When I did the piece on solid state physics, etc., below, I got hte usual stuff about worm holes and so forth. I get the picture in my mind of a our future being running around in a deerstaqlker hat with a magnifying glass sending our bodies out to look at things.

The point of what ***I*** wrote had nothing to do with scifi conventions. Buck Rogers is out. The question is what is the unvierse we are looking into? There may be a vast number of them right up against ours, the ones WE perceive. But again, PLEASE don’t send me a bunch of Hindu stuff about the Self to replace the scifi standards.

I was pointing out that the unviverse we OBSERVE is the OBSERVED universe because WE are observer. This is NOT a mystical concept anymore than it is mystical to realize that the unvierse did not HAVE to produce US.

To the Classical or Levantine civilizations, the idea that there IS a universe, or that a universe could exist which does not look like this one is as absurd as Oriental mysticism is to us. It isimpossible for us to realize that the Hindu/Buddhist concept of reincarnation is NOT religious, it is THEIR physics. They ASSUME reincarnation.

The Nicean Creed talks about “one syubstance,” a concept which has no meaning to our physics. Theya re speaking of “substance” and “accidents,” which made up the PHYSICAL description of thing in Classical society inthe same way we souls speak of molecules, and PLEASE do’t give me the old “they had atoms” stuff!

The point is that we are, star-reaching wise, very primitive. The only way we can MOVE at all is by blasting something backwards to make us move forward. That’s sort of like the Chinese use of black powder. It’s easy to go back and say the Chinese showed us how to go to the mean but they obviously wouldn’t have.

Anyway, this subject is at a dead end.

As I said, I just wrote that to get my concepts on record. Someday they’ll be seen as absurd or obvious.