A scientific argument supporting the reality of the Isaac-CARET program

FOR THE IMPATIENT: If you don't read this whole post please read the first quote referenced below and then watch this video.


One of the things that Isaac mentioned on the fortunecity website was this:

I put the word Language in quotes because calling what I am about to describe a “language” is a misnomer, although it is an easy mistake to make.

Their hardware wasn’t operated in quite the same way as ours. In our technology, even today, we have a combination of hardware and software running almost everything on the planet. Software is more abstract than hardware, but ultimately it needs hardware to run it. In other words, there’s no way to write a computer program on a piece of paper, set that piece of paper on a table or something, and expect it to actually do something. The most powerful code in the world still doesn’t actually do anything until a piece of hardware interprets it and translates its commands into actions.

But their technology is different. It really did operate like the magical piece of paper sitting on a table, in a manner of speaking. They had something akin to a language, that could quite literally execute itself, at least in the presence of a very specific type of field. The language, a term I am still using very loosely, is a system of symbols (which does admittedly very much resemble a written language) along with geometric forms and patterns that fit together to form diagrams that are themselves functional. Once they are drawn, so to speak, on a suitable surface made of a suitable material and in the presence of a certain type of field, they immediately begin performing the desired tasks. It really did seem like magic to us, even after we began to understand the principles behind it.

I worked with these symbols more than anything during my time at PACL, and recognized them the moment I saw them in the photos. They appear in a very simple form on Chad’s craft, but appear in the more complex diagram form on the underside of the Big Basin craft as well. Both are unmistakable, even at the small size of the Big Basin photos. An example of a diagram in the style of the Big Basin craft is included with this in a series of scanned pages from the [mistitled] "Linguistic Analysis Primer". We needed a copy of that diagram to be utterly precise, and it took about a month for a team of six to copy that diagram into our drafting program!

Explaining everything I learned about this technology would fill up several volumes, but I will do my best to explain at least some of the concepts as long as I am taking the time to write all this down.

First of all, you wouldn't open up their hardware to find a CPU here, and a data bus there, and some kind of memory over there. Their hardware appeared to be perfectly solid and consistent in terms of material from one side to the other. Like a rock or a hunk of metal. But upon [much] closer inspection, we began to learn that it was actually one big holographic computational substrate - each "computational element" (essentially individual particles) can function independently, but are designed to function together in tremendously large clusters. I say its holographic because you can divide it up into the smallest chunks you want and still find a scaled-down but complete representation of the whole system. They produce a nonlinear computational output when grouped. So 4 elements working together is actually more than 4 times more powerful than 1. Most of the internal "matter" in their crafts (usually everything but the outermost housing) is actually this substrate and can contribute to computation at any time and in any state. The shape of these "chunks" of substrate also had a profound effect on its functionality, and often served as a "shortcut" to achieve a goal that might otherwise be more complex.

[edit on 28-2-2008 by Xtraeme]

Now I'm no slouch when it comes to technology - I've worked for Microsoft-proper, Microsoft Game Studios and I'm at present working for Pandemic Studios (unfortunately now a subsidiary of EA, but I digress). In these roles I've done everything from release management, software design engineering in test, and at present I'm a network software engineer developing the core network layer and services for the PS3, Xbox 360, and the PC (all in tandem) for our current "top-secret" game. I've programmed for, built, and maintained large-scale data centers for Microsoft's Real Time Communication Team (I'm talking lots of servers); I've done development in more languages than I can count; and I spent quite a bit of my time as a kid playing around with Ham radios, developing my own little PCBs, and doing lots of other nerdy things.

So I feel at least somewhat qualified (I'm not an EE major by any stretch of the imagination) to comment. It's probably also worth mentioning that I do have a rather deep understanding of computer languages. Part of this comes from using so many of them (my current count is higher than 20), but it also comes from working and being personal friends with many of the people who worked on the Visual Studio team as well as people who helped develop C#, CIL, the lesser known X#, and Multicore projects. It's also perhaps useful to know that I understand hardware not just from a high-level component view, but from the perspective of a computer engineer as well as a novice electrical engineer.

So with that said when I first read Isaac's report my reaction was, I'll admit, dissmissive. I couldn't fathom hardware and software being physically the same thing. I literally read and reread the same paragraph (below) for about an hour trying to visualize it.

First of all, you wouldn't open up their hardware to find a CPU here, and a data bus there, and some kind of memory over there. Their hardware appeared to be perfectly solid and consistent in terms of material from one side to the other. Like a rock or a hunk of metal. But upon [much] closer inspection, we began to learn that it was actually one big holographic computational substrate - each "computational element" (essentially individual particles) can function independently, but are designed to function together in tremendously large clusters. I say its holographic because you can divide it up into the smallest chunks you want and still find a scaled-down but complete representation of the whole system. They produce a nonlinear computational output when grouped. So 4 elements working together is actually more than 4 times more powerful than 1. Most of the internal "matter" in their crafts (usually everything but the outermost housing) is actually this substrate and can contribute to computation at any time and in any state. The shape of these "chunks" of substrate also had a profound effect on its functionality, and often served as a "shortcut" to achieve a goal that might otherwise be more complex.

The idea of a entirely solid-state device I could partially see.

We achieved solid-state logic chips back in the late 50's and early 60's and solid-state flash memory in the mid 80's. The logic chips come in a variety of flavors, whether they're FPGAs, run of the mill ICs, microprocessors, etc, they're all effectively the same thing. Which is to say a series of transistors fit to a substrate with some being more performant/dynamic/compact than others.

So for me the hurdle was envisioning a substrate that could be both long-term memory and "transistor memory" (ie/ a register). The only way I could see it working was if this material was modified dynamically at a molecular level. Then in this instance the atoms would literally move to change state and/or commute data. They could also regroup to then form small transistor like devices.

The thing is to accomplish this is literally the stuff of science fiction.

Why? There's no logical orderance of what talks to what. The reason we've designed devices the way we have is so things execute in a certain order. When your computer starts the power flows to the motherboard, the CMOS/BIOS does a POST, that identifies your devices/peripherals, it executes code in the boot-sector, and that starts to pull data off your long-term memory to start up an OS or execute a program of some sort.

Computers are predictive stateful devices.

As described by Isaac this alien tech has no original state. You merely take a symbol or letter (which I'll assume is the permanent storage), stick it near the substrate and it goes. You add another block and they now somehow work in tandem. Which goes first? This is what was he meant when he said the language was non-linear. It's kind of baffling that you could take these symbols and move them about and get independent results that combine in different ways. If such a thing really exists it would have close tie-ins to concurrency issues that are often dealt with in multi-threading and network programming; and not to mention a very real connection to distributed computing.

So after much thought I remained skeptical, unsure of how such a device function let alone be practical for a mere mortal. Several months passed by and then today I watched a video on TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design).

This removed all reservations I might have had.

The fact that there are prototypes for such a device is incredible. There's even an unclassified Air Force Research Lab Report from 2006 describing fungible computation. See for yourself.

It doesn't directly describe what Isaac's talking about, but it's very similar.

The fact that Isaac came up with such an idea, and that we're now seeing models of it in action, lends a lot of credibility to his story. It's in my nature to doubt, but this makes me step back and say, "What if..."

[edit on 28-2-2008 by Xtraeme]

Whats the new game or game system you are working on?

Do you think alienware was paid by some black project operation to use the symbols off of the craft to decieve the truth seekers?

reply to post by The Universal Mind


Wish I could talk about the game, but I can't .

As for Alienware/Dell, if the company was involved, it was likely them just capitalizing on the buzz. However most companies, at least those the size of Dell, are smart enough to realize there's backlash for not quickly revealing involvement if a viral ad has gone too far.

Great find Xtraeme. That video should be required viewing for everybody, wonderful stuff. Those Fab Labs are fantastic and renew my belief that we can do something positive with technology. In my opinion, the Isaac material is what lent any credibility to the drones at all. My sense was that a portion of the Isaac/drone story had elements of "truth", as well as deception, either intentional or unintentional.

The pictures??? Well, who knows, but Isaacs material is compelling, and whoever put it together had some part in the technology being developed by MIT.

