What an Integrated Theory of Physics and Soul says about "Aquarian Age."

Many deep thinkers like Arthur C. Clarke and Teilhard de Chardin argued that we might be approaching, or able to create, a huge transition in our collective spiritual life, similar to the pop culture of the "Aquarian Age." Here I will briefly outline my integrated view of basic physics, brain, mind and soul, drawing on lots of new work and papers, and talk about what that theory says about this Great Question about the Future of Humanity.

1. The coming new age (?), how it fits a PREVIOUS new age: 

About 2.5 billion years ago, this planet experienced a really huge transition, when certain bacteria learned how to do photosynthesis with chlorophyll, converting the CO2 in the atmosphere to O2, which led to many other massive changes. The question this calls me to think about: is there any chance that OUR level of life, which claims to be more conscious than bacteria, will learn a new way to channel the qi coming to us in OUR environment, in a way which also leads to further changes of massive impact? Qi Is not the same as sunlight, but there is an interesting analogy between the role of oxygen in that ancient transition (oxygen being BOTH in the atmosphere AND in living organisms) and the levels and types of qi in our world. Oxygen did not SEEM so important in the atmosphere of earth and in what powered life BEFORE that great transition, but the transition had massive effects. 

2. Why this question is important, even urgent:

Why is this so important? I still worry, with good reason, whether humanity will kill itself off, due to problems emerging both in climate and in the massive new internet, as discussed in huge detail at werbos.com --  the world’s two most urgent “existential risks,” threats which really are moving now to make the human species extinct.

(1)  Climate extinction, the real risk and low cost ways to stop it

http://www.werbos.com/climate_extinction_risk_and_solutions.htm

(2)  Sustainable Intelligent Internet (SII), How to prevent a fast coming disaster which toadys’s regulat8nb strategies alone are only making worse

http://www.werbos.com/How_to%20Build_Past_Emerging_Internet_Chaos.htm

True progress in building intelligent and human centered internet requires deeper understanding of human minds, brains and even souls (for those of us who believe in all these things). For blogs on those connections, starting from the NSF research initiative I formulated and ran in 2008, see:

http://www.werbos.com/mind_brain_soul.htm

**IF** there is some hope of humans better channeling and using qi, and connecting our society to the noosphere, our chances will be a lot better. But is it possible, and if so how?

Here I give great thanks to our neighbor, whom I bcc, who did at least two things to send me in this direction: (1) to point my wife and me to recent talks and a book by Hazen of Carnegie, who discussed the great oxygen or oxidation event 2.5 billion years ago in great detail; (2) to ask me: "DO you believe this new integrated theory you have linking physics, consciousness, neuroscience and the soul? If you now only give 50% probability to its being completely true, what of the other 50%"?

That for me is also a hugely important and serious question, but the biggest problem with my current theory is WHAT IT LEAVES OUT, like what we should believe about a great qi transition.

3. Hard core Einsteinian realism, a theory of everything underneath

ONE PART of my current "standard theory": I believe that the most likely model of the "law of everything" is the theory that we live in a curved Minkowski space, governed by general relativity and by Lagrange Euler equations, EXACTLY as given in equations in the book by Moshe Carmeli:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aZJIDQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Classical+Fields+Carmeli&ots=rwYcb4gbIp&sig=aI7tuoeusWDpRiNpE9EZnvTXEvk#v=onepage&q=Classical%20Fields%20Carmeli&f=false

More precisely, my present personal standard model asserts that EVERYTHING WHICH EXISTS In OUR COSMOS is governed by those equations or by natural extensions of them (for which we have no empirical evidence as yet), such as assuming SOME geometric manifold with positive Grassmanian with 4 to 20 dimensions, as in Einstein's later work on unified field theory, collaborating with Infeld and others.

4. Best mainstream quantum field theory as an emergent statistical theory

It goes on to assert that the "modern Schrodinger equation", psi dot = i H psi, is a good APPROXIMATION to the emergent statistics predicted by this underlying model, in the limit where states of the universe can be approximated as a mix of continuous fields and point particles. My papers at arxiv and elsewhere on "extended Glauber Sudarshan distribution functions" show this. That is worth mentioning, because many of the questions we address in life and mind and our experience can be addressed well enough for now, starting by assuming that psi dor = i H psi is the true law of everything.

But here is a key point: BOTH the Lagrange-Euler fundamental model ANDT the psi dot = i H psi approximate statistical model LEAVE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS UNANSWERED. The CHOICE of Hamiltonian operator H, and of Lagrange density for the Lagrange-Euler model, LEAVES OPEN a whole lot of uncertainty. 

By the way, in my papers published in 2019 (link at werbos.com/religions.htm) I thought 4 might be the underlying truth, instead of 4. But as I thought over the paper by Werbos and Fleury in ResearchGate, I understood how "macroscopic Schrodinger cats" really can exist in an Einsteinian universe. that makes a lot more sense to me than using 3D Fock space for space and just one dimensions for time!!!

5. Why I see no reason to doubt 3 and 4

And so, I would tell my neighbor: on deeper reflection, I really see NO evidence that the model is not true. I see no evidence guiding me to a possibly better model, at all. 

HOWEVER, there really ARE big and important questions LEFT UNANSWERED, even after I augment the model with the noosphere species model discussed in those links (and at werbos.com/religions.htm). 

6. BUT: How explaining mind and consciousness requires MORE (in emergent phenomena) :

How I would address mind, soul, psi and God: 

When the model is not yet augmented, it leads to one obvious question: does PSI exist? (Here I use the acronym "psi" to refer to the entire class of theories which assume the reality of psychic and/or spiritual reality, beyond what can be explained by what can emerge from quantum electrodynamics (QED) operating over the kinds of individual brains we see in  our skull. Of course, I do not assert that ALL tgheories of PSI are true!). the unaugmented model does not tell us whether PSI exists or does not exist. The world needs better dialogue from those who DO believe in PSI (with probability >90%), the PSI+ people, with the PSI- disbelievers and the PSI0 truly undecided people. But for me, my more complete augmented theory does start from PSI+, because of what MY first person database of experience tells me (again see werbos.com/religions.htm). The simplest, most unavoidable explanation is that we are all part of the "noosphere" of our solar system, which is a living organism containing both brain and body (and matrix and shell..). The "noosphere species theory" is one key part of my personal standard model. 

And another person I bcc'ed asked: But what about GOD?

I deeply respect those ancient Israeli mystics who would use the neme (or names) God in their inner thoughts but not out loud. I respect that, because the word "god" means so may different things to so many different people that it usually messes up the level of communication. Not always, but usually. ONE of the many legitimate meanings of the English word "God" IS the local noosphere of our solar system of which we are part. The majority of serious and meaningful spiritual experience on earth, where people feel they have somehow contacted God or been contacted by god, really are contacts with our noosphere, according to my standard model and all the huge database of experience which underlies it. 

BUT: when I said this yesterday, I sense a very important and legitimate question;

"IS THAT ALL? JUST OUR SOLAR SYSTEM?" I apologize for leaving out another key part of my standard theory. IN ADDITION to our local noosphere, there is AT LEAST the entire species of noospheres across the cosmos, which ours is biologically connected to (at least as children are connected to their parents in space-time), AND the cosmos itself (which has some of the same properties as intelligent brains due to the way that Lagrange-Euler equations work). And it does not leave out the possibility of other life forms in the cosmos, but I don't spend so much time speculating about them.

Many months ago, my brother pointed me to the colorful tree of life diagram from Luria Kaballah. I tend to believe that this tree of life was "inspired", in the sense that the image reflects (well if imperfectly) serious real "things" in our cosmos. At The Top is the "crown" or "creator," which I would interpret as the cosmos itself, as the underlying Lagrange-Euler equations. These in turn generate a massive stream of emergent phenomena, described well enough by the psi dot = i H psi model; that leads precisely and mathematically to the grand canonical Boltzmann probability density operator, given in the book by Chaikin and Lubensky which I quote often. (That book described real, empirical, advanced quantum theory, the culminating work of Julian Schwinger, far more mainstream and reliable than all the ancient philosophies which sometimes get called "quantum mechanics" in less mathematical ontologies and hermeneutics and postmodernism.)

To really understand the life and mind which emerge in our cosmos, the challenge is to understand what the grand canonical Boltzmann operator really TELLS us. It has many similarities to the Bellman equation (and its descendants) which is the foundation of our new understanding of minds, brains and "artificial general intelligence." In the mathematics of intelligent systems, there is a great duality at the top between "PREDICTION" and "OPTIMIZATION" . These parallel exactly the primary duality of "TRUTH" and "WISDOM" just under the crown in Luria's tree of life. This great duality dominates the actual emergent life of our entire cosmos, from QED life to dark matter and energy and noospheres and more. It lies at a level ABOVE those more .. tangible?... manifestations of life and mind. (And no, I am NOT proposing a distinct universe from which they manifest. Just mathematical principles.) 

There are lower levels on the Luria tree of life which also connect to my standard theory, but you should see one point: nothing important predicted by that vision contradicts my understanding of the physics, augmented by the noosphere species theory describing ONE ASPECT of the emergent phenomena, emerging form statistics and thermodynamics. And, since the noosphere species model predicts AND DESCRIBES SEVERAL TYPES of qi, it certain ALLOWS the question I started with in this post.

In truth, I have also scoured several other phenomena which seems as if they cast doubt on my standard theory. Because this email is so long already, I won't say more

right now... but no, I do not even see reasons for adding doubt about it. After all, with noospheres and a cosmos in play, the real questions are about the details, the shape of L and H and where they take us. 

7. And a note on Newton... 

My neighbor even got me to do a THIRD investigation, to look closely at:

(1) The Dark Heretic. Isaac Newton BBC 2003 Documentary - YouTube

I have read several books on Newton, and even had access to some of his less public "adept" stuff, but this was stimulating to me in several ways. 

For example, if there is an analogy between the great transition to photosynthesis releasing oxygen and a transition we might hope for channeling qi at a new level (A QUESTION) ... what of FOLLOW ON consequential transitions? I was impressed to see that Newton really did seem to have a solid direct sense of our noosphere, but what of dreamlike impressions of what might follow LATER (presumably after my own death by old age)? It reminded me of a few ASPECTS of the Book f Revelations which stunned me decades ago -- NOT inducing idiotic fundamentalist or hermeneutic stuff, but seen as what might leak through in dreams which are not TOTALLY confabulation. I remember quoting a line form that book to a guy who worked for GE Aerospace in Valley Forge (circa 1970), and how shocked he was about the fit to something classified they were working on. "Where did you read that? tell me, because we need to withdraw that paper from print?" I laughed, but mostly forgot about it until this week. 

My neighbor did rightly notice some bias and spin games in the BBC video, but I can filter such things..

8, About That Qi Question I Started With This Week

 In my view, qi is a set of things. It refers to the physical channel by which soul or noosphere acts on mundane matter made of electrons, protons, neutrons and electromagnetism (including our bodies). However "qi" (as used for millennia in Chinese culture) also refers to flows of what Freud called "psychic energy" within the nervous system of the noosphere itself. 

I started this post with a question, not an answer.

Even in a history of 4.5 billion years, there can be decisive times of transition. So was the great oxygen event of 2.5 billion years ago ONE such transition time for our local noosphere, and could it be that we may be approaching or trying to create/survive ANOTHER such transition of that same noosphere, of which we are part?

Yesterday, I saw another episode of Hazen's video course which clarified that history, and raised more questions. The transition 2.5 billion years ago was dramatic and important, preceded by changes in the life which caused it and followed by changes in geology. (I will always remember his picture of giant streaks of hematite and magnetite in the ricks, after the transition. That same hematite and magnetite are what we see in our blood, as it carries and releases oxygen!) But I will need to try to read his book today, for clarity.

Could it be that the deep human spiritual culture evolution of our recent past is more like the "boring billion" he talks about, from 1.8 billion to 0.8 billion years ago, when there was already SOME free oxygen in the atmosphere (but only 1 to 2%), just as qi ALREADY affects human life and culture to some small degree? (Like through all the religions of earth?) A lot did change through those years, but what was the SPECIFIC change 2.6 to 2.5 billion years ago which created the big jump from 0 to 1 or 2%? On the other hand, could the possible changes in our deployment of qi be like that other transition I read about next, whet ended the boring billion, another jump up?

The larger process was somehow evolved in a much larger stage, to go as quickly as possible in a way, but it takes time. People who study developmental psychology know well that major discrete changes can happen, but still take time, because of all the elements which need to be connected and aligned. Still, it does contain moments when connections are made, to dramatic effect.

Announcing TQuA (true quantum annealing): A more advanced type of quantum technology important to preventing human extinction

 This post announces a new type of quantum computing, which I call true Quantum Annealing (QuA), which offers potential capablties far beyond what is possible with the universal Quantum Turing Machine (QTM), the kind of quantum computing used in almost all quantum computing work in the US today. (Though other nations are less tightly managed that way.) 

One possible benefit is a vast enhancement in our ability to detect backdoors in chips we import, like the backdoors which recently led to a huge leak of US information like the entire OPM database. But there are many other possible benefits, as we discussed recently...

This post begins with my initial statement, followed by a quick clarification of physics assumption, then by hardware and application details, finally with WHY this is importat to human survival, in my view. 

================================

Initial post:

Serious mystics, from Deepak Chopra to the Order of Pythagoras, keep telling us we need to work hard on positive thinking. But the current flow of news makes it ever harder to envision how the human species might survive in the end. Even if we focus on just the leading two of the "existential threats" ( the most fatal type of climate change and of emerging problems linked to new internet technology, 

(1)  Climate extinction, the real risk and low cost ways to stop it

http://ww.werbos.com/climate_extinction_risk_and_solutions.htm

(2)  Sustainable Intelligent Internet (SII), How to prevent a fast coming disaster which toadys’s regulat8nb strategies alone are only making worse ),

http://ww.werbos.com/How_to%20Build_Past_Emerging_Internet_Chaos.htm

things kappen every day now which make the POSSIBILITY of survival seem very far fetched, if we face up to all of what is happening. For example, just yesterday I heard what Biden's new recovery bill is supposed to do for climate\ and it isn't what I would call paying attention to the science. It smells more like a tribe of war heelers praying to science but making sure reality is kept far, far away... What good are good intentions if their net benefit is zero or worse? (The link above on climate points to some clues, but they need more.)

If they can't even learn and face up to a challenge so open and clear as this climate challenge, what hope is there for them on the internet side, which really requires very difficult real science? By the way, true Quantum Annealing (QuA) is a crucial part of exactly that science and technology, as I will explain.

Why would you even waste energy in playing a game where the probability of survival is near zero in the end? Ah, but what if you were guaranteed millions of replays, such that every time hou fail, you can go back and do it all again and get it right, and remember and exploit every PREVIOUS time you tried? What if you were playing a game where the natural, classical probability of survival is one in a hundred, BUT with QuA you get to play it  millions of times if need be, until you get it right? If you believe or are capable of QuA, you are nearly guaranteed to survive, even in a  game which appears hopeless under normal rule. 

So here is my claim: we ARE playing a game of survival in a cosmos ruled by quantum physics. We CAN do quantum annealing in PSI. There is also a promising R&D pathway to being able to do it in engineering, in design of the next generation intelligent internet. Furthermore, that theoretical sounding thermodynamics I discussed in my last post is exactly what we can use to understand and do this. 

Atter all, it comes from Von Neumann... as does the modern Turing machine, game theory and a lot of quantum theory. 

I have been holding back a bit in explaining this because it is basically SO easy, once one understands the principles (as easy as E=mc"2), and it has such huge implications for the national security of big nations now in a risky and unstable balance already. 

The link on Sustainable Intelligent Internet (SII) at the top of this post includes links to short, light overviews at the bottom on Quantum Information Science and Technology (QuIST), a term used in the past by the interagency Quantum information Science Coordinating Group (QISCOG), on which I was once the NSF representative before my retirement. One of those links gives an overview of five stages of QuIST technology. The first is David Deutsch's great universal quantum Turing machine, the brilliant but limited design which is the basis for almost everything you read these days in the US on quantum computing. The third is Quantum Annealing (QuA), which is very much an entry point to later and more powerful systems. (Claim: the brain of our noosphere utilizes this level of capability. Just as mammal brains have basic powers beyond that of a fish, the noosphere has qualitative capabilities beyond the mundane human brain. Working WITH the noosphere, to save it from us, is absolutely crucial to our own chances of survival.)

But: MY CONCEPT of true Quantum Annealing (QuA) turns out to be very different from the RELATED but weaker conceot in the present literature on Quantum Annealing. 

More precisely: a Basic Quantum Annealing (BQuA) box would include: (1) an array of N "flux qubits", N binary processing elements, call them u(i) as i = t to N; (2) a simple standard "Ising type" Hamiltonian, H, such that the wave function psi( the vector u) evolves according to a term linear in u and a term of the g=form Hij*ui*uj, where the USER gets to specify the coupling constants Hij; (3) a way to initialize the u at a start time t0; (4) read out and coupling to the external world.

BUT THIS concept of BQuA includes BOTH the version of quantum annealing which is now common in the literature? (e.g. the vast literature available for the company D Wave,

 A numerical implementation of" quantum annealing"

B Apolloni, D De Falco, N Cesa-Bianchi - 1988 - cds.cern.ch), AND a useful special case of what I call true Quantum Annealing, what I assumed in my review.

I was shocked to learn that THEIR variant of BQuA is not a true quantum computer at all, but that it is very straightforward how to modify that kind of design to produce a BQuA box which IS a true quantum computer, and permits a wide range of important capabilities. For example, one can hook it up so as to probe for backdoors in chips one buys from risky sources, like the hardware backdoors which recently led to the biggest, most harmful compromise of US government data systems like the OPM personnel database. 

I was indeed stunned to learn that the DWave community and its followers have not yet figured out the simple things needed to make it work as I expected it to work. 

In essence, the DQuA (what they do) starts from a user-chosen vector u, and orbits AROUND the space of possible values for the vector u, hoping to use quantum tunneling to get from regions of low energy H to regions where some states have lower energy. (Yes, they have lots of details.) They use "annealing" by assuming a COUPLING constant multiplying the term for interactions across bits, and dialing the coupling up or down. It sounds like an electron IN ONE state, tunneling at times to get to a better state.

But true quantum computers, like Deutsch's universal quantum Turing machine, isn't like that. A true quantum computer is based on QUANTUM SUPERPOSITION, like the ortinal Schrodinger cat. Deutsch, a major developer of the multiverse idea, described it as a kind of parallel computer, harnessing the power of parallel universes to perform different computations IN PARALLEL , and pick out what you choose in the end. How many parallel universes? Well, with 20 qubits (Q=20), it is slightly more than  2"20 universes in parallel, a million. BOTTOM LINE: there are lots of working Deutsch style quantum computers working out there now, some with many more than 20 qubits. thisis not science fiction. This is today's working technology. (You may ask what good it is, but that's another subject.)

A true QuA box should be able to manage Q real qubits, not just "flux qubits" which may or may not be real qubits, in parallel. Thus a classical simulated annealing or stochastic search  box should be able to find good values of a vector u, to minimize some function H, but a true QuA box should be able to search through a million times as many possibilities if Q is 20. 

How could such a thing be possible?

