Ark's journal entry from 1988

Bernhard

Jedi Master
As I'm about to finish The Wave Book 8, I read Ark's journal entry from 1988 which Laura quoted in her book. I'm amazed by the fact the he wrote this in 1988 (May 25th) and how much his words reflect what the Cassiopaean's have told us and relate to Laura's work. I've found it very inspiring and a good reminder of why we do what we do.

Determination is needed. Thinking in terms of weeks and months instead of years. What is needed is setting a goal and striving to achieve it. Because as it is, I am in no way different from other people. I am drifting the same way they are drifting. My only chance is to find a different way.

Thus, I want to change my priorities. I want to change my way of living. To change to what?

I have ideal conditions. It could not be better. I am, in principle, absolutely free. So what?

I see no other way than setting and realizing goals. Setting and realizing goals. Setting and realizing. Setting and realizing.

Otherwise, there is drifting. “Life is real only when I am.” If I am living consciously, then I know that I am.

If we set goals and are not conscious, if we are not attentive, if we are not wise – then we are drifting. And, sooner or later there is a reversal in direction. I want to avoid this. But first, I need to understand what is:

Drifting.

Days and years are passing. I am drifting. Again I am drifting. I am thinking back. What was good and what was bad? It was good when I knew where I was going. When from my depths I designed a goal and when I was striving to get it. What is my goal today? Where do I go? Where do I want to get to? Have I reconciled myself with life? Has a crystallization occurred? Am I satisfied with it? What is my way?

I have ideal – best of the best – conditions to answer this question. What do I choose? And then, how do I want to realize this choice?

I am drifting. Again I am drifting because first, I was supposed to understand “drifting.”

No, it is better without planning. It is better if it will be based on free association until the subject is exhausted.

Bielefeld, West Germany. Europe. Earth. Solar System. The Galaxy. The Universe. That’s me in this perspective. The New Age is coming. Do I need a greater scale of things? No, this is enough. So, here I am, on the planet Earth, in the Solar System. I know nothing of other living beings in the Universe. The purpose of my existence: unknown. So, a hypothesis is necessary. A working hypothesis to be falsified or confirmed. A kind of a compass. An axiom, a postulate to be verified by developing a system based on this postulate and by checking if it is useful, if it leads somewhere and does not drift in a circle.

And it seems that the only reasonable hypothesis is one that comes from the unknown system taught by Gurdjieff. This system tells us that the world has a certain purpose. It tells us that not everything works well. It tells us that there are certain bugs in the construction. It is quite possible that using the meta-language, one can prove that any program on that scale must have bugs. So, the Universe is a program, a program that has bugs, but which has the in-built capacity for self-improving.

There are, consequently, certain units that are brought to existence with this specific purpose: to self-evolve to a degree high enough to be able to discover the methods of debugging. These repairs can only be done on a local scale, therefore local units are created. Of course, there are ways to act non-locally, but for that, one has to have some knowledge of the operating system. Thus, this is the allegory.

I am such a unit. I am alive, and I am endowed with some inputs and outputs and peripherals; with some modems for communication. The computer allegory. So, potentially, I have everything necessary for self-development. Of course, during my life certain things went wrong, therefore certain connections are wrong, certain others are even deadly wrong. But these defects can and must be circumvented by closing certain channels and by opening of others. Anyway, I can only do what I can do – no more.

This is a general perspective. From this general perspective, my aim is to save the Universe. Or, rather: to help save the Universe. And this I have to do, whatever the future might be. Independently of the fact that there may be an immortal soul that can be developed by conscious effort and intellectual suffering, I have no other choice but to help to debug the Universe.

“In the beginning was the Word … ” Only today do I understand this message. This means we are entering into an important era. In a sense into a final era: when to decide to be of or not of the Universe. This is the general perspective.

Now my role in this opus: I am a worker; I have a mission that is to be fulfilled. I have been sent here; sent into this time, this place, in this and not in some other form. The first thing to do is to find and read the designated task. But there is more. There are, namely, information channels with which I can communicate with those that sent me here and that are controlling the mission. Because the higher intelligence must have some control, but it cannot do the work which only I can do. So, there are certain information channels.

