{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5277", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 5277, "subject": "Science catches up to the New Sun", "messages": 32, "voices": 12, "first": "2008-12-13T00:03:18+00:00", "last": "2008-12-16T17:05:32+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<273409710812121603t299e1fa7ie7045e06c4a43bae@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Jordon Flato", "address": "jordonflato at gmail.com" }, "date": "2008-12-13T00:03:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time this theory has been bandied\nabout, but this sounds pretty much like the cosmology of the New Sun, except\nit's been posited as reality:\n\n\n\nMost cosmologists believe that our universe emerged from a singularity\nduring the Big Bang. But now physicists are exploring the possibility that\nour universe was created by the death of an earlier universe.\n\nMartin Bojowald and Abhat Ashtekar began researching their theory of loop\nquantum cosmology (LQC), an approach to cosmology that combine's Einstein's\ntheory of gravity with quantum mechanics. They have modeled the birth of our\nuniverse, exploring the mathematics of universe as it contracts back toward\nits point of origin.\n\nBojowald's major realisation was that unlike general relativity, the physics\nof LQC did not break down at the big bang. Cosmologists dread the\nsingularity because at this point gravity becomes infinite, along with the\ntemperature and density of the universe. As its equations cannot cope with\nsuch infinities, general relativity fails to describe what happens at the\nbig bang. Bojowald's work showed how to avoid the hated singularity, albeit\nmathematically. \"I was very impressed by it,\" says Ashtekar, \"and still am.\"\n\nThe researchers have found that when applying LQC, the universe does not\nrevert back to a singularity as it contracts. Instead of seeing a big bang,\nthe models indicate that the universe experienced a big bounce, with a\npredecessor universe contracting as it ended and then reemerging as our new,\nexpanding universe. If the theory proves correct, it could mean that our\nuniverse does not have a finite beginning and end but is, instead, part of a\nchain of universes that expand and then contract to give way to a brand new\nuniverse." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2008-12-13T00:15:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<273409710812121603t299e1fa7ie7045e06c4a43bae@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Of course, I'm far too much of a knucklehead to speak well about this theories potential veracity, but I've intuited this since I was a stoned 19 year old looking at Stephen Hawkings model where he has a big sphere with a big bang on one end and a big crunch on the other. I thought, \"NO NO NO, you' have to take either pole, bring them together in the middle until they are the same point. Then you've got the Donut or Bagel theory of the Universe, where the Big Bang is the Big Crunch, and the curves of the hole are event horizons.\n\nThen I saw this AMAZING lecture by Stan Tenen, called Geometric Metaphors for Life where he extracted the same basic theory out of a very strange reading of the Torah. Anyone know Stan Tenen? Meru Foundation. Very interesting stuff there. Hard for me to follow. there are some overview videos on youtube.\n\n\nhe's doing work with numbers and geometry, but it's not Kaballah, or Gematria.\nhe comes up with geometric models exrapolated from the letters, which describe a Torus, the shadows of which can depict every hebrew letter, and further extrapolates these Apple and Seed models that speak to this notion of Re-Genesis. Great stuff. Give it a look. trust me, incredibly interesting stuff, potentially VERY important. Sort of a voice in the wilderness.\n\nhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-208619888961779202&hl=en" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time this theory has been bandied\nabout, but this sounds pretty much like the cosmology of the New Sun, except\nit's been posited as reality:\n\n\n\nMost cosmologists believe that our universe emerged from a singularity\nduring the Big Bang. But now physicists are exploring the possibility that\nour universe was created by the death of an earlier universe.\n\nMartin Bojowald and Abhat Ashtekar began researching their theory of loop\nquantum cosmology (LQC), an approach to cosmology that combine's Einstein's\ntheory of gravity with quantum mechanics. They have modeled the birth of our\nuniverse, exploring the mathematics of universe as it contracts back toward\nits point of origin.\n\nBojowald's major realisation was that unlike general relativity, the physics\nof LQC did not break down at the big bang. Cosmologists dread the\nsingularity because at this point gravity becomes infinite, along with the\ntemperature and density of the universe. As its equations cannot cope with\nsuch infinities, general relativity fails to describe what happens at the\nbig bang. Bojowald's work showed how to avoid the hated singularity, albeit\nmathematically. \"I was very impressed by it,\" says Ashtekar, \"and still am.\"\n\nThe researchers have found that when applying LQC, the universe does not\nrevert back to a singularity as it contracts. Instead of seeing a big bang,\nthe models indicate that the universe experienced a big bounce, with a\npredecessor universe contracting as it ended and then reemerging as our new,\nexpanding universe. If the theory proves correct, it could mean that our\nuniverse does not have a finite beginning and end but is, instead, part of a\nchain of universes that expand and then contract to give way to a brand new\nuniverse." } ] }, { "message_id": "<93d4039f0812121621u2d3f090atb7c7582ae99434ea@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2008-12-13T00:21:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/12/08, Son of Witz wrote:\nOf course, I'm far too much of a knucklehead to speak well about this theories potential veracity, but I've intuited this since I was a stoned 19 year old looking at Stephen Hawkings model where he has a big sphere with a big bang on one end and a big crunch on the other. I thought, \"NO NO NO, you' have to take either pole, bring them together in the middle until they are the same point. Then you've got the Donut or Bagel theory of the Universe, where the Big Bang is the Big Crunch, and the curves of the hole are event horizons.\n\nThen I saw this AMAZING lecture by Stan Tenen, called Geometric Metaphors for Life where he extracted the same basic theory out of a very strange reading of the Torah. Anyone know Stan Tenen? Meru Foundation. Very interesting stuff there. Hard for me to follow. there are some overview videos on youtube.\n\n\nhe's doing work with numbers and geometry, but it's not Kaballah, or Gematria.\nhe comes up with geometric models exrapolated from the letters, which describe a Torus, the shadows of which can depict every hebrew letter, and further extrapolates these Apple and Seed models that speak to this notion of Re-Genesis. Great stuff. Give it a look. trust me, incredibly interesting stuff, potentially VERY important. Sort of a voice in the wilderness.\n\nhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-208619888961779202&hl=en" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, ok, but I still don't understand what Lilith has to do with\nanything, or why Shinji Ikari gets crucified on the Tree of Life. And\nwhat was the Human Instrumentality Project up to, anyway? I mean,\ntalk about bizarre.\n\n(This is my way of saying this stuff is way over my head.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time this theory has been bandied\nabout, but this sounds pretty much like the cosmology of the New Sun, except\nit's been posited as reality:\n\n\n\nMost cosmologists believe that our universe emerged from a singularity\nduring the Big Bang. But now physicists are exploring the possibility that\nour universe was created by the death of an earlier universe.\n\nMartin Bojowald and Abhat Ashtekar began researching their theory of loop\nquantum cosmology (LQC), an approach to cosmology that combine's Einstein's\ntheory of gravity with quantum mechanics. They have modeled the birth of our\nuniverse, exploring the mathematics of universe as it contracts back toward\nits point of origin.\n\nBojowald's major realisation was that unlike general relativity, the physics\nof LQC did not break down at the big bang. Cosmologists dread the\nsingularity because at this point gravity becomes infinite, along with the\ntemperature and density of the universe. As its equations cannot cope with\nsuch infinities, general relativity fails to describe what happens at the\nbig bang. Bojowald's work showed how to avoid the hated singularity, albeit\nmathematically. \"I was very impressed by it,\" says Ashtekar, \"and still am.