Recreating (and advancing) pk’s censored domains: Macroinformation.org &
Knatz.com / Teaching / Society / Epistemology / Reality /
2001 02 18
Just development notes to start:
Sherlock Holmes knows about fingerprints. The crook doesn’t. Neither do the police of the time. Sherlock Holmes catches the crook. Sherlock Holmes is so smart.
Now the police and the crooks know about finger prints. They wear gloves, they carry a hankie, they dust.
Money leaves no fingerprints. You don’t know where the dollar bill in your pocket has been: in a drug deal, in a money laundering scheme … no fingerprints. You get a check, a dividend say, a return on your investment. $30,873 fingerprintless dollars. You deposit them, spend them, save or reinvest them: in all innocence.
In a physicist’s timeline, the electron is here, then it’s there. It’s here or there whether or not any human mind is tracking it. Isn’t it? Are we so solipsistic that we don’t believe in reality? Does reality depend on our acknowledgment for its existence? Is there no reality without belief? Without perception?
Are we certain that God won’t know where our dollars as well as our hands and penises have been at Judgment day? Our we sure our lawyer will be able to beat God back, screaming, Inadmissible, inadmissible when God shows us a movie, taken by certified angels, of what we were doing when we thought no one was looking?
The on-again off-again great novelist Orson Scott Card has a Columbus novel where people of the future get their mic-enclosed cameras on the past. They watch helplessly as their ancestors kill, enslave, rape, pillage … The true time-line is exposed. Wherever the electron was, the murder was here, the rape there … everywhere.
Also see Culture.
2004 08 05 In 1800 the pickpocket, the murder … has no idea that he’s leaving fingerprints, that he has any fingerprints to leave. By 1890 some thieves, some detectives, some among the public know at least something about finger prints. By 1950 everyone has some acquaintance with Sherlock Holmes, with the FBI, has seen a mystery at the movies or on TV, and knows about finger prints. Now the movies show the thief erasing his fingerprints. Ah, but did he erase all of them? If the police of 2004 can’t find any, does that mean that the scientist of 4002 won’t find any? maybe even find a voice print latent in the wall.
Cash is famous for being untraceable, but can we be sure? Are we willing to bet our souls that God can’t find Hiawatha’s pennies in Washington’s bank account?
The rapist can erase his fingerprints, murder the witness … yet still leave his DNA all over the place.
Every human being, will he or nil she, carries proof of her relatedness to reptiles, to fish, to worms, to bacteria … Does that mean that we carry a complete history of the entire universe, every event, in every cell, every molecule, every quark? No. I don’t believe so. Some evidence is always there, whatever we erase; some evidence is not there.
So: can God possibly have all the evidence?
Far be it from me to say what’s possible and what’s not, especially for entities we have no reliable map of (like God), but: I don’t see how.
2004 11 23 Today the science of genetics (a set of associated sciences and technologies) can trace our ancestry to an “Eve”: the gal from whom humans inherit conspicuous menstruation and invisible ovulation. Our father is AnyMan; our mother is Eve. Joseph Heller introduced the phrase “Catch-22.” The phrase spread rapidly. There’s a case where we can put a name to the invention. “Kodak”: has a traceable source: we know the originator.
Who’s the father? Labs can help tell.
pk has offered signals: some original, some passed, all selected by pk. In the case of networking, of public librarianship, I was passing Ivan Illich’s signals. He got them from “God,” from Jesus, from colleagues. Through me, those signals expanded to include all subjects, all concerns, not just information about learning opportunities. Look at dating services. Look at Yahoo, at Google, at EBay … How is it possible not to see the mental-spiritual DNA of Jesus, Ivan, pk all over them? If kleptocrats can’t see it, God can (and if God is God, someday, he’ll make us see it).
But: the original ideas I’d tried to communicate to universities before I (helped) invent(ed) the internet show no traces that I can yet see: Shakespeare’s Dark Lady and Fair Love as a meta-oxymoron: an oxymoron logically perpendicular to a normal oxymoron. Not a trace, none that I can see.
That doesn’t mean that such ideas won’t be sprouting all over the place if we’re still here in a century. Between being the legal father and the actual father, I’ll take being the actual father. God never said to me, “Now, Paul: make sure you get credit for these messages.” No. I just agreed to try to deliver them.
Fertility. The male seed naturally deposits into the vagina from whence it can take hold in the uterus. The male seed can also be deposited in the ass: where it mixes with feces and gets excreted. The male seed can also be deposited in the mouth: where it passes to the digestive tract, where it gets processeed by digestive juices, passed to the colon, gets excreted … mixes with the sewage, the ground, the water … Or the male seed may merely squirt directly to the ground, or the bedding, or the wall.
Did I always put my seeds in the best place? I don’t suppose I did.
God tricked me: I agreed to give them to humans.
Now there’s an oxymoron!
Or maybe God said,
Or maybe I thought that. Since “you” and “God” are both in your head it’s impossible to tell exactly who said what.
2013 05 05 Notice: it’s not God I don’t believe in; it’s “you” I don’t believe in. I don’t believe in “me” either. The universe exists, the cosmos exists: it doesn’t follow that either has been (or can be) correctly modeled.
I like Newton’s humility in imagining himself as someone finding a pretty shell or two on a very long beach. Feynman’s too: Feynman acted as though the universe were simply too clever for the smartest of us. Sure we can figure some things out, but not everything.