Of course, I am not able to make free use of them. I cannot use them until there is a guarantee that using of these channels will not bring harm.

Summary:
Universe is a Computer Program

Self organizing, Self evolving Units, some of these are

Debugging Local Units on a

Mission. There is a

Higher Intelligence and

Communication Channels.

Of course, all this process is based on the law of big numbers. That is: not everything can be programmed. Statistical fluctuations must be allowed. Otherwise nothing will evolve by itself. Otherwise there will be no self-evolution!

It follows thus that probabilistics, that stochastics, that elements of uncertainty, elements of choice, are at the base of the construction of the Universe. This is interesting and I want to work on this. This is very important.

I want to return to this point later on. But now, I want to proceed further: What is my aim, what is my goal, what is my task? What kind of work am I to perform? What kind of work do I want to perform?

The Universe may be a deterministic automaton, nevertheless, with such a complex action that there is no other method of predicting than running the Universe to see what will happen. In this sense, therefore, we must be satisfied with a statistical description when we want to foresee the future. Let us say that this is a rough picture. But then, where is free will? The ability to choose? For precognition? Something is therefore lacking in this picture.

Workings of the Universe.

The problem of determinism and indeterminism. The problem of free will and the problem of chance. All this relates to the problem of time and to the problem of other dimensions. Therefore I must not discuss these things on too simple a level. So, we have the following circle of problems:

Time – Causality – Determinism – Chance – Phase – Other Dimensions – Quantum and Classical – Complementarity – Information – Organization.

What is important here is that these are general laws – these are objective. There are statistical laws that are valid on average, and there are laws that concern each individual case. But these laws leave a certain rather big freedom. Within this freedom there is what is and within this freedom we are given [a] free hand. Thus, not everything is determined and predictions for the future have the form: if this, then this; if not, then that.

I am living in the world based on technology. I am using this technology. We have computers. We know something about computer programs. Only now we understand what it means, “In the beginning was the Word.” Therefore we should not alienate ourselves from this technology. Our cognizance goes through technology – which does not exclude the fact that for some so-called “chosen” people, there are other possibilities of gaining knowledge. These are possibilities which are not, however, saving all of humanity.

Thus, I am aware of the fact that I am not developing for myself. I am not working for salvation or immortality. I am sent here with a mission and my task is to add to the saving of the Universe. I can do it by helping humanity. But in order to do it, I need knowledge, I need to be able to discern. So, the goal appears:

To discover the workings of the Universe, to learn about human beings, about myself.

To learn to help the Universe means to help the Creator. To be of some help to the Creator of everything. Everything-that-is is a great thing. So, this is my ultimate goal. The goal from which all other goals stem.

Now, come back to the beginning. If this is my goal, then there should be no time for drifting, no place for pleasures. Somebody told me that I need to rest, but I do not need to rest when there is work to be done. At each moment I can choose. At these moments I have to be careful not to let things just go their way.

So, the ultimate goal is clear. Now must come realization. It is clear, psychologically, that the goal is difficult. And there are all kinds of obstacles, there are phantoms that can delude … all of mythology is full of temptation stories!

The goal is high and right and good, but for some reason, it cannot be obtained by just anybody who can see it. There is some sort of filter in action, there is a selection criteria. The goal can be reached only by some chosen ones, some who can pass a test, who can oppose temptations, who can prove to have enough strength, who can show that the Gods have them under their care. Otherwise, I will perish. (Arkadiusz Jadczyk, Research Journals, 1988)
 
Yes, very inspiring indeed. But ever since I read this quote sometime back, I have wondered about 'Debugging the Universe'.

Spiral Out said:
And it seems that the only reasonable hypothesis is one that comes from the unknown system taught by Gurdjieff. This system tells us that the world has a certain purpose. It tells us that not everything works well. It tells us that there are certain bugs in the construction. It is quite possible that using the meta-language, one can prove that any program on that scale must have bugs. So, the Universe is a program, a program that has bugs, but which has the in-built capacity for self-improving.