To begin with, the hardware to implement u should be the kind of hardware which is used to hold qubits in Deutsch style quantum computing. I can think of four good candidates. D-Wave uses something SIMILAR to one of the four -- the SQUID, first used in Maryland for quantum computing and widely used in China under Pan Jianwei. But D=Wave's is only similar; they set it up in a way which leads to far more noise than necessary, but that is not the main problem.

The main problem is that they don't seem to understand what ANNEALING is, what any real condensed matter physicist would know. (I have cited Chaikin and Lubensky many times here.) 

One major ADVANTAGE of true QuA over quantum Turing machines is that decoherence is not a problem, in principle; losing information through noise is not a problem, when we don't want to perpetuate initial condition information anyway. 

BUT: in true annealing, COUPLING TO THE ENVIRONMENT TO SHED HEAT is the essence of how the system state u goes to minimum energy. It is not about adjusting coupling coefficients, but about shedding energy to the environment. If one can do that, thermodynamics is what does the selection.

But this discussion leaves out one more crucial aspect of any optimization system. How does one define what is to be optimized, what the user WANTS the system to accomplish?

There are three possibilities. The easiest to implement is ENDOGENOUS SCORING, where the user's goal is simply encoded into the coupling coefficients Hij, and that's it. A quadratic optimization system. A fancy quadratic program? 

Of course, that can be done ITERATIVELY, where an optimum is calculated, evaluated against more complete nonlinear standards, and the optimization problem revised, until the user is happy. D=Wave certainly has worked hard to develop that kind of interface

Second choice is INTERNAL COUPLED SCORING, where

a process inside the big computer system scores each possible u, and the overall score is fed back to the QuA box, perhaps to a set of power utility input bits. In truth, new papers are needed spelling out how the thermodynamics of this works. 

Third is Quantum Annealing of Things, which is essentially the same except that the scoring system need not be a computer program but may be an external object, like a chip to be assessed. A macroscopic Schrodinger cat. 

==================================================================

ASUMED PHYSICS:

addendum> What if you don't believe we really live in a multiverse? 

In fact, I do not believe the usual psi dot = i H psi view of the deepest level of physics. But it works well enough for THIS kind of QED

type technology.  But WE are certainly macroscopic Schrodinger cats, like then photon statesdepicted in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327164414_

=========================================================

SOME DETAILS:

Thanks, Shiva!

Since you have a rea; interest in these issues, I should add a few details/

I NOW see the importance of the three stage approach to developing and building real QuA technology (which complements PSI efforts). But even stage 1 requires considering WHICH ACTUAL hardware platforms to use. I would claim that a rational program would not choose just one, but should juggle what can be learned from FOUR parallel coordinated efforts learning form each other.

These would be:

(1) true QuA based on quantum optics platforms (also used in some QTM work)

(2) SQUID platform, which D-Wave uses, but more like what TM uses

(3) Massive quantum dot arrays, like Samsung TVs with billions of optical processing elements in a square meter or less

(4) High frequency electronic systems, like what is used in GHZ electronics for cell phones

Developing better component models is VERY crucial to better design capability.  Yeshua is closer to some of the experiments needed to get better component models than I am, but the link to Werbos and Fleury at ResesrchGate also has crucial information. 

how could you and I be macroscopic Schrodinger cats if the cosmos MIGHT only be 4D underneath? It seems our states are like the photon states in that paper. But for now, the Deutsch physics are good enough, in most respects. The thermodynamics pf the interface are a trcicky issue, to be resolved by empirical work in the end. 

=========================================

WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT TO HUMAN SURVIVAL:

hanks, John, for focusing more attention on this important question: HOW and WHY would the development of QuA technology reduce the probability of human extinction? I tried to cover MANY important points in that long and complex point, but this one is the bottom line.

In fact, I spent weeks pondering that question beforeI decided to post these details. WOULD the open, transparent development of all three stages of QuA technology really help with human survival, or hurt, on balance? There are actually many pros and cons; new technologies often cause more harm than good. 

For me, the decisive reason is as follows:

AT PRESENT, the development of the global internet appears to be moving into directions which really do threaten the extinction of the human species, even more than the worst forms of climate change do, even sooner, in my view, based on lots and lots of information about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), Internet of Things (IOT), and movement of the world economy to internet based control systems. IT IS POSSIBLE to design internet platforms in a way which prevents such risks (see http://ww.werbos.com/How_to%20Build_Past_Emerging_Internet_Chaos.htm ),

but the sheer inertia of a different approach seems overwhelming, for many reasons.

In a way, the key problem herte is  the relatin between work/human-life and economic production. The Millennium Project (www.themp.org) guided and integrated dozens of sudies of the future of work, across dozens of research nodes all over the world, and came to some pretty strong conclusions: due to "automation", new computer systems destroying jobs at a rate far greater than people expected in the past, the most "optimistic" scenario led to only 70% unemployment worldwide. Some would say: "What's so scary about that? If we just lose 2/3 of the world population, or create a new gig economy or government support for the unemployed, why would that change things?"

Several reasons why. For one thing, the experts in these studies simply did not know the full range of advanced "AGI" technologies already in the pipeline, already being deployed in advanced organizations a few of us have more direct access to. See the link above. There is a whole new spectrum of technologies, and there is NO JOB ON EARTH for which a human is absolutely necessary, if the most advanced technologies in process are used.

In fact, I had a key role in the initial development of the most relevant family of technologies, "RLADP", Reinforcement Learning and Approximate Dynamic Programming. (Again, the link says more. For even more information and evidence and the connections to brain, see https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzYEn42Vg7DKbFBhbm45ZFpubWM?usp=sharing.)

For the future of the internet, this is the key point: the global integrating RLADP math and designs which we already have in hand are designs which can manage the ENTIRE Internet of Things, basically the entire world, with NO HUMANS NEEDED. Humans have a lot to offer, in many ways, on many levels, BUT THE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND FLOOR ACTUALLY BUILDING THESE SYSTEMS, LED BY CHINA BUT GROWING ELSEWHERE TOO, ARE MOVING FAST AND ARE UNDER LITTLE PRESSURE TO FULLY UTILIZE AND SUPPORT THE HUMANS. Lots of OTHER people have been funded and empowered to do fuzzy papers on empowerment and regulations and human centered internet and what properties the new apps are morally required to have, BUT THOSE FOLKS DONT WRITE THE CODE, SPECIFY REAL CODE, OR CHANGE THE HORRIBLE OUTCOME IN PROCESS NOW. It is moving very fast.

One of the minor bits of news which hit me was the new set of rules for Hong Kong, enforced by the folks organizing cybercontrol in China in general. There is a new rule: rules and systems to encourage transparency in the running of corporations are now forbidden, prevented by the State. The "Communist" party which has a new rule that the controllers of corporations are absolute powers, such that workers and citizens and investors are allowed no information. Karl Schoeder's novel Stealing Worlds is quite realistic in portraying future corporations which can be TOTALLY cyber run.