\"\n\nThe researchers have found that when applying LQC, the universe does not\nrevert back to a singularity as it contracts. Instead of seeing a big bang,\nthe models indicate that the universe experienced a big bounce, with a\npredecessor universe contracting as it ended and then reemerging as our new,\nexpanding universe. If the theory proves correct, it could mean that our\nuniverse does not have a finite beginning and end but is, instead, part of a\nchain of universes that expand and then contract to give way to a brand new\nuniverse." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2008-12-13T00:30:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<93d4039f0812121621u2d3f090atb7c7582ae99434ea@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(This is my way of saying this stuff is way over my head.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Metaphysics is over ALL of our heads." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2008-12-13T00:35:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-208619888961779202&hl=en" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, ok, but I still don't understand what Lilith has to do with\nanything, or why Shinji Ikari gets crucified on the Tree of Life. And\nwhat was the Human Instrumentality Project up to, anyway? I mean,\ntalk about bizarre.\n\n(This is my way of saying this stuff is way over my head.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Seriously, watch the video. it's a very condensed overview. I find these findings edge-of-your-seat fascinating. It's science puncturing metaphysics and actually yielding results. I think it's relevant to the discussion." } ] }, { "message_id": "<50418.66.126.239.225.1229128738.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2008-12-13T00:38:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<273409710812121603t299e1fa7ie7045e06c4a43bae@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Big Bang is so Twentieth Century.\n\nSteady-state forever!\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time this theory has been bandied\nabout, but this sounds pretty much like the cosmology of the New Sun,\nexcept\nit's been posited as reality:\n\n\n\nMost cosmologists believe that our universe emerged from a singularity\nduring the Big Bang. But now physicists are exploring the possibility that\nour universe was created by the death of an earlier universe.\n\nMartin Bojowald and Abhat Ashtekar began researching their theory of loop\nquantum cosmology (LQC), an approach to cosmology that combine's\nEinstein's\ntheory of gravity with quantum mechanics. They have modeled the birth of\nour\nuniverse, exploring the mathematics of universe as it contracts back\ntoward\nits point of origin.\n\nBojowald's major realisation was that unlike general relativity, the\nphysics\nof LQC did not break down at the big bang. Cosmologists dread the\nsingularity because at this point gravity becomes infinite, along with the\ntemperature and density of the universe. As its equations cannot cope with\nsuch infinities, general relativity fails to describe what happens at the\nbig bang. Bojowald's work showed how to avoid the hated singularity,\nalbeit\nmathematically. \"I was very impressed by it,\" says Ashtekar, \"and still\nam.\"\n\nThe researchers have found that when applying LQC, the universe does not\nrevert back to a singularity as it contracts. Instead of seeing a big\nbang,\nthe models indicate that the universe experienced a big bounce, with a\npredecessor universe contracting as it ended and then reemerging as our\nnew,\nexpanding universe. If the theory proves correct, it could mean that our\nuniverse does not have a finite beginning and end but is, instead, part of\na\nchain of universes that expand and then contract to give way to a brand\nnew\nuniverse.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<50423.66.126.239.225.1229128813.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2008-12-13T00:40:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It could be contracting now if time ran backwards....\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Of course, I'm far too much of a knucklehead to speak well about this\ntheories potential veracity, but I've intuited this since I was a stoned\n19 year old looking at Stephen Hawkings model where he has a big sphere\nwith a big bang on one end and a big crunch on the other. I thought, \"NO\nNO NO, you' have to take either pole, bring them together in the middle\nuntil they are the same point. Then you've got the Donut or Bagel theory\nof the Universe, where the Big Bang is the Big Crunch, and the curves of\nthe hole are event horizons.\n\nThen I saw this AMAZING lecture by Stan Tenen, called Geometric Metaphors\nfor Life where he extracted the same basic theory out of a very strange\nreading of the Torah. Anyone know Stan Tenen? Meru Foundation. Very\ninteresting stuff there. Hard for me to follow. there are some overview\nvideos on youtube.\n\n\nhe's doing work with numbers and geometry, but it's not Kaballah, or\nGematria.\nhe comes up with geometric models exrapolated from the letters, which\ndescribe a Torus, the shadows of which can depict every hebrew letter, and\nfurther extrapolates these Apple and Seed models that speak to this notion\nof Re-Genesis. Great stuff. Give it a look. trust me, incredibly\ninteresting stuff, potentially VERY important. Sort of a voice in the\nwilderness.\n\nhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-208619888961779202&hl=en" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time this theory has been bandied\nabout, but this sounds pretty much like the cosmology of the New Sun,\nexcept\nit's been posited as reality:\n\n\n\nMost cosmologists believe that our universe emerged from a singularity\nduring the Big Bang. But now physicists are exploring the possibility\nthat\nour universe was created by the death of an earlier universe.\n\nMartin Bojowald and Abhat Ashtekar began researching their theory of loop\nquantum cosmology (LQC), an approach to cosmology that combine's\nEinstein's\ntheory of gravity with quantum mechanics. They have modeled the birth of\nour\nuniverse, exploring the mathematics of universe as it contracts back\ntoward\nits point of origin.\n\nBojowald's major realisation was that unlike general relativity, the\nphysics\nof LQC did not break down at the big bang. Cosmologists dread the\nsingularity because at this point gravity becomes infinite, along with\nthe\ntemperature and density of the universe. As its equations cannot cope\nwith\nsuch infinities, general relativity fails to describe what happens at the\nbig bang. Bojowald's work showed how to avoid the hated singularity,\nalbeit\nmathematically. \"I was very impressed by it,\" says Ashtekar, \"and still\nam.\"\n\nThe researchers have found that when applying LQC, the universe does not\nrevert back to a singularity as it contracts. Instead of seeing a big\nbang,\nthe models indicate that the universe experienced a big bounce, with a\npredecessor universe contracting as it ended and then reemerging as our\nnew,\nexpanding universe. If the theory proves correct, it could mean that our\nuniverse does not have a finite beginning and end but is, instead, part\nof a\nchain of universes that expand and then contract to give way to a brand\nnew\nuniverse." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<273409710812121706s2634b4bcp836b9699f42f64aa@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Jordon Flato", "address": "jordonflato at gmail.com" }, "date": "2008-12-13T01:06:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Holy smokes, Witz. I can't believe I never followed up on this before when\nyou tried to point it out. That is incredible incredible stuff! I'll have\nto see out more!!!!" } ] }, { "message_id": "<49430D6C.3020509@goosemoon.org>", "from": { "name": "Allan Anderson", "address": "rubel at goosemoon.org" }, "date": "2008-12-13T01:18:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Heh, I loved NGE too, but I'm pretty sure that the creator's use of \nJudeo-Christian imagery and reference was mostly for effect and for \ntheir alien-ness to his audience.\n\nDoesn't mean that he didn't say something touching and fascinating using \nthese symbols (among others), but it does suggest that it's not useful \nto assume their intricate, deliberate, precise use.\n\nI mustn't run away..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Son of Witz wrote:\nhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-208619888961779202&hl=en\n\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Well, ok, but I still don't understand what Lilith has to do with\nanything, or why Shinji Ikari gets crucified on the Tree of Life. And\nwhat was the Human Instrumentality Project up to, anyway? I mean,\ntalk about bizarre.