There are, consequently, certain units that are brought to existence with this specific purpose: to self-evolve to a degree high enough to be able to discover the methods of debugging. These repairs can only be done on a local scale, therefore local units are created. Of course, there are ways to act non-locally, but for that, one has to have some knowledge of the operating system. Thus, this is the allegory.

What does it mean that there are certain bugs in the construction? I have always found this viewpoint to be intriguing. I have some knowledge and experience of writing computer programs and debugging. But in what way does this universal program have bugs? I mean to say, if everything happens naturally and all exists for lessons, what possible bugs are we here to remove? Does it mean that things don't always interact in certain ways or that laws/the universe's operating principles are not always obeyed? STS forces work a certain way and so does STO. There is a balance. We can only learn our own lessons and progress. We have to work through our 'programs'. Along the way our knowledge can help others if we share our findings openly. I might be taking things too literally, but, is there any deeper implication involved?
 
chrismcdude said:
Yes, very inspiring indeed. But ever since I read this quote sometime back, I have wondered about 'Debugging the Universe'.

As have I. The "best" I have come up with - feedback welcome, it may be wrong - relates to Earth as a learning environment - as one of possibly infinitely many in the Universe, of which a certain proportion are in the same situation.

For Earth to work as a learning environment, people have to be able to learn - but the way things work here at present, the learning environment - and many of the learners - are degenerating. One possible problem (which cometary bombardment may take care of) is the ability of the Earth to sustain life at all, due the way humans are affecting the world. Secondly, there is the idea (you can search the forum for "soul smashing") that people who are too traumatized, too scrambled on a soul level, simply implode, "killing" the soul. And a school is not meant to kill its students - if this becomes the function of Earth, then it and everything "associated with it" may simply be ripped out of the wider system - a failed program, if you will.

STS forces, and their struggle and opposition, are necessary for learning - but they also bring chaos/entropy into the system. Too much, and perhaps it simply breaks. Gurdjieff said that there was "a definite period for something to be done", otherwise Earth may "perish, having attained nothing". Which brings to mind the problem of "creating a new world" where people are able to learn - a striving which is a function of certain units striving for STO - debugging units, I think.

In thus relating "bugs" and "debugging" to STS and STO, it all begins to look like just a part of the eternal struggle: If the Universe is an operating system, then there are forces/units, i.e. programs active within it, that seek to bring about degeneration of its state - to trash everything it is running and even bring the whole system to a halt. And there are other programs that strive to do the opposite - to allow the infinite variety of processes to run and develop, to make the system as active and expansive as possible. An infinite "game" where all the programming and meta-programming of creation is explored.
 
Fwiw, the first thing that came to mind when I read this part about "debugging the universe" was "The Matrix" film trilogy. The "architect" in that film designed the matrix with a certain purpose. It is a computer program just as Ark compared the Universe to a computer program. However the architect didn't understand "choice" and "free will". Not everything could be "programmed". I think a key part is what Ark wrote here:

Of course, all this process is based on the law of big numbers. That is: not everything can be programmed. Statistical fluctuations must be allowed. Otherwise nothing will evolve by itself. Otherwise there will be no self-evolution!

It follows thus that probabilistics, that stochastics, that elements of uncertainty, elements of choice, are at the base of the construction of the Universe. This is interesting and I want to work on this. This is very important.

Going back to "The Matrix" analogy, the architect didn't see nor plan for the "Agent Smith" program to take over the Matrix so to speak. I see Agent Smith as the ultimate STS program that swallowed everything into itself like a black hole. He's the ultimate "bug" in the universe. So Neo , the "chosen one" comes along and essentially "debugs" the matrix and restores it before it would "crash" because of the Smith program.

The goal is high and right and good, but for some reason, it cannot be obtained by just anybody who can see it. There is some sort of filter in action, there is a selection criteria. The goal can be reached only by some chosen ones, some who can pass a test, who can oppose temptations, who can prove to have enough strength, who can show that the Gods have them under their care.