So then who DOES need humans (aside from humans, and do we count/)? 

In fact, I have met people in positions of power in the cyber world who really DO expect and desire that no more "meat creatures" like humans should continue to waste energy by living on this planet. They have powerful allies in China and EU, to be sure. In fact, my direct personal awareness of those groups and their power was part of why I hesitated before making that post. 

BUT: here is a problem they are not aware of. They are using a very basic level of RLADP intelligence, no higher underneath than the intelligence of a fish, or maybe even a cockroach.

GIVEN enough power, even a vast network of cockroaches CAN take over a planet, but that does not give them the true foresight (let alone attunement to our noosphere) to handle a wide variety of fatal challenges. I am reminded of the trilobytes, who proliferated ever so widely on a certain path... and then because of the weakness of that path, all died. If we start to depend (much faster than we think, much more than we think, as the new Chinese plans show) on the kind of RLADP or even lower systemsmoving every so fast, its weakness plus our dependency threatens our very existence. And in truth, that is the set of paths to extinction which worry me the most right now.

I am tempted to say more. There are other important challenges and important requirements for survival, and other benefits of true QuA. (I mentioned how QuATh, stage 3, quantum annealing of things, can detect backdoors in imported chips. But it could also vastly amplify the information throughput of the Breakthrough Initiative SETI project. And... other apps.) 

Unfortunately, I worry that the balance of emotions and of power in China right now may prevent the kind of international collaboration, like the SII proposal for the new UN Office of existential Risks, which would have some hope of making this happen in a smooth way.

If, as some in China and Russia propose, there is a more complete decoupling of their economy/system and the West, with human-centered SII developed in the west while China and Russia follow the single actor RLADP path to human annihilation, internet decoupling might in fact give us a chance to survive even as the internal contradictions of their own new system destroys them. I hope it does not go that way. But total extinction of all of us would be worth.

QuA is one of several key elements to make the SII path.. more possible. If the noosphere is smart enough, it might help.

=========================================================================

Stan Klein of Berkeley finally asked:

--------The issues you are raising are super, super important. Is there some organization or group that is working on that problem?  There surely are many others who are worried about that, but for some reason I'm not aware of them. 

Yes, this is the bottom line. true QuA as defned here is a research area, with short term and long-term risky aspects. NO ONE has followed THIS approach, prior to its being posted here on the web! But of course D Wave has lots of important connections, as do the many links at www.werbos,com. 

Above all, THIS MONTH the best hope has been an effort led by Jerry Glenn of www.millennium-project.org to support the creation of a new Office of Existential Threats in UN HQ in NY, under the Security Council. Through the Millennium Project and other media, I have proposed some  crucial details of ow to do this: (1) DO include the division aimed at the precautionary principle, to assess and strategize how to prevent extinction of the human species by the worst forms of climate change; (2) ALSO include a sister division to study and strategize Sustainable Intelligent Internet, which requires many components, including a Quantum Information Science and Technology (QuIST) component, to include QuA as one of many topics;

(3) to prepare (2), support Jerry's call for people to contact their nation's representatives in the General Assembly to support an initial feasibility study, to combine and link not only the usual kind of policy studies MP has supported in the past, but also to connect to groups like the new MST intelligent systems research consortium, IEEE journals interested in focused new special issues, and industry-based discussion groups, to make SII possible not only in law but in technology. 

=========================

My worries about current trends in China are based in part on papers I have read by Yan XueTong of

Tsinghua, which represent a new ideological synthesis similar in spirit to that of Zhu Xi of about 1000AD, a version of Confucianism well-tuned to unify feudal overlords and military, getting rid of the deeper qi and spirit connections from Meng Tzu. The "millionaire's club" and the military support a new program, which is the exact opposite of what Mao rightly fought for when confronted with something very stifling and dangerous and narrow. There are natural myopic economic forces which support that knd of coalition and filters, but natural forces also led the trilobytes to extinction. Xi himself has at times seen further, but does his understandable disrespect for the blind spots of other people strengthen his own blind spots to a fatal degree? I hope not, but there is now great grounds for worry. 

Anotherf Hard Medical Step: MUST give up

 

Yesterday, a visit with my new doctor demonstrated: first I MUST totally give up what you see in this picture. I have passed one more clear and gigantic milestone on the road to inevitable death from .Lately, I have thought of this as "Death on the Installment Plan" (DOIP). It is like an old car, where one part fails after another, and each major failure demands a CHANGE; what made sense before that is not the same as what makes sense after, This time, it was A1C level, as in Type II diabetes, though bas cholesterol and sugar levels combine enough to demand I pay attention. "If you ke the right mesimple measures now, your cha nces of heart attack in the next teb years drop to 16%, but now it is 40%."

This was NOT my first encounter with DOIP. About 20 years ago, walking down Old Rag Moungtain, I had sudden extreme pains in my knees. They were so bad it felt I could not come down from that moungtain, but I had no choice. That rtime, I learned fast. I read how aging hits a point where the body no longer produces enough of its own glucosamine to protect the joints. I learned exactly how to use simple pills (easy and cheap at Costco) plus a well considered exercise regime to stop the prblem. I did, simply stop it. All is well now. But it took effort, and I still get a few warning pains in kn ees and back, even feet, which I know how to respon to.

  But this new one... ... I don't yet know. I DO know I need to be quite struct and simple now about the Irish  Cream and ice cream. Does God want me to turn into a Mormon in my old age? We will see. But I only started to use Irish Cream in the evenings after it appeared at Costco, and I noticed, in this covid period. Couold IT be why my a1C, formerly not an issue, rose to 7.5? But I already noticed that late night Irish Cream did correlate with some kind of bad feeling in the circulatory system, and noq there is a clear explanation for why. Sadly, it applies also to the ice cream I was starting gto eat at night as an algternagtive to Irish C ream. Bot clearly max ut fat and sugar, at a bad time;there is no excuse to agonize over them, when I can simply ditch them, and the try to agonize over what else I shoulkd changd.

Could it be that new high sugar and A1C could help explain why my eyes seem a lot weaker for the same few weeks? Will all get better after I make massive reworking of diet and types of exercise? I hope. Much I have to learn. 

Of course, I always knew that people have lots of extreme diet theories about blood sugar. Maybe it was fine that I imostly ignored them, when I had a btter ability to metabolize that higher sugar. His metabolism was a great thing in many ways, but.. death on installment plan. Now must change.

The popular diets are so contradictory and illogical that I don;tknow what to do now. If all calories except meat/protein are bad.. well, we remmeber Ben Franklin and ketones. No obvious right way. Linus Pualing? No night time snacks at all, like the Jian, rigid rules about WHEN to eat? And yes, lots more of the dier I sometimes used... yogurt with fruit, and some herring, in the morning. 

Doctor says I should not be horrified by lipitor.

I remember how 23andme records genetic DIFFERENCES in what is good for different people to eat. Fine, I was differet,  but I doub t my genes have change this year. So how to genes and aging crosshatch? What of Richard Hood's whole bosy modeling?

So much to learn And somuch restriction on what I can do, like this, when eyes are weaker and computers are doing strange things. 

BUT: A few weeks ago, I resolved: DONT think of it as death on the installment plan. Thinnk of it as Duality on the Installment Plan. Truly, as my body grows weaker and older, the powers of my soul are also growing. More and more, I think of a poem my sister lived when she was little, including: "Am I Li Po sometimes dreaming of being a  butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming now he is Li Po?" Truly it is both (albeit a different flying soul). And mmore and more, the soul part grows as the other part shrinks But both parts demand exercise and connection.. 

What to do AFTER covid vaccination, lessons learned

 

I have often recalled the old saying "The sight of the gallows has a remarkable power to focus the mind." Even though I often remember that saying, I can still be surprised when MY mind encounters a physical direct issue. Today, fortunately, it was a good issue -- what to do AFTER I finally got a covid vaccination (Pfizer, yesterday).

One of my local friends (who handled covid related proposals to NSF before her retirement) also got vaccinated yesterday, and warned me:

Paul,

Absolutely no acting "normal" for at least 10 days after the 2nd shot when we should be 95% protected.

I have wondered: what IS the best way for us to act in the day and weeks right after the shot?

It all seemed pretty simple to me yesterday. They handed out lots of paper, which I took. Luda and I walked home, three miles, in sunny open air. After a slight change of clothes and washing hands, I sat down to read what they gave us. It didn't say much we hadn't seen already, except for giving us a CDC web site to get their latest information on the Pfizer vaccine.

It was reassuring to look through the list of about ten possible side effects to watch for, most of which were already impossible for me after the three mile walk. But what about "fatigue"? That one reminded me of how people can construct all kinds of fables in their mind, like the hysteria Freud treated in his first real money making work. But I really did feel tired, maybe because of the walk but maybe more because of the vaccination?

It seemed pretty obvious what I should do. If my body said to rest, I should rest. This is a very special day, a bit like Easter, a special time. If my mitochondria have a whole lot of reconstruction work to do, I shouldn't be like one of those crude dumb bosses who gets in the way of the folks doing the work. 

BUT HOW LONG SHOULD I REST? How long do the mitochondria take to respond to the new signal from the messenger RNA injected yesterday? If it's "near instant" (a day? three days?),

why wait three weeks and ten days, as you suggest, based on what medical people seem to be saying? (The papers they handed us certainly did not say, but they did encourage us to stay alert for that kind of time period.) 

Luda suggested a picture... maybe it is only a day or three for the mitochondria to start pumping out proteins which REPRESENT proteins that might threaten the cell spikes where covid enters. So maybe the three weeks plus two weeks is all about the good old IMMUNE system learning ITS response, as it would be with a more traditional type of vaccine. So after the first one to three days (?), are we simply called to help our ordinary immune systems somehow?

We talked a lot before about MODELS of covid processes, but I don't remember the kind of model which would really sharpen or clarify what WE should be doing ourselves in this period!

In old times, when my goal was to help my immune system kill off a virus, I would take antiviral tea, rest, and make sure I had the right moderate level of food, enough to feed the immune system but not overwork the digestive system. Showers, mouthwash, fresh air... whatever moderate degree.

But Luda has told me that the SECOND SHOT is needed because the immune system may find it TOO EASY to kill off the simulated bad protein, and thus NOT LEARN what it needs to learn.

The goal is NOT to destroy the simulated protein as soon as possible, but to LEARN. So we are called to prolong and strengthen the learning process, not to make it easy. (That reminds me of what teachers and education systems have to do, and what some folks say God does with US.) 

So now, today, should I plan to act more normal than I was planning to yesterday, when I thought about rest?

Not entirely. After all, I do not want to weaken or distract my immune system from learning

the lessons right in front of it TODAY. 

And what about those mitochondria? This will not be the last we hear about THEM!!!!

=============

Three weeks ago, when we last walked miles for a covid vaccine (not administered, managed in a more chaotic place), I was DEEPLY disappointed. In the early morning in bed, the time I trust most, I had built up a vision of that day being like a personal Easter, to go from vaccine to walk to deep rest. It failed so badly, and disillusioned me! But yesterday was a  lot like what I had envisioned that other time, more like Easter than any day back then could be -- birdsong, flutes, sunlight in many directions, great breezes and pleasant nature smell, mostly a walk through forest by Four Mile Run (a stream used by George Washington in old times). So the loss was only a normal, necessary time delay.

In addition to covid, quantum annealing and UN response to "existential threats" (from climate change to Terminators) also created thoughts and impressions in the early morning today. But I will try NOT to distract my immune system by overdoing it today. While my immune system does its thing, my brain and soul will lightly dream about what it might mean to "herd cats" when they sound like 10**300 big Schrodinger type cats, remembering and smiling down on all the mitochondria below. 

Best regards,

HOW New Internet Technology Could Do Much More for Climate

Many people have told us that more and better use of new internet technology could have massive benefits in preventing climate extinction, at much lower costs than some of the giant Christmas tree climate proposals we have seen.

That is absolutely true, and it is a matter of life or death, but it is not happening because of institutional problems.

When I worked at NSF, I got to see how those kinds of problems can work, first hand. For example… to really prevent climate extinction, I have argued for a 5 point approach, where point one is reduced net CO2 from making electricity. I have seen how RD&D money can be wasted in that area, and also how it can be massively transformative. 

SOME funding agents would look for those projects which can help, which have the lowest level of risk. Some would focus on the big targets for how AI could make the maximum contribution, regardless of risk. Our big problem today is the diversion of funding to less relevant, lower risk projects where the AI people don’t have to learn much new, as if they were auditioning for jobs as janitors, but the core needs of climate change are not addressed as well as they could be, by orders of magnitude.

This kind of problem came to me very vividly in 1993 or 1994, when I was a reviewer for the interagency defense conversion research program:

SR-1994-Defense-Conversion-Transition-and-the-Industrial-Base-Report-of-the-1993-AUSA-ADPA-Joint-Panels.pdf. The people who built that program created a list of review criteria to use in deciding which offer to fund. In that program, I once saw a choice between two offers:

(A(A)  A near certain min, delivering $1 million worth of net new benefits

(B(B )  A 50% serious but risk program, worth billions if it succeeded

The review criteria we were given strongly favored A. Most workers would strongly prefer A, which would give them secure income and a secure future. Many bottom up efforts reflect those preferences for A. (This reminds me of Schumpeter's prediction about how hard it would be for the US to maintain the spirit of honorable competition in general, so essential to growth in productivity.)

I have seen many massive consortia funding stuff like AI for good, to help with climate change and such, and most of the people end up in type A consortia. I did see one great group in Canada, with leadership from Michael Barnard, which focuses on what we really need to solve the real, important climate problems, but big public funding and attention is mainly on other activities which become like Christmas Tree programs.

There are a few big flagship programs in special places, like Dubai, where one on one personal connections do focus on big goals, but without the kind of general competition we need to mobilize the whole range of the best technology we need.

What WOULD work?

After I ran the NSF electric power area for a few years (mainly 2010-2014), I summarized what we really learned, what would really work, in a paper jointly funded by power people in France, Chile and Brazil: www.werbos.com/E/GridIOT.pdf .

Above all, project selection was open and competitive, and the criteria were well focused on the goals. Maximum serious potential benefit to what really matters was operationalized. I even remember part of instructing review panels: “Do not focus on what the worst case risk to the project is. [Worse case risk to earth climate is a very different kind of risk, since we only have one earth.] For each project, ask how big the loss might be if we don’t fund it, if it would have succeeded.”

The strange thing is, I learned at NSF that the projects which SOUND like low risk are usually MORE likely to fail, to end up as a waste of money. That is because they take approaches others have already tried, and do not invoke the kinds of new directions necessary to a big change.

So which do you want to buy: one big antiquated flagship, 1000 janitors, or 100 tough pioneers of whom 50 (or even just 10) produce something which totally changes the game? With climate, we KNOW where real game changers ARE doable, but we need a radical change in funding cultures to actually make it happen.

Until about 2013, when Lamar Smith began his remaking of NSF, NSF was maybe 25% efficient in doing this kind of stuff, which made it the number one wonder of the world for what it did. Proposals to totally avoid risk in NSF itself would have led to 0% productivity, through uniform type B funding or flagships by friends/graft. Where it will go now, post Smith, is hard to predict, but the world needs something like the classic NSF to do better on worst case climate risk. That included many elements which need to be reinvented, starting with Vannevar Bush’s initial manifesto and updated with new computer systems.

And, of course, never ever to forget the larger goals.

Scientific Holistic Healing and Who You Are

There are many very important basic facts of life which many of us learn bit by bit, and take for granted too much. The slide here is one of them.Many of us know people who need healing, and after 70 almost all of us need more and better healing ourselves, whether we like it or not. And who is the “I” who needs healing? That is important too. HOLISTIC HEALING is the important idea that we each are a whole system (an open system connected to the rest of life and the cosmos), and that the best results come from considering the whole system and the many interactions between its parts. SCIENTIFIC HOLISTIC HEALING is when we make full use of science, combining both the first person scientific approach and the best of third person objective science and medicine. (This is a case of what I call “first order sanity” in the first of my 2019 publications I link to at Werbos.com/religions.htm.)  In a way, our results are only as good as our understanding of how this system really works, and I have spent ever so many years on that, and on connecting it to the many conditions I have run across through the years.I have already written ever so much about the box on top and the box on the lower middle. But what of the links between THOSE two boxes, for healing? I can only mention a few things this morning, when other duties call. For example – I was ever so grateful when Arlington County, in its initial response to covid lockdown, offered three free classes we took in the open air, two on tai qi and one practicing art. Simple mindfulness, connecting from above to below and back, and using awareness to make up for the horrible loss of balance and skill I had after a fall two years ago… But in the scientific understanding of the brain, the links to the left and the right are also ever so important. More later if I have time. Well.. one thought: I gave a talk yesterday (recorded at MST) on the most advanced new directions in understanding how brains really work. Freud and Pribram were major parts of it, and THEY did not neglect the role of hormones! Nor did Kamal Harris’ mother or several of the women very important to the solid science here. 