\n\n(This is my way of saying this stuff is way over my head.)\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Seriously, watch the video. it's a very condensed overview. I find these findings edge-of-your-seat fascinating. It's science puncturing metaphysics and actually yielding results. I think it's relevant to the discussion.\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4943268A.8080007@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2008-12-13T03:05:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<49430D6C.3020509@goosemoon.org>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Some kind of cyclically expanding/contracting universe theory has been around for at least several decades, if not more. But this is cool to read about. \n\nIt addresses something that has always bothered me when I read TBotNS:\n\nThat the various Hieros are rather vague on the concept of successive \"universes.\" The word gets thrown around a lot, almost casually: you have stacked universes, sequential universes, and so on. How does one escape a universe when it implodes? Was Yesod always there, or was it created? \n\nBut if a universe is never totally destroyed, then you can imagine whole species surviving from one to the next with some predictability. Without that predictability, Apheta's theory of generation and countergeneration can't possibly go on forever. Eventually, the chain will break if every universe ends in a great melodramatic catastrophe.\n\nPerhaps one could simply categorize Briah as a universe subject to cyclical contractions (thus, multiple bodies and a single consciousness, like Severian), and Yesod subject to none (like the Increate). The manvantara model dug up by Witz resembles this." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 7\nDate: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:03:18 -0800\nFrom: \"Jordon Flato\" \nSubject: (urth) Science catches up to the New Sun\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nMessage-ID:\n\t<273409710812121603t299e1fa7ie7045e06c4a43bae at mail.gmail.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"iso-8859-1\"\n\nI'm pretty sure this isn't the first time this theory has been bandied\nabout, but this sounds pretty much like the cosmology of the New Sun, except\nit's been posited as reality:\n\n\n\nMost cosmologists believe that our universe emerged from a singularity\nduring the Big Bang. But now physicists are exploring the possibility that\nour universe was created by the death of an earlier universe.\n\n . . .\n\nThe researchers have found that when applying LQC, the universe does not\nrevert back to a singularity as it contracts. Instead of seeing a big bang,\nthe models indicate that the universe experienced a big bounce, with a\npredecessor universe contracting as it ended and then reemerging as our new,\nexpanding universe. If the theory proves correct, it could mean that our\nuniverse does not have a finite beginning and end but is, instead, part of a\nchain of universes that expand and then contract to give way to a brand new\nuniverse." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2008-12-13T03:53:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<49430D6C.3020509@goosemoon.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA512" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Allan Anderson wrote:\nHeh, I loved NGE too, but I'm pretty sure that the creator's use of\nJudeo-Christian imagery and reference was mostly for effect and for their\nalien-ness to his audience." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"There are a lot of giant robot shows in Japan, and we did want our\nstory to have a religious theme to help distinguish us. Because\nChristianity is an uncommon religion in Japan we thought it would be\nmysterious. None of the staff who worked on Eva are Christians. There\nis no actual Christian meaning to the show, we just thought the visual\nsymbols of Christianity look cool. If we had known the show would get\ndistributed in the US and Europe we might have rethought that choice.\"\n— Kazuya Tsurumaki\n\nThat's true. If you parse the imagery, you don't get anything really\nmeaningful. When you take into account further information like the\nSecret Files (Lilith and Adam are organisms created by the 'First\nAncestral [Alien] Race' as part of a panspermia program, but\naccidentally they both end up on Earth etc.), Evangelion is, if\nanything, profoundly atheistic.\n\n(Personally, I consider the case for a cynical atheistic Evangelion\ninfinitely stronger than the one for a cynical atheistic New Sun.\nThere's an interesting essay I once saw in this vein -\nhttp://www.geocities.com/sephkhan/rants/dharma.html )\n\nRandom trivia: Kaworu, in the early outlines, was a cat." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Doesn't mean that he didn't say something touching and fascinating using\nthese symbols (among others), but it does suggest that it's not useful to\nassume their intricate, deliberate, precise use." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If you want to analyze Eva, it's much more profitable to approach it\nfrom a Buddhist or Western psychological perspective - both are fields\nthat Anno actually does know quite a bit about.\n\nRandom trivia: the striking phrase \"Hedgehog's dilemma\" is borrowed\nfrom Arthur Schopenhauer." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I mustn't run away..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"It's strange that 'Evangelion' has become such a hit - all the\ncharacters are so sick!\" ?Hideaki Anno\n\n- --\ngwern\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)\n\niEYEAREKAAYFAklDMcsACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oJsdACfa2M1OOKPixY6GkGcjRvFNoOw\na9oAoI/P6yQVzd3CZYYGVs/rsau1JX/G\n=lmkP\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----" } ] }, { "message_id": "<44fb53d10812122007y59569982w5e012ce7894d3ea0@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Matthew Keeley", "address": "matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2008-12-13T04:07:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\n\nThat's true. If you parse the imagery, you don't get anything really\nmeaningful. When you take into account further information like the\nSecret Files (Lilith and Adam are organisms created by the 'First\nAncestral [Alien] Race' as part of a panspermia program, but\naccidentally they both end up on Earth etc.), Evangelion is, if\nanything, profoundly atheistic.\n\n(Personally, I consider the case for a cynical atheistic Evangelion\ninfinitely stronger than the one for a cynical atheistic New Sun.\nThere's an interesting essay I once saw in this vein -\nhttp://www.geocities.com/sephkhan/rants/dharma.html )\n\nRandom trivia: Kaworu, in the early outlines, was a cat." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If you want to analyze Eva, it's much more profitable to approach it\nfrom a Buddhist or Western psychological perspective - both are fields\nthat Anno actually does know quite a bit about." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I mustn't run away..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"It's strange that 'Evangelion' has become such a hit - all the\ncharacters are so sick!\" ?Hideaki Anno\n\n- --\ngwern" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "We have Eva fans here? And I thought I was the only one.\n\nI'd love to have an involved debate, but I think I agree with\neverything you said. I do think Eva is atheistic (or I think I do) but\na Buddhist brand of atheism as opposed to a Death-of-God sort of\natheism. The end of the show harps so damn much on relativism that\nit's hard to conclude otherwise.\n\nVideo for the initiated: Shinji's voice actor, frustrated at the end\nof the show (some language)\n\nhttp://video.aol.com/video-detail/shinjis-rant-animated/48171386\n\n\"'If I were to run away, OK, let's analyze that, where the f--- would I go!?\"\n\n-Matt" } ] }, { "message_id": "<93d4039f0812122014r4427ff54h9878a1e5bb47e6bb@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2008-12-13T04:14:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<44fb53d10812122007y59569982w5e012ce7894d3ea0@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree with all of this. I was merely using the infamously opaque\nending to Evangelion to express my bafflement at the theoretical\nphysics.\n\nAlso, uh, Witz and I had had a heated exchange, so I wanted to make a joke." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/12/08, Matthew Keeley wrote:\nOn Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "That's true. If you parse the imagery, you don't get anything really\nmeaningful. When you take into account further information like the\nSecret Files (Lilith and Adam are organisms created by the 'First\nAncestral [Alien] Race' as part of a panspermia program, but\naccidentally they both end up on Earth etc.), Evangelion is, if\nanything, profoundly atheistic.\n\n(Personally, I consider the case for a cynical atheistic Evangelion\ninfinitely stronger than the one for a cynical atheistic New Sun.\nThere's an interesting essay I once saw in this vein -\nhttp://www.geocities.com/sephkhan/rants/dharma.html )\n\nRandom trivia: Kaworu, in the early outlines, was a cat." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If you want to analyze Eva, it's much more profitable to approach it\nfrom a Buddhist or Western psychological perspective - both are fields\nthat Anno actually does know quite a bit about." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I mustn't run away..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "\"It's strange that 'Evangelion' has become such a hit - all the\ncharacters are so sick!\" “Hideaki Anno\n\n- --\ngwern" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We have Eva fans here” And I thought I was the only one.\n\nI'd love to have an involved debate, but I think I agree with\neverything you said. I do think Eva is atheistic (or I think I do) but\na Buddhist brand of atheism as opposed to a Death-of-God sort of\natheism. The end of the show harps so damn much on relativism that\nit's hard to conclude otherwise.\n\nVideo for the initiated: Shinji's voice actor, frustrated at the end\nof the show (some language)\n\nhttp://video.aol.com/video-detail/shinjis-rant-animated/48171386\n\n\"'If I were to run away, OK, let's analyze that, where the f--- would I\ngo!?\"\n\n-Matt\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<44fb53d10812122020v1301b16ew7ff960c70d564347@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Matthew Keeley", "address": "matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2008-12-13T04:20:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<93d4039f0812122014r4427ff54h9878a1e5bb47e6bb@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:14 PM, John Watkins wrote:\nI agree with all of this. I was merely using the infamously opaque\nending to Evangelion to express my bafflement at the theoretical\nphysics.\n\nAlso, uh, Witz and I had had a heated exchange, so I wanted to make a joke." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Joking is good. Hence my link to \"Shinji's Rant\".\n\nTheoretical physics is insane.\n\nIn a good, mind-blowing way.\n\n-Matt" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "david.duffy at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2008-12-13T04:56:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<4943268A.8080007@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, David Stockhoff wrote:\nSome kind of cyclically expanding/contracting universe theory has been around \nfor at least several decades, if not more. But this is cool to read about. \nIt addresses something that has always bothered me when I read TBotNS:\n\nThat the various Hieros are rather vague on the concept of successive \n\"universes.\" The word gets thrown around a lot, almost casually: you have \nstacked universes, sequential universes, and so on. How does one escape a \nuniverse when it implodes? Was Yesod always there, or was it created? \nBut if a universe is never totally destroyed, then you can imagine whole \nspecies surviving from one to the next with some predictability. Without that \npredictability, Apheta's theory of generation and countergeneration can't \npossibly go on forever. Eventually, the chain will break if every universe \nends in a great melodramatic catastrophe.\n\nPerhaps one could simply categorize Briah as a universe subject to cyclical \ncontractions (thus, multiple bodies and a single consciousness, like \nSeverian), and Yesod subject to none (like the Increate). The manvantara \nmodel dug up by Witz resembles this.\n\nFrom: \"Jordon Flato\" \n\n. . .\n\nThe researchers have found that when applying LQC, the universe does not\nrevert back to a singularity as it contracts." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "When BotNS was written, a big crunch (and restart) was seen as quite \nlikely, but now, of course, we live in a flat universe.\n\nI might point to _Star Maker_ as another model -- progressive but \natemporal. If you haven't read it, download it immediately ;) \nhttp://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0601841.txt\n\nDavid Duffy." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "| David Duffy (MBBS PhD) ,-_|\\\n| email: davidD at qimr.edu.au ph: INT+61+7+3362-0217 fax: -0101 / *\n| Epidemiology Unit, Queensland Institute of Medical Research \\_,-._/\n| 300 Herston Rd, Brisbane, Queensland 4029, Australia GPG 4D0B994A v" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4943511C.9030701@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2008-12-13T06:07:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<44fb53d10812122007y59569982w5e012ce7894d3ea0@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Matthew Keeley wrote:\nWe have Eva fans here? And I thought I was the only one.\n\nI'd love to have an involved debate, but I think I agree with\neverything you said. I do think Eva is atheistic (or I think I do) but\na Buddhist brand of atheism as opposed to a Death-of-God sort of\natheism. The end of the show harps so damn much on relativism that\nit's hard to conclude otherwise.\n\nVideo for the initiated: Shinji's voice actor, frustrated at the end\nof the show (some language)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not all of Evangelion's ambiguity is on screen: I had similar baffling \nexperience \"meeting\" Asuka's US voice actress at a con. I kept hearing \nAsuka's voice in the tiny tower room with me but could not see the \nperson, until I realized Asuka's 15-yr-old-voice was living in a body \nabout four decades older." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<93d4039f0812130836h132a274dy18eeb8b6e57d6849@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2008-12-13T16:36:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<44fb53d10812122020v1301b16ew7ff960c70d564347@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The video is hilarious." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Matthew Keeley\n wrote:\nOn Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:14 PM, John Watkins wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I agree with all of this. I was merely using the infamously opaque\nending to Evangelion to express my bafflement at the theoretical\nphysics.\n\nAlso, uh, Witz and I had had a heated exchange, so I wanted to make a joke." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Joking is good. Hence my link to \"Shinji's Rant\".\n\nTheoretical physics is insane.\n\nIn a good, mind-blowing way.\n\n-Matt\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<54CC7E79-2EBB-4F39-AAE3-CF9142901041@butcherbaker.org>", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2008-12-13T17:46:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<93d4039f0812122014r4427ff54h9878a1e5bb47e6bb@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 12, 2008, at 8:14 PM, John Watkins wrote:\nI agree with all of this. I was merely using the infamously opaque\nending to Evangelion to express my bafflement at the theoretical\nphysics.\n\nAlso, uh, Witz and I had had a heated exchange, so I wanted to make \na joke." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "ha.\nhot and bothered. no big deal though, right?\n\nnow, talk about over my head... I have NO idea what the hell that last \nbunch of stuff was. some anime thing?\n\n~witz" } ] }, { "message_id": "<06A23F1ABA0E4BB484E342A66C55D6BA@GATEWAY>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2008-12-13T21:17:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<4943268A.8080007@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "the various Hieros are rather vague on the concept of\nsuccessive \"universes.\" The word gets thrown around a lot, almost \ncasually: you have stacked universes, sequential universes,\nand so on. How does one escape a universe when it implodes?\nWas Yesod always there, or was it created?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Since Time collapses with successive universes, the idea of \"sequentiality\" \nbetween universes would be either naive or would mean something totally \ndifferent from what we mean by it. If we assume that the Hieros are \n\"causality-based\", then successive universes would be a theoretical model \nrather than an observed phenomena. It would mean that the Hieros have the \nability to move between parallel worlds...some adjacent and others \nnot...like those in \"There Are Doors\"." } ] }, { "message_id": "<49443DA5.3000705@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2008-12-13T22:56:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<06A23F1ABA0E4BB484E342A66C55D6BA@GATEWAY>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "James---\n\nApheta makes it fairly clear that causation has occurred. The Hieros happened, and then the Hierogrammates happened. The Hieros' old universe is gone, and Briah has not. Naturally, the Hieros can move from Yesod to any universe, but only any universe that exists. So the model of universes separated by time is a given in her version. \n\nThey aren't successive in the sense of occupying the same space, since that would be meaningless. But it's reasonable to guess that universes are not actually created or destroyed, just like matter." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 15:17:14 -0600\nFrom: \"James Wynn\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) Science catches up to the New Sun\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nMessage-ID: <06A23F1ABA0E4BB484E342A66C55D6BA at GATEWAY>\nContent-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=\"iso-8859-1\";\n\treply-type=response" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "the various Hieros are rather vague on the concept of\nsuccessive \"universes.\" The word gets thrown around a lot, almost \ncasually: you have stacked universes, sequential universes,\nand so on. How does one escape a universe when it implodes?\nWas Yesod always there, or was it created?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nSince Time collapses with successive universes, the idea of \"sequentiality\" \nbetween universes would be either naive or would mean something totally \ndifferent from what we mean by it. If we assume that the Hieros are \n\"causality-based\", then successive universes would be a theoretical model \nrather than an observed phenomena. It would mean that the Hieros have the \nability to move between parallel worlds...some adjacent and others \nnot...like those in \"There Are Doors\".\n\n\n\n------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "<49449C24.40909@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2008-12-14T05:39:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<49443DA5.3000705@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:\nJames---\n\nApheta makes it fairly clear that causation has occurred. The Hieros\nhappened, and then the Hierogrammates happened. The Hieros' old\nuniverse is gone, and Briah has not. Naturally, the Hieros can move\nfrom Yesod to any universe, but only any universe that exists. So the\nmodel of universes separated by time is a given in her version.\n\nThey aren't successive in the sense of occupying the same space,\nsince that would be meaningless. But it's reasonable to guess that\nuniverses are not actually created or destroyed, just like matter." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There are however questions of scale that can make them practically \ninaccessible.\n\nAlso, it's more like \"Science catches up to Anderson's _Tau Zero_\" or \nLee and Kirby's _Fantastic Four_\", as both featured means of \nside-stepping the grand gnab into new universes ten years before the \nBook appeared." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<610EC795D63A4A8C9C6CA537F56B7D30@GATEWAY>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2008-12-14T06:49:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<49443DA5.3000705@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "the various Hieros are rather vague on the concept of\nsuccessive \"universes.\" The word gets thrown around\na lot, almost casually: you have stacked universes, \nsequential universes, and so on. How does one escape\na universe when it implodes? " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Since Time collapses with successive universes, the idea of\n\"sequentiality\" between universes would be either naive or\nwould mean something totally different from what we mean\nby it. If we assume that the Hieros are \"causality-based\", \nthen successive universes would be a theoretical model\nrather than an observed phenomena. It would mean that the\nHieros have the ability to move between parallel worlds...\nsome adjacent and others not...like those in \"There Are Doors\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Apheta makes it fairly clear that causation has occurred. \nThe Hieros happened, and then the Hierogrammates happened. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "David,\n\nYes, I agree, the Hierogrammates are casuality-based beings they can only exist in some relative Time. However, when you say:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The Hieros' old universe is gone, and Briah has not. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You are making a conclusive leap here. The story is that \"at the destruction of their universe\" the compainions escaped to Yesod. That is a point in Time within their universe. But what does it mean when you say \"the Hieros' old universe is gone\"? Look at your next sentence:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Naturally, the Hieros can move from Yesod to any universe,\nbut only any universe that exists. So the model of universes\nseparated by time is a given in her version. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If the Hieros can move to \"any\" universe then they can move to one of various manvantara accessible from Yesod simultaneously, not only the *next* one. They don't have to wait for the current universe to end before moving on to the next. So the sequentiality of the universes is irrelevant to them. They can't go back to a time in their original universe because it would create a paradox--so in a practical sense, I guess, it is \"gone\", but only in a practical sense. That's why I said that \"successive universes would be a theoretical model [for the Hieros] rather than an observed phenomena.\" They know their own universe collapses, and can probably determine that the others will as well. Given what we know they know, the \"successive universe\" theory would be a pretty obvious one. Yet, they could not examine various world's from a place beyond causality. For them, they are merely moving like Adam Green in \"There Are Doors\", from one parallel \"dimension\" to another--or rather, they are moving in a more sophisticated fashion through a corridor beyond the dominance of any particular dimension. Immediately successive universes would be like Green's adjacent dimensions (his guitar string analogy).\n\nDoes it matter? Only when trying to imagine the vague \"concept of successive 'universes.'\" " } ] }, { "message_id": "<9790CFB74BE84D65A8A77AB5FF67B019@GATEWAY>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2008-12-14T07:39:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<610EC795D63A4A8C9C6CA537F56B7D30@GATEWAY>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Let's post this in Plain Text." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "the various Hieros are rather vague on the concept of\nsuccessive \"universes.\" The word gets thrown around\na lot, almost casually: you have stacked universes,\nsequential universes, and so on. How does one escape\na universe when it implodes?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Since Time collapses with successive universes, the idea of\n\"sequentiality\" between universes would be either naive or\nwould mean something totally different from what we mean\nby it. If we assume that the Hieros are \"causality-based\",\nthen successive universes would be a theoretical model\nrather than an observed phenomena. It would mean that the\nHieros have the ability to move between parallel worlds...\nsome adjacent and others not...like those in \"There Are Doors\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Apheta makes it fairly clear that causation has occurred.\nThe Hieros happened, and then the Hierogrammates happened." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "David,\n\nYes, I agree, the Hierogrammates are casuality-based beings they can only \nexist in some relative Time. However, when you say:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The Hieros' old universe is gone, and Briah has not." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You are making a conclusive leap here. The story is that \"at the destruction \nof their universe\" the compainions escaped to Yesod. That is a point in Time \nwithin their universe. But what does it mean when you say \"the Hieros' old \nuniverse is gone\"? Look at your next sentence:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Naturally, the Hieros can move from Yesod to any universe,\nbut only any universe that exists. So the model of universes\nseparated by time is a given in her version." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If the Hieros can move to \"any\" universe then they can move to one of \nvarious manvantara accessible from Yesod simultaneously, not only the *next* \none. They don't have to wait for the current universe to end before moving \non to the next. So the sequentiality of the universes is irrelevant to them. \nThey can't go back to a time in their original universe because it would \ncreate a paradox--so in a practical sense, I guess, it is \"gone\", but only \nin a practical sense. That's why I said that \"successive universes would be \na theoretical model [for the Hieros] rather than an observed phenomena.\" \nThey know their own universe collapses, and can probably determine that the \nothers will as well. Given what we know they know, the \"successive universe\" \ntheory would be a pretty obvious one. Yet, they could not examine various \nworld's from a place beyond causality. For them, they are merely moving like \nAdam Green in \"There Are Doors\", from one parallel \"dimension\" to \nanother--or rather, they are moving in a more sophisticated fashion through \na corridor beyond the dominance of any particular dimension. Immediately \nsuccessive universes would be like Green's adjacent dimensions (his guitar \nstring analogy).\n\nDoes it matter? Only when trying to imagine the vague \"concept of successive \n'universes.'\" " } ] }, { "message_id": "<49451E83.2050707@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2008-12-14T14:56:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<9790CFB74BE84D65A8A77AB5FF67B019@GATEWAY>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it's somewhat more important than that---if only to rule out disturbing implications such as a literally repetitive cycle of universes where everything plays out the same or nearly so. (For example, for all we know, if there was a Severian 1, he lived in a previous Briah and the current Briah overlays his.) Such a theory is not necessary because Yesod is an over-universe in which time is not any kind of constant. That allows the Hieros to move among universes almost at will, I assume. At very least, it allows them to look \"forward\" and to send themselves \"backward.\"\n\nHowever, if I understand you, you are making a distinction between a past universe being \"gone\" and being \"inaccessible.\" This makes sense, because there must be some limitations on the Hieros' abilities.\n\nTwo specific phenomena may or may not depend on this. First, the \"future\" history Apheta lays out, using Gunnie's \"lady parts\" as a model. I presume that some kind of agonism is always needed for each \"species\" to evolve or to do whatever it does. Thus, the point of this (hi)story is not the cyclical and alternating repetition, which is maddening, but the struggle played out in each universe. (This struggle is analogous to a constant struggle of good vs evil, which is readily understood because those principles can be grasped as universal constants, but rather it is a struggle against ourselves with the aid of higher beings, which is more complicated.)\n\nIs it really played out over and over with variations, or is it played out once, simultaneously, in two universes connected only at Yesod? In myth, it is a basic assumption that the god or hero dies the same death over and over, or every year, or whatever. Is this the same idea? Or is Apheta actually describing a seemingly nearly pointless and Sisyphean process in which two species keep each other alive through all of eternity? \n\nAre all the universes either human universes or Hiero universes, and each species are as gods to the other? If so, which was the first? And what about all the other sentient species?\n\nSecond, the Hierodules who supposedly live their lives moving backward through time. I can grasp going on a time-travel mission in which one pops in and out of time, but I do not understand beings who live time backwards, or how that fits into the model. Which is meant? \n\nClearly, not only do all universes exist, but all time exists. What does this do to Apheta's agonistic model? Her race has already either won or lost its struggle. If it ever once misses in its aim of raising up Man or being raised up in turn, does it become always already extinct? And if it doesn't, who cares whether they succeed or not? Why is it SO IMPORTANT that their scheme succeed? (Humans don't care if their descendants go extinct in a few centuries--why should the Hieros care?)\n\n\n\n------------------------------\n\nDavid,\n\nYes, I agree, the Hierogrammates are casuality-based beings they can only \nexist in some relative Time. However, when you say:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The Hieros' old universe is gone, and Briah has not." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You are making a conclusive leap here. The story is that \"at the destruction \nof their universe\" the compainions escaped to Yesod. That is a point in Time \nwithin their universe. But what does it mean when you say \"the Hieros' old \nuniverse is gone\"? Look at your next sentence:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Naturally, the Hieros can move from Yesod to any universe,\nbut only any universe that exists. So the model of universes\nseparated by time is a given in her version." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If the Hieros can move to \"any\" universe then they can move to one of \nvarious manvantara accessible from Yesod simultaneously, not only the *next* \none. They don't have to wait for the current universe to end before moving \non to the next. So the sequentiality of the universes is irrelevant to them. \nThey can't go back to a time in their original universe because it would \ncreate a paradox--so in a practical sense, I guess, it is \"gone\", but only \nin a practical sense. That's why I said that \"successive universes would be \na theoretical model [for the Hieros] rather than an observed phenomena.\" \nThey know their own universe collapses, and can probably determine that the \nothers will as well. Given what we know they know, the \"successive universe\" \ntheory would be a pretty obvious one. Yet, they could not examine various \nworld's from a place beyond causality. For them, they are merely moving like \nAdam Green in \"There Are Doors\", from one parallel \"dimension\" to \nanother--or rather, they are moving in a more sophisticated fashion through \na corridor beyond the dominance of any particular dimension. Immediately \nsuccessive universes would be like Green's adjacent dimensions (his guitar \nstring analogy).\n\nDoes it matter? Only when trying to imagine the vague \"concept of successive \n'universes.'\" \n\n------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2008-12-14T19:20:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<49451E83.2050707@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Clearly, not only do all universes exist, but all time exists.\nWhat does this do to Apheta's agonistic model?\nHer race has already either won or lost its struggle.\nIf it ever once misses in its aim of raising up Man or\nbeing raised up in turn, does it become always already extinct?\nAnd if it doesn't, who cares whether they succeed or not?\nWhy is it SO IMPORTANT that their scheme succeed?\n(Humans don't care if their descendants go extinct in a\nfew centuries--why should the Hieros care?)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, it is frustrating in that Apheta is clear about what they do and why \nthey do it but not why it is necessary to do it as opposed to doing \nsomething else. So it is not clear whether Wolfe ever considered any of \nthat. But --since I think manvantara are more like parallel dimensions than \nanything else-- let's go back to Green's guitar string analogy:\nAdjacent dimensions are like adjacent parallel guitar strings that are tuned \nto the same note. When you play one, the other vibrates. Consequently \nadjacent dimensions seem to be similar. In \"There Are Doors\", men in the \nother dimension wear black at their weddings because men will die shortly \nafter sex. But in our dimension, we do it because THEY do it. Well, what \nwould have happened if a manvantara next to the Hieros's did not have the \nHieros escape? What if they were never created? It could be a problem. What \nif another race of beings escaped to Yesod and began tinkering with other \nmanvantara as the Hieros did?\n\nIt could be seen as a matter of existential importance for the Hieros to \ncontinue the process for every nearby manvantara and then for ever \nmanvantara near those.\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "<49456F4C.1000100@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2008-12-14T20:40:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<49451E83.2050707@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:\nAre all the universes either human universes or Hiero universes, and\neach species are as gods to the other? If so, which was the first?\nAnd what about all the other sentient species?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Alien sapients seem deliberately off the table in the BOTNS, but as for \nyour other question, I htink it's been fairly settled that the Hieros \nare the humans of a previous incarnation of the universe, so it's a \ncycle involving successive forms of the same \"species\". This may be a \nlate add on, and not airtight, but it seems necessary to prevent Noah's \nGod from being a liar." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Second, the Hierodules who supposedly live their lives moving\nbackward through time. I can grasp going on a time-travel mission in\nwhich one pops in and out of time, but I do not understand beings who\nlive time backwards, or how that fits into the model. Which is meant?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am pretty sure that Barbatus, Famulimus & Ossipago progress moment to \nmoment in the same direction as everyone else in their current plane of \nexistence as there is no reverse speaking, dropped objects returning to \ntheir hands, etc. but it is there mission to help supervise Urthly \nprogress during Severian's life, so they they begin at his end and use \ntravel once or more likely on multiple ocasions to progressively earlier \nperiods, speanding months or years at each stop. With their short \nlidespans, this is a life-long mission (maybe not for the mechanized \nOssipago) for them even if they skip the boring half of his years, so \nthey might well be said to live backwards." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Clearly, not only do all universes exist, but all time exists. What\ndoes this do to Apheta's agonistic model? Her race has already either\nwon or lost its struggle. If it ever once misses in its aim of\nraising up Man or being raised up in turn, does it become always\nalready extinct? And if it doesn't, who cares whether they succeed or\nnot? Why is it SO IMPORTANT that their scheme succeed? (Humans don't\ncare if their descendants go extinct in a few centuries--why should\nthe Hieros care?)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think Yesod's time is not the same as Urth's, and most closely aligns \nwith narrative time, falling somewehre between the Urthly skein of \ntimelines (mostly parallel but some seriously tangled) and the eternal, \nchangeless nature of the Catholic God. Most points on Urthly timelines \nare visible by the powers in Yesod, but they can be changed by earlier \nYesodi influence so that \"later\" in Yesod's view Urthly affairs seem to \nhave proceeded differently in numerous eras." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<49459FC8.20103@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2008-12-15T00:07:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<49456F4C.1000100@io.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "James---\n\nI see what you mean by the guitar strings analogy now. Yes, perhaps the implications of the gods' failures need not be absolute, nor strictly limited to the universe where they happen. Yesod's actual workings remain unknown. \n\nOf course the text doesn't supply any clues to a guitar-string model, and I'm inclined to think that Wolfe intends every \"echo\" in TBotNS to have a very precise and particular mechanism. For example, the Conciliator is known in the past because he went there and Conciliated. The whole novel is constructed of such mechanisms, plotwise, and it required a lot of work.\n\nEven though I can accept the idea of temporal resonance in general and its usefulness in Wolfean cosmologies in particular, Wolfe plots this story specifically to avoid any such concept, I think. \n\nSo many other writers will simply appeal to that vague concept, and indeed have done so---even Frank Herbert, for example, engages in a certain amount of hand-waving about prophecies. Wolfe may rely on cross-universe resonance for TAD and TWK (trickle-down Platonism?), but I don't see it here. \n\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nAdjacent dimensions are like adjacent parallel guitar strings that are tuned \nto the same note. When you play one, the other vibrates. Consequently \nadjacent dimensions seem to be similar. In \"There Are Doors\", men in the \nother dimension wear black at their weddings because men will die shortly \nafter sex. But in our dimension, we do it because THEY do it. Well, what \nwould have happened if a manvantara next to the Hieros's did not have the \nHieros escape? What if they were never created? It could be a problem. What \nif another race of beings escaped to Yesod and began tinkering with other \nmanvantara as the Hieros did?\n\nIt could be seen as a matter of existential importance for the Hieros to \ncontinue the process for every nearby manvantara and then for ever \nmanvantara near those.\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4945CA8E.1080103@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2008-12-15T03:10:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<49459FC8.20103@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Agree to all that. I think one way to summarize it is to say that the \ncosmological scheme of TbotNS is a literary device, like time travel \nitself. It's an idea, not a working model.\n\nAs such, it arbitrarily closes off certain possibilities and elides \nothers. This is similar to the standard problem already pointed out with \nbranching-timeline models: unless some Overseer is judging the value of \nall lines, all lines must exist, even if the likely ones vastly \noutnumber the unlikely. So one must simply ignore what doesn't fit." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMessage: 1\nDate: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:40:44 -0600\nFrom: Jeff Wilson \nSubject: Re: (urth) Science catches up to the New Sun\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nMessage-ID: <49456F4C.1000100 at io.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed\n\nDavid Stockhoff wrote:\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Are all the universes either human universes or Hiero universes, and\neach species are as gods to the other? If so, which was the first?\nAnd what about all the other sentient species?\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Alien sapients seem deliberately off the table in the BOTNS, but as for \nyour other question, I htink it's been fairly settled that the Hieros \nare the humans of a previous incarnation of the universe, so it's a \ncycle involving successive forms of the same \"species\". This may be a \nlate add on, and not airtight, but it seems necessary to prevent Noah's \nGod from being a liar.\n\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Second, the Hierodules who supposedly live their lives moving\nbackward through time. I can grasp going on a time-travel mission in\nwhich one pops in and out of time, but I do not understand beings who\nlive time backwards, or how that fits into the model. Which is meant?\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I am pretty sure that Barbatus, Famulimus & Ossipago progress moment to \nmoment in the same direction as everyone else in their current plane of \nexistence as there is no reverse speaking, dropped objects returning to \ntheir hands, etc. but it is there mission to help supervise Urthly \nprogress during Severian's life, so they they begin at his end and use \ntravel once or more likely on multiple ocasions to progressively earlier \nperiods, speanding months or years at each stop. With their short \nlidespans, this is a life-long mission (maybe not for the mechanized \nOssipago) for them even if they skip the boring half of his years, so \nthey might well be said to live backwards.\n\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Clearly, not only do all universes exist, but all time exists. What\ndoes this do to Apheta's agonistic model? Her race has already either\nwon or lost its struggle. If it ever once misses in its aim of\nraising up Man or being raised up in turn, does it become always\nalready extinct? And if it doesn't, who cares whether they succeed or\nnot? Why is it SO IMPORTANT that their scheme succeed? (Humans don't\ncare if their descendants go extinct in a few centuries--why should\nthe Hieros care?)\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think Yesod's time is not the same as Urth's, and most closely aligns \nwith narrative time, falling somewehre between the Urthly skein of \ntimelines (mostly parallel but some seriously tangled) and the eternal, \nchangeless nature of the Catholic God. Most points on Urthly timelines \nare visible by the powers in Yesod, but they can be changed by earlier \nYesodi influence so that \"later\" in Yesod's view Urthly affairs seem to \nhave proceeded differently in numerous eras.