The idea of "chosen ones" reminds me of "the ones answering the call" as well as the idea of "Wanderers", higher density souls that incarnated, coming "back in time", with a specific mission profile to debug the universe so to speak. However, there is chance of "failure" for various reasons. I wrote about the wanderers topic on my blog a while back: http://veilofreality.com/2012/04/22/wanderers-purpose-and-esoteric-work-in-this-time-of-transition/
 
chrismcdude said:
I have some knowledge and experience of writing computer programs and debugging. But in what way does this universal program have bugs?
I think that there may be a law: if you create a program that has the ability to be really self-evolving, then you give up the possibility of predicting possible bugs. You can't even define in advance what constitutes a "bug". But then, during the evolution, what is "wrong" becomes gradually more and more clear. Then corrections are possible. Again the results of these corrections are not completely predictable. But that is the only alternative to a complete determinism on one hand and complete chaos on the other. Both lead with certainty to death. For exmaple: Deterministic Theory of General Relativity lead to singularities and death in black holes. Indeterminism of quantum theory is a possible salvation from such a death.

So, the future, is, on purpose, unknown. Therefore comes our responsibility for whatever we do or choose not to do.
 
Psalehesost said:
chrismcdude said:
Yes, very inspiring indeed. But ever since I read this quote sometime back, I have wondered about 'Debugging the Universe'.

As have I. The "best" I have come up with - feedback welcome, it may be wrong - relates to Earth as a learning environment - as one of possibly infinitely many in the Universe, of which a certain proportion are in the same situation.

For Earth to work as a learning environment, people have to be able to learn - but the way things work here at present, the learning environment - and many of the learners - are degenerating. One possible problem (which cometary bombardment may take care of) is the ability of the Earth to sustain life at all, due the way humans are affecting the world. Secondly, there is the idea (you can search the forum for "soul smashing") that people who are too traumatized, too scrambled on a soul level, simply implode, "killing" the soul. And a school is not meant to kill its students - if this becomes the function of Earth, then it and everything "associated with it" may simply be ripped out of the wider system - a failed program, if you will.

STS forces, and their struggle and opposition, are necessary for learning - but they also bring chaos/entropy into the system. Too much, and perhaps it simply breaks. Gurdjieff said that there was "a definite period for something to be done", otherwise Earth may "perish, having attained nothing". Which brings to mind the problem of "creating a new world" where people are able to learn - a striving which is a function of certain units striving for STO - debugging units, I think.

In thus relating "bugs" and "debugging" to STS and STO, it all begins to look like just a part of the eternal struggle: If the Universe is an operating system, then there are forces/units, i.e. programs active within it, that seek to bring about degeneration of its state - to trash everything it is running and even bring the whole system to a halt. And there are other programs that strive to do the opposite - to allow the infinite variety of processes to run and develop, to make the system as active and expansive as possible. An infinite "game" where all the programming and meta-programming of creation is explored.
That pretty much sums up my understanding of the situation.

In terms of 'soul smashing' I think that a lot of that happened the last time round with the Wave - when STS gained the ascendancy. It is our 'role' to become debuggers to work on increasing the chances of the Wave resulting in a switch to STO this time round, through preparing ourselves, getting rid of buffers etc, moving towards, and practicing STO type activity - 'obtaining the oil for our lamps' for when the 'bridegroom arrives'.
 
For those who are somewhat interested in computing analogy I would recommend reading (it is a long chapter, but worth reading):

Frontiers of Logic—Fuzzy Logic: Can Aristotle and the
Buddha get along?


What if our Universe is base on some kind of "fuzzy logic" or "quantum logic" instead of just being deterministic and binary digital? There are good reasons for thinking that this may be the case. If so, then our experience with digital computers may be inadequate.
 
Psalehesost said:
As have I. The "best" I have come up with - feedback welcome, it may be wrong - relates to Earth as a learning environment - as one of possibly infinitely many in the Universe, of which a certain proportion are in the same situation.

For Earth to work as a learning environment, people have to be able to learn - but the way things work here at present, the learning environment - and many of the learners - are degenerating.

The funny thing is, I can't help thinking things are exactly the way they're meant to be at this stage of the proceedings. I would fully expect a tightening up and a squeezing out right about now.

The universe is a play written by consciousness - one of increasing creativity and complexity. We are approaching the closing lines of an act. The villains, the heroes, the supporting cast and the bit players have mostly spoken their parts and made their gestures. The joker in the cast, of course, is Free Will. Only he gets to improvise. Without him, consciousness would already know the ending - and that would certainly spoil the fun.

There's always more to learn - and learn we always should. The recent, panicky behaviour of the 'villains' only serves to validate what Gurdjieff said about time limits. But all is as it should be and I feel very, very confident of a splendid outcome.

E
 
question is what are you creations made? fears of love. On STS level there is no place for love. So the question when you creation came back to you, you will finally met your karma, you fear that has been feed by others fears, death, manipulation etc. Less love you have, karma circles are geater and your creation will come later. Creation come after heart is ready. isn't it?
 
seiw83 said:
question is what are you creations made? fears of love. On STS level there is no place for love. So the question when you creation came back to you, you will finally met your karma, you fear that has been feed by others fears, death, manipulation etc. Less love you have, karma circles are geater and your creation will come later. Creation come after heart is ready. isn't it?

It depends on how one understands "love". In our actual STS state, there are many things we experience that we call love, which shows that at some level we do not know what love is. Depending on one's intended orientation, understanding love/light/knowledge is very important because ignorance endangers and entraps and in our state, it is safer to assume a priori that we don't understand it (and work toward more knowledge/love) rather than assuming that we already get it and miss the opportunity to learn again and again, with that very risk of our essence being smashed in the process. OSIT
 
you are right, actual understanding of love in societty is much corrupted. This world was havily diverted. Your analogy to pour light is good. We more know fear than love unfortounetley.
 
I have read some ideas lately about the world we live in being a computer simulation. The idea is that any advanced civilization would create a comprehensive simulation or simulations that would run according to the laws they have been given, eventually the simulated people in the simulation would become advanced enough to create their own comprehensive simulations and the process would repeat.

This suggests that the probability that we're living in a simulation instead of the "real" world is really high, and therefore we should accept the fact that we are living in a computer simulation. My question, however, is that if we are living in a computer simulation does that imply that P = NP is the solution to the P vs NP problem.

Wikipedia say's this about the P vs NP problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem):

The P versus NP problem is a major unsolved problem in computer science. Informally, it asks whether every problem whose solution can be quickly verified by a computer can also be quickly solved by a computer. It was introduced in 1971 by Stephen Cook in his seminal paper "The complexity of theorem proving procedures"[2] and is considered by many to be the most important open problem in the field.[3] It is one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems selected by the Clay Mathematics Institute to carry a US$ 1,000,000 prize for the first correct solution.

FWIW I think that P does equal NP otherwise existence wouldn't be able to exist quickly enough, or maybe a better way to put it is that the universe must be able to solve any problem at any moment, or the solution must already exist... :rolleyes: I not sure if that's clear...

I also think that the algorithm for finding a solution can exists as a neural network, this means that not only can it be solved in polynomial time, but it can also be solved in degree 2 polynomial time. i.e. an algorithm to solve any problem can be based on the workings of the brain.

If your still reading, here is my thinking: If a neural network has i input neurons and o output neurons, and a neuron can either be activated or deactivated (on or off), then there are 2^i possible input vectors and 2^o possible output vectors. If a neural network can be found so that all input vectors are matched with the appropriate output vector then you have an algorithm which finds the solution in degree 2 polynomial time. Also the algorithm has i input bits and o output bits.

And again... I hope that's clear.
 
Here's an article about the P=NP problem and the size-limit of quantum objects:

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/7ef5eea6fd7a

The basic logic of the article is that to compute the behaviour of a quantum system with a large number of quantum particles you need to solve an NP-hard problem. If this is true and there is no limit to the size of a quantum "object" OR the universe is a (classical... I think?) computer simulation then P=NP, which means we can do anything with computers if we could just figure out how. ;)
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom