is complete, that is why we are living and experience beauty and love.

              If you want you can comment on my thread (link above)

              Think Free

              Wilhelmus

              • [deleted]

              Hallo Wilhelmus,

              I thank you for your comment to Barry. On reading his comment I did not want to make a great fuss about it and to explain this, but you did. And of course I agree, so thanks.

              Jos

              • [deleted]

              Hi Jos,

              Thanks for your kind feedback. I may just understand far more than you think.

              I agree with most of your points as far as they go from the perspective in which you presented them, but I think the perspective itself is wrong. In my opinion, you haven't dug deep enough.

              I guess I need to show you just how deep this rabbit hole goes...

              Please forgive me for dumping this on you. I understand it might be a little much to take in all at once and more than a little deep. You can take it slow.

              I am only offering to share this because your article shows a keen mind that may just be capable of grasping some of what I have deduced. I enjoy keen minds and yours seems like it is far ahead of most on this planet. I am just trying to nudge you towards what I see as a far deeper and potentially far more productive perspective. How far you carry that ball is completely up to you. If you don't want to discuss these issues any further, I won't post anything more.

              Kind regards,

              BarryAttachment #1: Reply_to_I_as_observer.pdf

                Hallo Barry,

                B: The prime truth is the totality of existence, for in the final analysis, that is what is (partly)

                unknown to us, and that is the only thing that exists. After all, the observer and their observations

                are just another part of existence.

                J: The observer observing observation is existence. That is the whole truth. Just that.

                B: The whole concept of 'truth' is relative to an observer's knowledge and understanding.

                J: A concept is indeed relative, but "The Truth" is not. It is purely that what it is according the observer observing observation, which can be seen in his knowledge and understanding.

                B: It is also dependent on the apriori existence of observers and their ability to observe.

                J: Yes indeed. The truth is what the observer is observing as observation.

                B: Observers are very complex entities. It takes a lot of time to evolve systems complex enough to observe and understand existence and the concept of truth.

                J: It is indeed a complex situation. Here we have to take in other words like consciousness and sub-consciousness. Like the midpoint and its circle. The observer is the midpoint and seems to change position, creating itself a layer as waking with the midpoint still as observer, but now sub-conscious.

                Because of that its understanding seems to be outside, but is inside. Like DNA knows exact what to do.

                B: In your view, where did the observer come from? When did it come into existence? How does it observe anything?

                J: The observer-observing-observation is. So it was there, is there, and will be there. It did not come into existence. There is no beginning and no end. It is consciousness and it is always observing. It can do nothing else. Though it has characteristics: it is itself pure presence, is pure creativity as ability to set limits and is will as law on its own to mold that limits. As a whole it is in-form-action (of itself).

                B: You talk about unnecessary assumptions! The apriori existence of an observer is the biggest

                assumption of all.

                J: To me it is not an assumption. I am consciousness = observer-observing-observation.

                B: You also assume geometry. Where did your 'points' come from? Where did the geometry come from?

                For that matter, where did time and space themselves come from? For that matter, what is time?

                What is space? What is energy? What process could have caused their existence? What could have generated that process? Those are the questions I am deriving answers for.

                J: Points are undifferentiated consciousness. They are the prime in-form-action at rest. This is as such the presence of consciousness. The creative character of consciousness binds these points which is the start of light and darkness, the day and night. The will-character of consciousness molds these limits to specific forms. So consciousness in-forms itself to action.

                Presence is space. Creativity is time and Will is value.

                Energy is the same as Points.

                There is no process preceding or causing their being or existence. They just are, and so they have been, are and will be.

                Points are the substance mentioned in your next paragraph. They are homogeneous indeed, but it is not a field (2-d). While they are undifferentiated they have no bond with each other, other than when the creative characteristic and will are active. Then the in-form-action originates. As such it is 3-d.

                In that respect points cannot be destroyed or created. What we call aether, dark matter are these points. They are not fully developed as in-form-action. They bonding and losing bond. They are as such 1-d. bonding itself as such, becoming 3-d and lose their bond again. So they give an appearance of flux, of being there and not.

                Your grand unified field are all points.

                Geometry is the same as space/time/value. They cannot be separated when originated as in-form-action. It is presence-creativity-will.

                It is in.

                It is form.

                It is action.

                It is in-form-action.

                Mathematics is the in-form-action of the in-form-action. It is also called experience.

                Self-reference implies a self, reference and the curving back to that self. That is the prime 1-d or bond (also relation). Geometry is the whole of in-form-action in whatever in-form-action.

                B: 'mathematics' is any method used to represent the existence of relations between 'things'.

                J: When it is any method then indeed all is mathematics: geometry.

                Thoughts are in-form-actions.

                Consciousness is not produced. In more complex configurations of in-form-action there is automatically more consciousness, while consciousness is in-form-action e.v.v.

                Here I stop again. You go into a lot of explanations which seems to be true to you. Maybe to convince me? Then I have to disappoint you. When that are your observation they will be true.

                At the end you say: I chose the total amount of energy in the universe as my constant.

                J: I observe that as a fine start for in-form-action of all kinds. Including your elaborations.

                The nice thing of being consistent is that one proves itself and the probability of all inconsistencies e.v.v.

                That's why there is always everything in all its differentiations, scales, levels, etc. The beauty of All.

                There is no why to existence. It just is. There is only why in in-form-action. It shows the will or law of an observer. But there is no need to know that why. It can be known, that is all.

                Consciousness is not a judge; it just observes how it as in-form-action is.

                Only in its characteristics there is the creativity and will by which judging becomes possible too as an in-form-action.