\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "david.duffy at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2008-12-15T07:56:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<4945CA8E.1080103@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, David Stockhoff wrote:\nAgree to all that. I think one way to summarize it is to say that the\ncosmological scheme of TbotNS is a literary device, like time travel \nitself.\n\nAs such, it arbitrarily closes off certain possibilities and elides others. \nThis is similar to the standard problem already pointed out with \nbranching-timeline models: unless some Overseer is judging the value of all \nlines, all lines must exist, even if the likely ones vastly outnumber the \nunlikely. So one must simply ignore what doesn't fit." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There are a few papers from Deutsch and others on the many worlds \ninterpretation and ethics. Specifically, that you should choose actions \nthat maximize a utilitarian type measures over as many futures as \npossible. Everyone's average history, summing over all time lines, is \nwhat your your overseer will have to judge on. Time travel, however, does \noffer a possibility of fixing up all your time lines (depending on the \ninfinities involved, you could recruit an infinite number of version of \nyourself to go and fix up the \"lesser\" infinity of timelines where you \nmade the wrong choice).\n\nWolfe has an awful lot of time travel stories, and must have \nthought at least a little bit about them. Some random thoughts:\n\nThe time travel paradoxes are very similar to many theological paradoxes \neg perfect foreknowledge in general, that of Jesus in particular with \nrespect to his actions; as well there is the idea of working in mysterious \nways (someone recently gave an example from CS Lewis -- Ransomes name, one \nalso taken up later by Kurt Vonnegut ;)). I think Wolfe comes back to \nthem because he thinks they are somehow relevant, rather than just cool.\nSpecifically, if we live in a universe run by an actively inverventionist \ngod, then all these issues have real consequences and real solutions, \nsome of which may be accessible to entities at a higher level of \ndevelopment than poor old present-bound humans.\n\nIn BotNS, FTL and time travel go together as they should.\n\nIf you can construct a suitable closed loop involving yourself, you are \nthen cut off from the First Cause -- most such loops, starting at _The \nThird Policeman_ are hellish.\n\nThe BotNS loops are more healthy, as presumably they are connected \nbackwards as well as forwards ?\n\nMaster Ash's discussion and fate remind me of the model in _Jack oF \nEagles_. One character in that book tells the hero he believes he is in \na low probability future. Folks might remember that Blish has there being \na canonical reality, but it is the average of all the subpaths taken. The \nheroes action leads to a shift in that mixture.\n\nBack to work, David Duffy." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2008-12-15T16:57:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\n(Personally, I consider the case for a cynical atheistic Evangelion\ninfinitely stronger than the one for a cynical atheistic New Sun.\nThere's an interesting essay I once saw in this vein -\nhttp://www.geocities.com/sephkhan/rants/dharma.html )" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The big difference may be in who holds the power. In Evangelion, people\ndo. In UotNS, the Hieros do. The supernatural looks different from the\noutside.\n\nEnamel" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "There are those who claim that magic is like the tide; that it swells and\nfades over the surface of the earth, collecting in concentrated pools here\nand there, almost disappearing from other spots, leaving them parched for\nwonder. There are also those who believe that if you stick your fingers up\nyour nose and blow, it will increase your intelligence.\n-- The Teachings of Ebenezum, Volume VII" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4946980D.4070700@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2008-12-15T17:46:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think that analysis is correct. Foreknowledge is one thing, but throw in interventionism and you have something to chew on, both in theology and in (science) fiction. Time travel in TBotNS is critical to the plot, but I don't consider it the main event---it is not simply a \"time travel\" story at heart. Nor is it intended as a time-paradox puzzle story---we're told enough that we should be able to figure it out without getting very elaborate. \n\nOne reason I resist the 2-Severian theory is that it is unnecessary (from an authorial perspective), which is to say it is not strictly needed to avoid paradox and in fact would render the Hierodules redundant; another is that it is too showboaty and gimmicky. The rest of the cosmology is probably best not thought about. \n\nHowever, I still want to hear more corpse-in-the coffin theories!\n\nP.S.: I don't know Jack of Eagles, but I'm amazed that someone else has read The Third Policeman." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:56:07 +1000 (EST)\nFrom: David Duffy \nSubject: Re: (urth) Science catches up to the New Sun\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nMessage-ID: \nContent-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, David Stockhoff wrote:\nAgree to all that. I think one way to summarize it is to say that the\ncosmological scheme of TbotNS is a literary device, like time travel \nitself.\n\nAs such, it arbitrarily closes off certain possibilities and elides others. \nThis is similar to the standard problem already pointed out with \nbranching-timeline models: unless some Overseer is judging the value of all \nlines, all lines must exist, even if the likely ones vastly outnumber the \nunlikely. So one must simply ignore what doesn't fit." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\n* * *\n\nThe time travel paradoxes are very similar to many theological paradoxes \neg perfect foreknowledge in general, that of Jesus in particular with \nrespect to his actions; as well there is the idea of working in mysterious \nways (someone recently gave an example from CS Lewis -- Ransomes name, one \nalso taken up later by Kurt Vonnegut ;)). I think Wolfe comes back to \nthem because he thinks they are somehow relevant, rather than just cool.\nSpecifically, if we live in a universe run by an actively inverventionist \ngod, then all these issues have real consequences and real solutions, \nsome of which may be accessible to entities at a higher level of \ndevelopment than poor old present-bound humans.\n\nIn BotNS, FTL and time travel go together as they should.\n\nIf you can construct a suitable closed loop involving yourself, you are \nthen cut off from the First Cause -- most such loops, starting at _The \nThird Policeman_ are hellish.\n\nThe BotNS loops are more healthy, as presumably they are connected \nbackwards as well as forwards ?\n\nMaster Ash's discussion and fate remind me of the model in _Jack oF \nEagles_. One character in that book tells the hero he believes he is in \na low probability future. Folks might remember that Blish has there being \na canonical reality, but it is the average of all the subpaths taken. The \nheroes action leads to a shift in that mixture.\n\nBack to work, David Duffy.\n\n\n\n------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2008-12-16T17:05:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Science catches up to the New Sun", "in_reply_to": "<4946980D.4070700@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Jordon Flato [mailto:jordonflato at gmail.com]\nSent: Friday, December 12, 2008 05:06 PM\nTo: 'The Urth Mailing List'\nSubject: Re: (urth) Science catches up to the New Sun\n\nHoly smokes, Witz. I can't believe I never followed up on this before when\nyou tried to point it out. That is incredible incredible stuff! I'll have\nto see out more!!!!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "yeah, seriously. One of these days I'll have to buy the lectures.\nof course, that video clip was truncated and foreshortened. some of the stuff he was getting at \"the fruit that contains it's seed\" was given extremely hasty treatment. That stuff blew my mind in the longform video I saw. Only place I've ever bumped into that Geometric Metaphors For Life video was West Side Video in Santa Cruz back in the mid nineties. Thanks to the web I was able to track it down again. Stan Tenen is onto something very profound, I think. It's a bit tough because I'm fairly well out of my waters in that realm, so it's hard to judge his accuracy and such. The level of encoding that this suggests seems, to my mind, beyond mere human construct, beyond mere subconscious channeling. mindfuckingly huge implications.\nGlad you checked into it a bit." } ] } ] }