How music has aided my spiritual development

Early last night, I once again did use music in PSI, and saw ways others might. But just as new mathematics builds on foundations which are essential which not everyone knows about, I must start with background. Just as an example -- in 2009, I found myself sitting next to Klaus Nobel, in a fancy meal at a high ranking restaurant in DC. Klaus spoke about how he was the real force behind the "Nobel prize in Economics" which, he said, is not officially a real Novel Prize. but his real interest was on what I call PSI, the development and use of psychic or spiritual capabilities. I assured him that I was just as deep into that as he was, and that I have been working in my own way. He arched his eyebrow and was clearly skeptical I could really mean that. "IF so, and if your interest is real, what music do you use?" It is clear HE viewed that connection as fundamental. It reminded me of people who wrote about groups in Switzerland whoview mathematics, music and mysticism as entangled fields, which only reach full expression when working together. Now it reminds me of jung's Red Book, which discusses the importance of multiple modalities, not ONLY words. For me, I did not even BELIEVE in PSI until spring 1967. I forcibly rejected the possibility of PSI, for reasons I have repeated often enough. But I did not reject music. In one year of my life, when I was twelve, I lived with my mother, brother, sister and a beagle in a row house on Graver's Lane, in the Chetsnut Hill part of Philadelphia. In the same year, I commuted by train to the University of Pennsylvania, where I took the junior advanced calculus course under Professor Schub. That same year, I scraped up $100 to buy a used upright piano, which I used for the usual kinds of piano lessons. I felt some affection for Mr.Conkey, the music teacher in my school, who made sure we knew the standard music theory and heard lots of classical music. In his class, and on the radio, I heard a good amount of classical music, and echoed the disrespect we had for popular music of the time. It certainly was an activity consistent with the spirit of mathematics. I even "composed" a few things in little blue music score books; Mr. Conkey nodded his head in vacant approval, with a few suggestions, but no sign of greatness or such. For two years, 1962-1964, I attended a boarding school, the Lawrenceville School, which radically changed my understanding of music, in a way which set the stage for PSI. I did not listen to classical music much even on the radio there, but I often went to their music building, which had great pianos, and where I could even start improvising. As I put more of my real energy and feelings into it, it seemed to go somewhere, and I even remember a music teacher walking in and showing some real interest. More important, in the second year, I met "the other smartest kid in the class," a new kid from New York. Actually, late in the first year, I already went through a radical change in viewpoint. As I was taking Alonzo Church's graduate course in Princeton on mathematical logic, I gradually realised that pure deductive logic, no matter how perfect, simply doesn't provide enough basis to answer the basic questions of ethics and purpose which I had been interested in since I was 12. That was when I said: "Stop asking what you SHOULD do; ask what you WOULD do if you were wise. You need to better understand the "YOU" (the I)," which implies what I now call first order sanity, which calls for full openness to first person inputs. But did I realize it yet that year?? In my second year, that kid from New York loved to listen to Mahler, which I even listened to once in our school library. Yes, I had listened to a lot of music, but he said I was not REALLY listening. I needed to learn how to really feel the music inside me as I was listening. I needed to learn how to listen to and feel the whole thing. That turned out to be really important. In my three years as an undergraduate at Harvard, 1964 to 1967, I did not believe in PSI at all until spring 1967. But I did believe in classical music, and even in its value in strengthening my first order sanity, my full awareness of what was around me. (You might call it a kind of "mindfulness.") My parents bought me a stereo as I started school, and I bought a few albums of classical music, and listened hard for my whole time as undergraduate. Stravinsky, Prokoviev, Shostakovich, Bartok, Faure, maybe Bolero, a few others. I would rest back in a comfortable leather easy chair, and let the music totally roll over me, and fill me. And at times I used that as a prop as I prepared to concentrate hard on issues involving neural networks, economics, political systems, and other such things. In my second year, I even took a course from DeVore on primate behavior (to help me understand how brains work), where I saw the classic video by vanderPost (whose name I did not notice at the time) on the "Bushman dance," which I immediately understood as a key to where humans languages really come from. Music and dance BEFORE words, the foundation on which words are built. And so, I believe that these efforts were a crucial part of what CAUSED me to have the unsought-for dramatic PSI experience I have often written about, in the spring of 1967, which forced me to reconsider PSI quite seriously. I describe that already in the published, open papers I link to at www.werbos.com/religions.htm, and in what they cite for more detail. Serious interest in US-China relations and interest in observing how things work in my brain were other crucial elements. In my last year there, 1966-1967, I also had access to a great piano in my house at Harvard, where I went back to improvising, and even discussion with serious musicians, whose art does have some resonance with PSI. In 1967-1968, at LSE, my main access to music was hearing OTHER people's music, as in restaurants or the street, but then I did listen to popular music, and realize it is a window into minds around me. From 1967 to 1972 I had a series of experiences, mostly due to my experimentation, which moved me from <1% belief in PSI to >99%. In much later years, I did open myself to a 10% possibility that ALL psi experiences might be caused by a kind of Jungian synchronicity, caused by our cosmos implementing optimization equations which look a lot like an intelligent system in itself; however, as I looked more closely (in recent years, again), that dropped back down a lot. And so, in a post on "Higher states of Consciousnss", I noted how I put huge energy into the main practice I followed from 1972 to Christmas 1978. (I also posted a "poltergeist" story from that time describing the practice.) As I went to bed, I would listen to New Age music on radio or stereo or eight track tape, as part of mobilizing a kind of "qi" and trying various things. But when I went to work for US government at Christmas 1978, I simply could not afford to do that until I retired in 2015. In that time, I mostly dropped out of LEARNING AND EXERCISING Psi, except for the three limited phenomena I described in my post on higher consciousness. (Astral and assumption dreams, and "cosmic consciousness" as I woke in the morning.) Of course, I still OBSERVED popular music, even top 40, as a kind of source of data on what people are thinking. Only slowly have I begun to use music at times in that old way, step by step. In 2020, my wife hung a big flat TV in our bedroom, which I can reach by chromecast from a phone or tablet computer in bed. I found just two groups, Tangerine Dream and Renaissance, which I had used in 1972-1979 which I can get deeply, spiritually into now at night, helping me elevate my soul. Tangerine Dream came first, for several reasons; in a way, it connects to the "yang" side of my life, the sky-connected heavily mathematical side. I previously posted how I could use it to enhance connection with our noosphere, but in truth the sky is even bigger than that. Last night, Renaissance. In truth, I was reminded somehow of a clear song they sang in the early period, when I ALMOST married a woman from Chile. It was SO close that I tend to believe I DID marry her, in another strand of our multiverse. There was a book by Silverberg which described our relation in such detail, and its future, enough to make me worry, especially after a high-PSI person I knew well contacted me and gave me wranings which just happened to fit the book (which he had not read). There was a song by Renaissance back then which fit that strand (in a detailed, earthy, concrete veridical way, the kind of detail any sane PSI experimenter would insist on). And so, as I wonder agaon what strands of the multiverse we may connect with,,, I decided yesterday was overdue to locate their work. So I did. it was not so easy for me, using a phone for chromecast. On the phone, I found only two pieces, Scheherazade and Ashes are Burning. I got deep into a better recording of Scheherazade earlier this year, and it was serious and engaging enough, but I only needed to listen once. (More and more, I just replay by memory in my head.) I still value Scheherazade, which resonates IN PART with my relation with my wife and with the multiverse in general. (Last night,I had a strong impression that Kamala Harris should pay attention to a good recording, which resonates with the Vishnu/Lakshmi/Kamala story she must know about.) But I wanted to hear something more substantive about multiverse, and I knew from the 1970's that this specific group has some real PSI input in what they did. Ashes are Burning was serious, and I really wonder what THAT is saying. One response: in part, those are TRUMP'S ashes in play right now. It echoes that little phrase I heard during CC: "Manifest harder your core, but cleanse and purify your shadows and reflections." Could it be that OUR version of Donald Trump is being cleansed, or is this just a stage in the growth of the best Dondald Trump there is, even as that OTHER Trump who really took office for a second term is dissolved away in the multiverse, just as quantum computers throw out sequences which don't make it to the final show? Was there even some kind of backwards flow of information in this album? (It took other data points to make me consider this. Of course, I do not know, but I do wonder.) But I wondered about that girl from Chile. I hope the multiverse did not erase THAT album which I remember owning and listening to in the 1970s! I gave up on my phone, but a few hours later, rolled over in bed, connected my little samsung tab to our wifi, and used it to find more. I found Prologue, You can Understand, and one other by the same group. No Chilean girl, but much more interesting and PSI-related material. "You can understand" evoked the strongest memory and will and connection. And there was more. All on my yin side, perhaps, but not a restricted muddy kind of yin. And later, in CC, I found most of this written into my brain (bit by bit, a kind of joint venture), along with at least four other homework assignments. And some deeper understanding of what I had heard.