Originally posted by mthood


Great find Xtraeme. That video should be required viewing for everybody, wonderful stuff. Those Fab Labs are fantastic and renew my belief that we can do something positive with technology. In my opinion, the Isaac material is what lent any credibility to the drones at all. My sense was that a portion of the Isaac/drone story had elements of "truth", as well as deception, either intentional or unintentional.

The pictures??? Well, who knows, but Isaacs material is compelling, and whoever put it together had some part in the technology being developed by MIT.

Michael..
Dont be so quick give ET the credit..pat yourself or fellow man on the back..you belong to an intelligent albeit contrarian civilization.. we will rise..and we may fall..but in the end..its our downfall..not theirs....
Even ancients..had their story tellers..and fairy tales..and sci fi..does that mean ET..no.just .that our forefathers were no different than us, wined dined, struggled with the same questions.and struggles..told stories around ancient camp fires..or ancient childrens beds at night before sleep..

Yes ..Isaacs Drone and story had very distinct Earth like qualities..if not obvious . BUT..AS long as Linda doesnt give you the pix of this Monumental Earth shattering event..Sans witnesses..Then we have nothing but maybe something ..that being..

the hand puppet that "popped" out of Isaacs head and Whitleys and the Victor Martinezes of the worlds heads into our world..and want to manipulate us..as Doghead has already mentioned..I would really listen to him..he is literally telling you the truth...the one real truth ..in this whole story..Ask Linda..the truth teller.. she..has the key..
Believers suing the government to know..but her own army of puppets too shy to demand..
If you believe what you believe and that she has the 'slightest ' shred of evidence...then you should..shouldnt you..?

Get real..

The reason you and They dont is you know know they will find the LIE and not an ET. story over ...leaving it in limbo preserves the "mystique"..thats what sells..not the truth..Its Linda who is keeping this thing open and alive when it should be dead..so who and what are the frauds ..

ATS found out about Linda a long long time ago...this thread went this long because of the possibility of catching a hoaxer(s) .not because the drone could be real per se as presented to us. So its not here you should be posting its at C2C and LMH and Whitleys..The same "board of directors" that fed us this tripe ..so to speak....demanding she come foward..good luck..









[edit on 28-2-2008 by Sys_Config]

Sys, beating the LMH drum is old, so get over it. I emailed her myself, and never heard a response, so she must be in some kind of conspiracy with strieber and pisces...right. You've a one track mind my friend. Get real indeed. She certainly isn't the holy grail of reporting, and I'm not that fond of her style myself, but that's a long way from hoaxing things so she'll get more hits on her website.

Frankly I don't care if it's real or not. I don't have anything at stake, but others apparently do.

I don't want to derail the thread here because I think the ideas that the OP brought up as well as the video are interesting. And by the way I don't think ET's had anything to do with it, and never stated as such.

Originally posted by mthood
Sys, beating the LMH drum is old, so get over it. I emailed her myself, and never heard a response, so she must be in some kind of conspiracy with strieber and pisces...right. You've a one track mind my friend. Get real indeed. She certainly isn't the holy grail of reporting, and I'm not that fond of her style myself, but that's a long way from hoaxing things so she'll get more hits on her website.

Frankly I don't care if it's real or not. I don't have anything at stake, but others apparently do.

I don't want to derail the thread here because I think the ideas that the OP brought up as well as the video are interesting. And by the way I don't think ET's had anything to do with it, and never stated as such.

Getting back on track The idea discusssed are ongoing at escher type operations ..that is not proof that caret itself was real or even influencing the technology going on around the world....but that now sci fi is borrowing from reality as opposed to the the other way around..the fiction now is reality..only no Ets around ..just us..if you dont like the sounds of those drums..I wasnt beating any so I dont know what you are talking about. I am actually glad you are saying something at all here considering your recent posts elsewhere saying ATS was mostly a forum for juvemiles. This is refreshing if not amusing to say the least.
But on the op story ted is speaking more on mass consumerization of the fabrication process and empowerment of the individual or even a remote local village to fashion solutions to immediate problems..or even meet remote demands..ie as the term desk top publishing from was used when that capability came about in the 80s, or multi-media..which we are so used to we dont pay attention..
with respect to the substrate computation and manipulation , those concepts appeared in early 1990 . This wiki page will lead you to all kinds of interesting..links and work being done..all by men..(i liked the Ted ..it involved the creativeness of children and how beneficial and profitable even it can be)

Thanx to spacebot on the "other" caret thread..for this one.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...






[edit on 28-2-2008 by Sys_Config]

[ I am actually glad you are saying something at all here considering your recent posts elsewhere saying ATS was mostly a forum for juvemiles. This is refreshing if not amusing to say the least.







[edit on 28-2-2008 by Sys_Config]

I understand full well what the TED video was about Sys, goodness gracious you take this stuff to seriously me thinks.

ATS, besides the zillion and one conspiracy theories, countless "is this UFO in my picture" (no sir it's a bird, bug, lens scratch, fill in the ____), and the reptilians are running the world, it's a great place. It serves a purpose, and frankly I don't spend much time here. These are just message boards you know. In fact the only reason I came here was because of these silly drones...

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by The Universal Mind

 

Wish I could talk about the game, but I can't

.

As for Alienware/Dell, if the company was involved, it was likely them just capitalizing on the buzz. However most companies, at least those the size of Dell, are smart enough to realize there's backlash for not quickly revealing involvement if a viral ad has gone too far.

...which Dell/Alienware has done - directly and emphatically: they had nothing to do with the Caret/Isaac fabrication (of item or story), but merely took advantage of an existing socio-dynamic that also fit nicely with their own marketing persona. So, in that sense we might suggest they are at least pseudo-viral with respect to intent if not M.O.

Nice treatise Xtraeme. The Ted clip was intriguing and inspiring - those MITers with the cash and undergrads sure can go places, eh?

Anyway - thanks for sharing...

But the notion of an functionally executable active language is not new. It's really old. At the basic level of human understanding of symbology, what you write down is more than just a representation of something, it's like a holographic piece of the thing itself. You paint a buffalo on a cave wall, and the actual "soul" or "power" of the buffalo is contained in it. I don't see where the concept is that much different.

And it's funny that the author mentions magic. Because executable symbolism is what magic is all about, whether you stick a pin in a voodoo doll that causes your enemy to get an ulcer, or slipping a piece of paper with a spell on it into a golem's mouth to make it do your bidding. Spells, incantations, even alchemistic writings are not just abstractions, but functional language machines that are supposed to make things happen.

A OUIJA or spirit board works that way, too. Obviously, a OUIJA board has few or no moving parts other than maybe the plenum. But the symbols and the board and the act of concentration on it is supposed to make things happen without the need for any complicated machinery.

These days, we separate our symbols from "reality." But there are things that happen in our minds on a quantum level that are physically changed and manipulated by those apparent abstractions. I suspect that's the key. It's not just letters or symbols or diagrams on a page that make things happen. It's what happens when you combine all of those things with your consciousness. Amplified and functionalized in some way we may not completely understand. Yet, anyway.

In that regard, the Issac CARET stuff may actually have a reasonable scientific foundation. The actualization of energy and motion through the interaction of symbols on a reality matrix. Now, how "alien" it is is anyone's guess. But it's interesting on a number of different levels.

Absolutely correct, Nohup - though we can extend your analogous discourse a bit further:

Suppose that the symbology xtraeme postulates manifests itself into some sort of cause-effect distinct but separate from the device (or merely the representation of the device) itself. Would it not then have 'realized' an objective, perhaps unintentional, in motivating some action or change in the environment into which it has materialized (figuratively if not literally)?

What if the motivation, if such can be assigned, is to persuade or engender some human response - whether individual or collectivized? A quick scan of the thousands of entries made in response to the image/device/symbol(s) being thrust upon the scene lo these many months ago would convince any casual observer that a huge and profound reaction has been the result -and not just on this forum by any measure.

Why? What does it all mean? Many of us armchair researchers have spent (perhaps wasted) countless hours on the topic - and to what end? As it is, some of us have experienced a bit of "buyer's remorse" in that we could have been more productive chasing the ends of other rainbows.

Ah, but caveat empor is a crutch only when a barter or exchange of value occurs and that doesn't really apply here, now does it?

Nevertheless - someone (or some group) has rattled the cage, and good. One day, I would like to know why - if for no other reason than to avoid the whirlpool of disappointment yet again...

Good day.

[edit on 3/7/2008 by Outrageo]