From: nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Subspace communication for Star Fleet
Summary: Star Trek
Date: 24 Jan 93 02:28:23 GMT
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-

In article <C11Evw.95u@world.std.com>, kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) writes:
> You know, I used to fault "Star Trek: The Next Generation" for all those
> scenes where Geordi spouts implausible technobabble for several minutes
> straight, which can always be summarized as "Captain, I'm going to push
> this button to magically make everyone happy, so they've given me this
> long speech to distract you from the huge holes in the plot."
> 
> Then I learned to just lean back, kick up my heels, and have a good
> chuckle.
> 
> Mr. Sarfatti obviously is still in the stage where he takes Star Trek 
> seriously.  I did, too, when I was a screaming nerd in junior high
> school.  Clue: IT'S JUST A TV SHOW.  

     But now that you know everything you feel qualified to criticize Jack
and folks like him that venture into areas you're afraid to.  Let me guess,
instead of a screaming nerd in junior high, you're now a whining freshman?

     Anyway, insults aside, having dreamt of future events numerous times
that have come about exactly as I've dreamt them, I am convinced Jack is on
the right track.  I hate to see it when he threatens people he disagrees with
with a law suit because that doesn't strenthen his position, none-the-less,
various aspects of theories he has correlate to personal experience and so I
find them very interesting.  I do wish I had the background to follow the
math rather than being limited to just the non-mathematical abstracts but I've
only got myself to blame for that I suppose.

     The idea of the universe creating itself out of the future is an
interesting one and seems to be behind the act of creativity.  If you think of
it in very simple direct terms, anything you create didn't exist prior to it's
creation, but did in the future, and you, an active part of the universe took
part in it's creation out of the future.  Of coarse, you could also look at it
from a static point of view and suggest it always existed in the future, never
existed in the time frame prior to it's creation, and you merely moved into the
future.  But life, your frame of reference, and the universe are not static
and so I would suggest that a static frame of reference isn't the best frame of
reference for understanding the universe and our role in it.

     Sometimes a frame of reference, point of view, world view, is everything,
and I find the dynamic perspective much more interesting.  In the static, I
have no free-will, for I simply exist in the dimension of time, and so does
everything else.  I've created nothing, things merely exist starting at some
point in time.  My life means nothing, and we need a magical explanation for
creation, creativity, the unfolding of the universe.  But taken from the
dynamic perspective, I have free will, I create, my life is meaningful in that
it is part of the universe unfolding, and things happen less by "magic",
though more things become possible that might seem "magical", to someone with
a different perspective and resulting understanding.

     Jack, I do wish you would elaborate more on your ideas from a conceptual
standpoint for those without the heavy mathematical background, and I think it
would be interesting to explore more of the ramifications, the "God phone",
being an example.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech