Looking For Peer Review - Development Collaborator

I've been pissing people off in the metaphysics forums for a month or so, and trying to get a little verification on a few aspects concerning the nature of reality - can it be determined and that sort of thing.

I've been turning over table in the theology/religions forums during this same period of time over sticky bits concerning the issue of God, theology, and what the hell that might mean, as far as reality and how the human being exists within that reality.

I've alluded to a theory that I call AutoGenesisism, and have directly challenged practically every premise salesman that works this site to prove to me that their box of soap flakes is better than the small samples that I've got in my sales kit for show and tell.

So far, I've been pretty successful in verifying - at least to my own satisfaction - that I may be really on to something extremely important with this Auto-G premise. I think I'm at the point where I need an expert to come in and try killing it off for me with direct logical peer review.

What I'm looking for is a logician who has the capacity to apply what he or she has been trained to establish, to the issue of pre-physics existential initiation, and then to take what's been established and carry it through - in a "bubbles and arrows" workflow manner - to the emergence of what we have (as a species) attributed with our own existence (our creator god-being). Then, to move from there to the question of why we exist, and whether we exist as a result of this being's need for existential fulfillment. And yes, this all has to happen without a hint of faith-based thinking being applied fro beginning to end. This isn't a joke. If you are the person capable of following such a detailed premise from start to finish, and establishing the veracity of every detail by means of direct and extrapolated logic, then we really need to talk.

I published a book recently (last September) called TAKING DOWN THE CURTAIN: God, Man, and the human being and literally rush it into print to protect the central premise from being beaten to market by anyone who might've been working on the same thing. We all know that this has happened before (the television invention is a perfect example) with an idea whose time has come, and the notion seems to emerge from everywhere at once. Well, this notion is a bizarre combination of common sense and absolutely counterintuitive thinking, and while I haven't found any reference to it as a whole, the bits have been showing up in random emergings ever since I published. In short, this is an idea whose time has definitely come, and I need someone who can help me polish this thing for public announcement.

My concern is that I may have overlooked something (anything) small but critical in my rush to publish. I am also concerned that no one else I know has been capable of making it through the entire premise without getting completely lost. To me, it's a no-brainer, but then I wrote the damn thing, so of course I understand it. I have no personal or professional connections to academia, and this is also why I haven't had the proper amount of skilled assessment to date. Frankly, it's all well over the heads of anyone I know.

Of all the Internet portals I've haunted recently, this one seems to be the most likely suspect for making the connection I need to make. That said, I will be putting this call out to every site I've chosen for concept vetting purposes, since the person I need to get with won't be very easy to find, and I don't know how else to contact this individual.

What this person must bring to the table is the following.

1. Verified expertise in critical thinking and logical ramification/extrapolation - preferably with credentials
   
2. A freedom from any personal/ideological agenda that either causes him/her to be resistant or vulnerable to the arguments being examined.
   
3. A conversational knowledge within the arenas of philosophy, theology, human cultural history, physics, metaphysics, comparative religion
   
4. A willingness to entertain what may - at first blush - seem extremely counterintuitive, while not illogical per se. The capacity to appreciate that this is a novel idea, and therefore it clashes with accepted assumptions.
   
5. A willingness to be blunt AND to completely detail the exact metrics involved in establishing any and all critiques with the purpose being (and agreed to) the further development of any aspect that proves to be a "loose end" in this very specific premise.
   
6. A promise to work with me to refining this very already highly developed premise - if refining is found to be necessary - and respecting confidentiality until such time that the entire premise is ready for full public scrutiny.

What I offer is part ownership in the premise itself and a percentage of all moneys generated from book sales and follow-on ventures that arise from this specific premise. If I actually have what I honestly believe that I have, this one small spin on the eternal question of what is and why it exists will affect the lives of at least tens of millions of people, and from my own market research, Europe is fairly starving for it at this very moment. Especially the tech savvy sector of Europe's hundreds of millions of people who have literally walked off on traditional religion and what they see as Eastern Philosophy nonsense. That one market alone is worth many, many millions if this premise can be literally proven logically airtight.

I am not looking for a spiritually enlightened person to guide me back to their particular god or mothership. I am not looking for someone with their own pet theory. I am not looking for someone who will try to convince me that they were the ones to come up with what I have here, and that while they never actually published their identical premise, I have to cut them in due to (I don't know) cosmic consciousness sharing or some other insane assertion. That's horsesh*t in my view, so don't even bother.

I also am not interested in anyone who can't prove their professional bona fides in the field of logic. I have plenty of people who "know what they know", but I'm looking for a real expert to peer review this thing. It's dense as all hell, and you'll need to be highly trained in the field of logical examination to be able to understand the technical aspects of it in order to verify it, or to properly present why it has either failed verification or has proven to be unverifiable. I don't want to have to teach someone how to logically approach what should be obvious to a trained logician.

I'm looking for someone who wants to earn their slice of what may prove to be the biggest overall breakthrough of the last 90 years or so.

U2U me and let's start chatting about this.

Thanks.

I'm 18, and like to believe i check off on all of the above. No credentials for the critical thinking, as you may have guessed.

No money please, just seems interesting and would love to help out.

Originally posted by gandhi
I'm 18, and like to believe i check off on all of the above. No credentials for the critical thinking, as you may have guessed.

No money please, just seems interesting and would love to help out.

I appreciate that. The issue is that this thing will get challenged, probably full frontal assault, and I need some super pro to examine it before that happens. Someone who has the chops and the resume to go to bat for it along with me. I'm just an idiot who got this entire layout piped into my head, and have the writing skills to describe it and (I hope) properly stage it as a book that people can understand. But writing is what I do, and what I'm good at. When the sh*t starts flying, the person who takes this on will be taking some heavy incoming, and I won't put anyone in here with me that can't mow down whatever it is that decides it's God's will that it does something to shut this thing down. Frankly, I need a monster that's bigger than the monster we'll be facing.

I have no training in metaphysics or physics or existentialism or comparative religions or theology. I know as much as most people, but this thing is way past my own ability to have invented it. Even if it didn't have such scary direct association with what we already know is true - which kind of intimidates me, to be honest - I'm not the kind of person who could've masterplanned it. I sure as hell don't have the resume to be taken seriously over it. I'm like a guy who stumbled over an enormous bag of high-grade coc aine, and who doesn't know anyone in the drug business who can turn that bag into a lot of money. I'm in deep water here, and while I know what I know about this premise, and I can pretty well get the gist of the ramifications of all of it to the extent that I won't be bullsh*tted, what I need is a guy with the real knowledge in this field to look at what I have and be honest with me about it.

To me, this is serious business, and I have to be honorable to whatever the hell it is that dumped it on me. Believe me, it hasn't been fun so far. Not at all. I do appreciate your offer, though. I really do.

It would seem a great deal of what you explore is already given a more formal treatment through lower predicate calculus, information theory, and design patterns as used in UML / database theory. My understanding of your book is that you've defined "context" to imply how things can intersect (as a disjunctive operation) and be made exclusive (through say an xor or ~ implies operator). However you never explained why understanding people as a product of the environment and as defined through various social contexts is meaningful. All I see is the assertion that we exist in this manner. This isn't terribly controversial. It's actually the foundation of behavioral science. People as social creatures make up groups (groups are defined by logical connectives).

Mainly though this idea of the information continuum is somewhat of a truism. All material objects have information in them. Otherwise there's no way to quantify and distinguish it from anything else. If you're looking to have empiricists seriously consider this concept you need to start digging down in to more difficult questions like the Bekenstein-Hawking black hole information paradox. Simply declaring "information is eternal once it emerges" isn't going to satisfy a deductive scientist. Penrose for instance advocates through the CCC hypothesis (based on observable evidence) that information loss is inevitable.

When I say information loss I mean that information is encoded in some sort of non-massless object. This could be as small as a Higgs boson or as big as a geological layer of sediment, but information (at least as far as we currently understand it) is usually encoded in an object that has some degree of mass.

Personally I favor the argument that information precedes manifestation. So my argument would be that energy has inside of it the seeds of baryonic structures. This is somewhat supported by the fact that the cosmic microwave background radiation might possibly tell us about what happened before the Big Bang. If that's possible then massless particles can also somehow encode information (or maybe it's simply raw information in some pre-material Platonic universe). This would also more correspond with your definition that any event that's happened is "immutable" in the sense that it did happen and can't be undone. However quantum retrocausality may ultimately usurp this otherwise seemingly logical conclusion.

Another finicky issue, on page 62 you discuss time as a real quantity. In Peter Lynds paper, "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Continuity," it's postulated there isn't a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process at which the relative position of a body in relative motion or a specific physical magnitude would theoretically be precisely determined. It is concluded it is exactly because of this that time (relative interval as indicated by a clock) and the continuity of a physical process is possible, with there being a necessary trade off of all precisely determined physical values at a time, for their continuity through time. This explanation is also shown to be the correct solution to the motion and infinity paradoxes, excluding the Stadium, originally conceived by the ancient Greek mathematician Zeno of Elea. Quantum Cosmology, Imaginary Time and Chronons are also then discussed, with the latter two appearing to be superseded on a theoretical basis. In other words reality is merely sequences of events that happen relative to one another. Time is an illusion.

This type of argument stands starkly in contrast to your position that, "we, as corporeal beings, don't actually exist from moment to moment." Lynd's alternate perspective postulates all objects in this universe are utterly real and constantly under transform at the planck scale. Hence the constant popping in and popping out effect. Formalized treatments are required for scientists to take these sorts of ideas seriously.

Similarly on page 64 you comment, "Your corporeal body is an event that keeps on happening, and will continue to happen until it stops happening. Then it will never happen again ..." There are a number of physicists who would argue otherwise. In "The Physics of Immortality" Frank Tipler hypothesizes that at the omega point (i.e. the end of the universe) all quantum states will be accessible and due to this that a sufficiently advanced civilization could reconstruct everything that was previously existent in physical reality.

On the biological front you have to face down researchers who do neurological work with cetaceans. To assert on page 74 that, "Not every brain is a human brain. And yet these brains also generate information, and that information is also different than the raw residual information that you'd find in the Informational Continuum. ... It's motivations are much simpler, and more rooted in survival, but the thing has a brain, and that brain is generating information ... That said this information isn't Intellect. It's only reactive to external stimulation and ... it lacks what we'll be referring to .. as The Personality. ... You can debate this ... if you like, but personification is only indulged here when all other descriptive devices fail." While common sense might support this, real world research shows otherwise.

"Many dolphin brains are larger than our own and second in mass only to the human brain when corrected for body size,” said Lori Marino, a zoologist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, who has used magnetic resonance imaging scans to map the brains of dolphin species and compare them with those of primates. “The neuroanatomy suggests psychological continuity between humans and dolphins and has profound implications for the ethics of human-dolphin interactions,” she added. www.timesonline.co.uk...

I give this laundry list to point out that you really need to be much more specific when you discuss these sorts of things. You're touching on a lot of fields. There are literally droves of PhDs who spend their lives thinking about these topics who would be thrilled to move their subject forward, even an inch, in an empirical way. No one appreciates a novice telling the experts they're wrong without some form of strong evidence.

Also you start to veer in to the realm of conjecture when you make the statement that our existing as information necessitates man continues to exist post-death. Sure the information that describes us will continue to exist, but that doesn't mean the information is self-aware or conscious. Also there's no way to test the hypothesis. So, unfortunately, it's the realm of theosophical speculation.

Beyond physics and biological related statements, in the philosophical arena, there are a number of ideas explored in your book that are already touched on by a number of older well established philosophers. For instance on page 42 you note, "realistic folks are right about the fact that human beings are only the sum total of what their corporeal bodies create, and that they, as individuals, did not exist in any form whatsoever until they were born as physical human beings..." John Locke in "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" theorized much the same that the mind of a newborn child is a white page or, as it's now popularly termed, a tabula rasa. This follows naturally from renaissance thinking which argues reality is logical and that therefore there is no paranormal preexistent anything.

There are also some small errors in the book. For instance on page 13 you write, "The Christian theology - it is the youngest of the world's major theologies after all ..." This is slightly off the mark. Islam is the youngest of the world's three major monotheistic religions.

An even smaller complaint, on page 3, "This was after adding millions, maybe even billions of such galaxies to its ever expanding territory." The universe has 1.7 x 10^11 (170 billion) observable galaxies. Flip millions to billions and billions to trillions and you're all good.

You have a great writing style and the book is very readable. Hope this helps!