RE: virus: TT

Tadeusz Niwinski (
Sun, 03 Nov 1996 18:16:49 -0800

On Fri, 01 Nov 96 Vicki wrote:
>Vicki, trying to get the basics agreed on before we draw
>conclusions from them

This is exactly my intension.

>I have a hunch that this switch between "reality" and
>"objective reality" may be like the proof that unicorns
>exist that starts by saying that surely an "existing unicorn"
>is a harder condition to prove, then swaps the wording
>around to claim that an "existing unicorn" must, by definition,

I do not intend to trick anybody into anything. Honestly!
(And I don't just mean a mere "distinction meme" here).
After being compared to a Level-1 chimp eating a textbook,
I don't blame you for being suspicious!

>I'm also not convinced by Tad's points about evolution: they
>suggest that evolution has a single goal.

I wouldn't say evolution has a "goal".

>Bear in mind that recent studies suggest that an absolute
>majority of Earth's biomass is bacteria.

Good point. And mitochondria are even more fascinating.
Originally they were free-living bacteria. They "took up
residence" in larger cells. In "River out of Eden" Richard Dawkins
describes it this way:

"Each one of us is a community of a hundred million million
mutually dependent eukaryotic cells. Each one of those cells is a
community of thousands of specially-tamed bacteria, entirely
enclosed within the cell, where they multiply as bacteria will."

The world we live in is fascinating. Evolution is fascinating.
All I wanted to say is that there is "something" driving evolution
(most likely without a goal). I used evolution hoping it was a
good example for people on this list. I said: "TT is the property
of objective reality which drives the evolution". When I think
about it, it is more basic:

TT is the property of objective reality which drives the Universe.

(Including evolution).

>I think we all agree that _something_ exists: even dedicated
>solipsists believe in their own existence.

We don't even have to agree. We can assume that Objective Reality
exists -- and see what the consequences are. We can also assume
that it doesn't and start a new "Objective reality does not exist"
thread -- maybe later... So, the following is based on the
assumption: "If the Objective Reality exists then..."

This Objective Reality has some properties. I am specifically
interested in one of them (maybe the only one): TT. The reason I
use a new name "TT" for it is to avoid arguments on how it relates
to everybody's different understanding of known words.

Please be with me. You are free to choose what you believe in and
what you don't -- as long as you are true to yourself (and not use
so-called "Level-3 arguments" that you don't believe in believing).
BTW: this is a Level-2 discussion, and all High Masters in order to
participate are kindly requested to come down to Level-2.

TT is the property of Objective Reality. To believe in TT means to
believe that the Universe behaves according to certain rules. All
scientists use TT as their basic assumption. They say, for
example, that Nature is not capricious. There are rules we can
count on (when we enter an air-plane, for example).

Believing in TT and finding more Nature's laws is often resisted:
from burning a person at the stake to accusing of taking away the
beauty of life (to comparing to level-1 chimps...). As Richard
Feynman said (thank you Hakeeb for the wonderful quotes):

"Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars -- mere
gobs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere." I too can see the stars on a
desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The
vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination -- stuck on this
carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast
pattern -- of which I am a part -- perhaps my stuff was belched
from some forgotten star, as one is belching there."

Here is my point. There are different ways we can approach TT (as
different people do):

1. Don't think of it at all (N = No).
2. Think of it (Y = Yes) and:
2.1 believe it (YY) and
2.1.1 encourage others to believe it (YYY)
2.1.2 discourage others as if we did not believe it (YYN).
2.2 do not believe it (YN).

In Cohesive Math:
(1) Thinking of it is 4.
(2) Believing is 2.
(3) Encourage others is 1.

This way we have distinguished 4 different approaches:

1) N (0 to 3 in CM)
2) YYY (7 in CM)
3) YYN (6 in CM)
4) YN (4 and 5 in CM)

You can decide which group you are in, but you can not be in more
than one (remember, this is a Level-2, no magic discussion).

Most people on Earth (I think) are in group N. They do not think
much of TT. They live their lives and die without even a slightest
idea about TT.

Obviously if you are reading it, you have already thought about it
(memetically speaking: you have been infected with that meme, or
poetically speaking: you have eaten the apple from the tree of

Let me talk about the YN group first. These people do not believe
in TT. They think "anything can happen", the world for them is
contradictory, bewildering, unknowable. They "spend" their lives
rather than "live" them. They usually do things because they
"have to". They like to convince others that TT is just a myth so
they can feel better in their desperation.

Can you add to this description, please?

The YYY people (or CM-7) believe in TT. They know everything works
in this Universe according to certain rules. They love to learn
those rules. The world for them is rational, predictable, and
intelligible. Most scientists are CM-7. They are usually in awe
for the incredible consistency of the Universe and yet they
understand our limitations (quotes from Jason):

>Every time I measure the brightness of a star, I get a different
>answer and I can never say that one of those measurements was the
>"correct" one. However, I can calculate the standard deviation of
>the measurements from the mean and use this as an uncertainty. In
>other words, I can calculate the likelyhood that my mean
>measurement is within a certain range of the true value.

and humble:

>That's why you'll almost never hear me say "I'm sure of that" or
>"I know that this is true". I almost always use words like
>"probably" or "unlikely" or "almost always".

Who are the YYN or CM-6 people?

Any ideas?

Tad Niwinski from TeTa where people grow
There is no Absolute Truth, although we are getting closer and closer to IT.