Uncle Jack

Have you met my Uncle Jack? He laughed at me when I played this song for him...​

​

 

Good Morning Rose!

Sorry to say I'm not familiar with him (Berlinski) and don't remember any content of Sarfatti mentioning him.

I do however remember and found a convo back in 2013 with Chris regarding an Essay Contest and the chances of being accepted into the contest.

Essay Contest: It From Bit, or Bit From It?

Here: http://stardrive.org/stardrive/index.php/all-blog-articles/myblog-ftd/tags/FQXi/

I did find a color version of Chris' image on that page....smmileee

​

 

As I mentioned I think I did anyhow earlier on in this thread. Jack was involved in the 100 year starship project by DARPA. He was considered an expert in propulsion tech at the time and he may still be I'm not certain.

Jack was also involved with SARA here: http://www.sara.com/

Who is Sara... http://www.sara.com/SARA/about_sara.html

Well Gordon Novel and Jack Sarfatti had a huge falling out....I think Jack finally believe him to be an opportunist of sorts in this field and not very savvy on the entire subject as the seasoned technologist within the field. Gordon started to threaten Jack for exposing him as a fraud of sorts and got an injunction against him for the threats in court. There are a couple of articles on it here if you're interested Rose....but Gordon Novel sort of fell to the wayside after his encounter with Jack and that indeed tells quite a tale on Gordon....as he pretty much got exposed as a fraud. So I have seen in the past parts of that video awhile back....but I think Jack is much farther into the secret funding and findings of science than Novel ever was due to the fact that he was able to quite this guy Gordon so quickly.

Here are a couple of articles written on Gordon and Sarfatti tit for tat in the past...

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2010/01/jack-sarfatti-provides-further-sara-details/

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2010/01/jack-pulls-the-trigger-gordon-novel-in-the-crosshairs/

Here is part of the criminal complaint I found on the net:

“An allegedly armed delusional violent ex-convict felon Gordon Dwayne Novel (DOB Feb 7, 1938, New Orleans LA) allegedly now living in Santa Monica, California and his son Sur Novel, allegedly flying to Los Angeles, California from Bangkok, Thailand to aid and abet his father’s violent threats, have been using the internet to send me harassing e-mails with threats of severe bodily harm including castration, blinding in both eyes, ripping off of ears, breaking of bones. Gordon and Sur Novel have threatened to stalk me and attack me in a restaurant in San Francisco when I least expect it. Gordon Novel has a history of making such violent threats to many people some of whom I have copied in the cc list. I would like to press criminal charges against both Gordon Novel and his son Sur Novel for their violation of Statute 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) and under California Penal Code 422. I will file formal complaints in person with SFPD, SF District Attorney and San Francisco Office of the FBI ASAP.”

So there you have it the Gordon Novel and Sarfatti saga....

Adding...I suspect who ever is privately funding Jack's research is based out of SARA or is indeed SARA itself...but that concludes the idea of "private funding with deep pockets" as he has publicly asserted.

 

Not wanting to interrupt the most interesting conversation of David and Rose on another thread here I wanted to add this here as it seems to coincide with some of the things spoken in that conversation in theory....Enjoy.

​

Jack Sarfatti has been exploring a generalisation of David Bohm’s ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics, extended so a particle is not just guided by the quantum potential, but, in turn, through backactivity, modifies the quantum potential field. Backactivity introduces nonlinearity into the evolution of the wave function, much like the bidirectional nonlinear interaction of spacetime and matter-energy in general relativity.

The effects of backactivity are negligible in interactions at the atomic scale; divergences from the predictions of conventional quantum mechanics would be manifest only in systems where quantum coherence occurs at the mesoscopic and macroscopic scale. Sarfatti suggests that this post-quantum backactivity may be involved in various phenomena as follows:

Postulates
1. Life in general, and consciousness in particular, depends upon a backactivity-mediated feedback loop operating on macroscopic quantum structures in the cell. Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have suggested the microtubule as the site of this quantum system, but it may be elsewhere.

Life, through homeostasis, maintains the far-from-equilibrium quantum machinery necessary for its own existence. Rocks aren’t alive because they have no structures which prevent thermal decoherence of the wave function.

There is, then, an élan vital, and it consists of backactivity operating in macromolecular quantum systems assembled within the cell.

2. Backactivity is the missing puzzle-piece needed to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. Linear quantum mechanics operating in a background spacetime cannot possibly describe the effects of spacetime curvature due to mass-energy or curvature acting on itself. Macroscopic quantum systems employing backactivity may produce strong spacetime curvature or interactions with the zero-point vacuum energy not predicted by orthodox quantum mechanics or general relativity. Per item (1) above, a “macroscopic quantum system employing backactivity” is, necessarily, alive.

3. Development of a comprehensive and consistent post-quantum theory incorporating backactivity may, then, permit development of technologies impossible without such effects, for example:

• Communication across spacelike-separated intervals.
• Faster-than-light travel with an Alcubierre-like “warp drive” without the need for exotic, negative energy, matter.
• Access to the zero-point energy of the vacuum.

If Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff’s suggestion that interaction with the zero-point energy is the source of inertia (as opposed to the Mach/Einstein view that it is caused by the dragging of inertial frames by distant galaxies), then technologies employing backactivity might be able to modify inertia.

I don’t know whether these suggestions are correct—nobody does at present, but there’s nothing in any of them which seems inaccessible to experiment in the relatively near future. Let’s assume calculations are done, predictions are made, experiments are performed, and the experimenters win the Nobel prize, shafting the theorists once again—that backactivity is shown to exist and indeed both accounts for life and permits the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

 

Good Morning Rose!

See! You already knew about Uncle Jack...LOL

I have seen some of that but thanks for saving it...I too will have some fun reading it as well. Thanks!

 

an old interview from 2010 with Uncle Jack...He speaks of Bohm and his theory combined.

Now....if you watch the video he's actually eluding to Qualia and I found it quite interesting that when he speaks of the three....you'll see a red flash in the video shortly after 2:50.......I don't know who put that in there but it is indeed a reference to qualia....



The strange world according to Uncle Jack!



​

 

One more for the day on thought by Bohm

~

First Man: I think, I think I am, therefore I am, I think.

Establishment: Of course you are my bright little star, I've miles And miles Of files Pretty files of your forefather's fruit and now to suit our great computer, You're magnetic ink.

First Man: I'm more than that, I know I am, at least, I think I must be.

Inner Man: There you go man, keep as cool as you can. Face piles And piles Of trials With smiles. It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave And keep on thinking free.




Tell us what you've seen in faraway forgotten lands
Where empires have turned back to sand.

~

Ozymandias
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

Shelly ~ 1792-1822

~

​

 

Okay...since we have moved this to another thread...I will add this as it was in my Theater of the Parallel Universe which I saved...

btw....

Theatre is a word that has evolved from the Greek word theatron meaning a ‘place for viewing.’

Theory is a word that has evolved from the Greek word theorein meaning ‘to gaze upon.’

The act of observation within the Parallel Universe. Or as I used to put it...the all seeing eye.





As far as using the word phrase, "emerging reality" it's a common way to describe how many people experience life, and also the fact that the experience is fluid, such as wave like. Causality and determinism often playing a key roll.


An interview:

Bohm: Well, in relativity we have the notion of the universal field which is dynamic, flowing and according to Einstein particles should eventually emerge out of this as singularities or very strong regions, stable pulses of field, which gradually emerge, the fields gradually emerge with other particles. So we have an unbroken universe which is in constant flow, dynamically, and even the very notions of space and time have become relative, which were previously absolute. And it may even go on to singularities like a black hole, the supposed beginning of the universe, where the present laws would brake down all together. All concepts that we know. So that’s a very revolutionary view compared with what we had, say, a century ago.

And then there’s quantum theory, which perhaps is more revolutionary. It’s hard to explain that in a short time, but there are 3 main features I’d say.One is the notion that a quantum process is in some sense indivisible, that it is one whole, which cannot, it can be broken but then it becomes an entirely different process, so each process is a whole, otherwise it can’t be what it is, and all the quantum processes of movement are linked as it where in one whole.

Now the second point is the wave particle duality, the discovery that, say, electrons which classically particles can behave statistically like waves when in a more precise experiment and light which is classically a wave can behave like a particle in a more precise experiment. So it seems we have this 2 aspects which depend on how the system is treated, context dependent, which is quite different from the classical idea that whether it’s a wave or a particle is intrinsic.

Now the third point is what’s non-locality. That we find that in certain conditions there’s apparently an immediate connection of different particles.It’s rather hard to explain, we can use it for signals but still it seems to be there. It’s connected with the experiment of Einstein-Podolsy-Rosen and has been checked by, you they’ve been tested by Bell’s theorem aspects experiment. It seems pretty well established, right. Both theoretically and experimentally.

Again all of these you see combined to the notion that the universe is a kind of indivisible whole, rather than analyzed into constituent elements which interact has separately existent.

Interviewer: But how much can you tell about this indivisible whole?

Bohm: Well, we can tell quite a bit in the sense that all the laws of quantum mechanics are concerned with it you see. I mean you can tell, well I don’t know what you want to know, but I mean all the laws you compute, the properties of all sorts of things. For example, take superconductivity. At high temperature the electrons will generally scatter of obstacles and metals. And therefore there will be a resistance for the current flow would stop unless it’s maintained by a voltage. At very low temperatures and certain metals the current flow is indefinitely without scattering and that is as a quantum effect.

Now as far as, if you analyze it, you can see that it’s due to the fact that the electrons are a sort of locked, held together in summary by these non-local interactions. So that if there is an obstacle they go around and reform rather than scatter. It’s rather than a ballet dance, that people going around and reform as in a crowd each person is following his own personal purpose and they all scatter, they all get into each others way.

Interviewer: So this unity also creates a kind of ordering of things?

Bohm: Yes, it can create a kind of ordering of things. But at the same time it explains, you can see that there are situations where we have this high degree of order and others where we don’t. That it’s possible within the mathematics to see that when something called the wavefunction, represented as a set up product of independent factors, and all the particles behave independently, but then in a more general situation they don’t. You can explain why we have so much independence in ordinary experience and yet why in a more careful probing we find order, new kinds of order.

So the classical level, the Newtonian level, is explained by quantum mechanics as a limiting case. Now the more, you have a whole, but the whole determines itself to behave somewhat like independent parts in many cases. So even whether it’s going to behave like parts is determined by the whole,right.

Interviewer: But what we can see is the parts rather than the whole.

Bohm: Well, in physics we see the parts because that’s the way we approached it the last few centuries. I don’t know if, you see, I think our perception is influenced by our way of thinking. So that we accept this mechanical way of looking at things. But if you went back a thousand or two thousand years, I don’t think people actually saw the particles as primary.The way we see depends on the way we think.

Interviewer: But is it a choice, do we have to choose between the whole and the parts?

Bohm: No, well you see, it’s a question or whether you have a holistic approach, which puts the whole as primary. In classical physics the parts are the primary concept and the whole is only an auxiliary concept which is convenient, you have many parts working together like a machine. But the parts are taken as the basic reality. And seeing we just subjectively we find it convenient to think about the whole. But in quantum mechanics I think there’s something else, that the whole is object and the parts are the result of analysis. But we have large areas where the whole behaves to some extend like independent parts.

Bohm-SarfattiBack-Reaction

the quantum behaviour of a system of electrons and the behaviour of mind

Geometry acts on Matter/Energy telling it how to move,

while Matter/Energy has a reciprocal Back-Reaction on Geometry telling it how to bend.

This bending of our four-dimensional Space Time Geometry explains the phenomena of Gravity, such as why an apple falls to the Earth and why there are Black Holes.

Charge = Amplitude to Emit



Emit....to throw or give off or out (as light or heat)
cast, discharge, emanate, evolve, exhale,expel, give out, irradiate, issue, radiate,release, send (out), shoot, throw out, vent

Emission....The emission spectrum of a chemical element or chemical compound is the spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the element's atoms or the compound's molecules when they are returned to a lower energy state.



What are the chances of that eh?
Anagram:
Spirit = Stir Pi


Stirring the Pi



Spirit = Time Circle
Time circles.....Feedback loops


Check it
EMIT
Anagram:
EMIT = TIME



~

Uncle Jack's "BACK REACTION"

Sarfatti wrote that people such as Josephson, Stapp, Penrose and others have suggested changes in quantum theory which allow for the possibility of "intent" or the like to bias quantum outcomes, but that all these authors operate using the Copenhagen picture in which there really is a "collapse" of the wavefunction. Jack advocates a Bohmian picture in which both wave and particle are always real and there is no collapse. So how does mind enter the world? It must have been here from the start. Jack describes an explicit dualism in which both mind and matter exist...

"In accord with Chalmer's idea, I posit that the wavefunction is intrinsically 'mental' capable of qualia."

...and he suggests equating the guiding wave in Bohmian mechanics with the mental aspect of the universe, generally: the particles are "matter," "mind" the pilot-wave.

That might be uninteresting except for the next step: the "mental" aspect of the universe can be upgraded to life and consciousness by self-organization. This happens when a physical system uses its own nonlocality in its organization. In this case a feedback loop is created, as follows: the system configures itself so as to set up its own Bohmian pilot wave, which in turn directly affects its physical configuration which then affects its nonlocal pilot wave which affects the configuration,

etc...
Normally in quantum mechanics this "back-action" is not taken into account. The wave guides the particles but the back-action of the particle onto the wave is not systematically calculated - of course, the back-reaction is physically real: the movement of the particle determines the initial conditions of the next round of calculation. But there is no systematic way to characterize such feedback. One reason that this works in practice is that for systems that are not self organizing the back-action may not exert any systematic effect.

This is an interesting way to utilize nonlocality despite Eberhard's proof that point-to-point signaling by the quantum connection is not in the cards! (If a physical system occupied a dynamical stability based on such a feedback loop then it would be a "nonlocal" physical system, without superluminal signals.)

Questions of consciousness aside, consideration of "back-action" as a dynamical fact nourishes a suspicion that linear quantum theory is fundamentally an approximation...

~

Proponents of qualia:

David Chalmers

Erwin Schrödinger and his Cat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia




~







http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf

~



​

 

What I will do is start another thread. Rose and Shadow, feel free to change the name of the thread, or suggest another name for the thread, so people can know the subject area. I will start posting the stuff on Laurel canyon, etc on this other thread. We can also change the name of this thread also if it helps.

Just so people know what is in the thread. Hope this helps.

 

I see...I don't think from what I'm reading here he's speaking of Sarfatti.

 

I have no idea who Kerry is referring to when she speaks of Uncle Jack. Is she referring to Sarfatti?....I coined that term for Sarfatti years ago. So if she is referring to Sarfatti...she directly stole that from me! I'm quite certain Mr Goode has no idea who that is....if he does I'd be very surprised. If she's referring to Sarfatti as Uncle Jack...I find that interesting only in the fact that I coined that for Mr. Sarfatti long before Mr Goode hit the world wide web...lol It is quite possible that Mr Goode may have seen some of my writing on the subject (he tends to nick peoples work off the internet for his diatribe) and put that together some how but I have no idea of what you are referring to. Can you enlighten me?

As for Kerry...I really don't pay much attention to her (or Goode for that matter) and have not for quite some time.

No that's not me in the photo. I wouldn't come within ten feet of that woman...she was nuts! LOL He is in San Francisco...I am living in NC. I found that photo doing some research on Esalan, and channeling of the 9...and I have been corresponding with him in regards to his physics papers for quite some time. Going on 6 years now....he invites me to his panel discussions on various topics. Here is a screen shot of one of those invitations for a draft he did:




Here is where he was just recently at UCSD giving a series of lectures with some other physicists....at the end he speaks of those deep pockets and the area he's researching.

Without as much as admitting so....he gave me a A when he read my thoughts on Coleen Thomas and what she was up to at the time....and her interactions with him.​

 

One last interesting side note.....they've not stopped toying with the minds of people on the street....This is incidentally part of what I got an "A" grade on from Uncle Jack....

Not long ago there was this internet nut job...she claimed the Pleadians were going to save us and her spaceship was piloted by Arch Angel Michael...her brother....she was selling videos on YT of her boobs to fund her cause...and she was indeed under the "influence" of Uncle Jack....(she is the woman on the right)...Coleen Thomas...the man of course is Uncle Jack!

She has since come down a bit and has found Jesus.....kinda like Susan Atkins!

Now that's a fuckin conspiracy eh?​