www.OurOmniverse.com                                      www.OmniversePhilosophy.com

 

 

Omniverse  Theory

 

 

 

 

                                                            The Omniverse

                                                            (All Of Reality)

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            Paragonal Reality

 

 

 

 


                                                            Temporal Reality

 

 

 

 


                                                            Personal Reality

 

                                                               My Self Has

                                                  Intimations Of:

 

                                               > Personal Reality

                                               > Temporal Reality

                                               > Paragonal Reality

                                               > Omniversal Reality

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                        

 

                                                      

The Omniverse Theory diagrams above and below

are EPISTEMOLOGICAL accounts that begin with My Self (in the center).

 

 

 

 

Omniverse Theory

 

As originally formulated by Dr. Charles Tandy, omniverse theory is primarily a general-philosophic, as distinguished from a physical-scientific, model of reality which nevertheless takes physical-science seriously. See, for example, the article “What Mary Knows: Actual Mentality, Possible Paradigms, Imperative Tasks” (Tandy, 2008d) and the article “Omniverse In The First Person” (Tandy, 2009j).

 

At first, in 2008, the ontological distinctions of the all-reality model were formulated as: mental-reality; physical-reality; and, all-reality. But in the 2009 theory, all-reality is referred to as the omniverse (hence: omniverse theory). The ontological distinctions were then articulated along the following lines. My self has a sense of personal (or self) reality that is influenced by temporal (or contingent) reality and by paragonal (or necessary) reality in an omniverse environment (the omniverse is all of reality).

 

According to the omni model, but unlike almost all physical-science multiverse theories of backward time travel, it would seem that in principle any past time and any universe is a candidate for visitation. With this approach it seems logically possible in principle to circumvent the problems of (1) traveling to times before the first time machine is invented; and, (2) returning to one’s own “original” time. (The ethics of time travel or inter-universe travel is yet another matter.)   Moreover, the time-traveler – a temporal entity having its own unique intrinsic time within (and thus different from) the omniverse’s temporal realm as such – may be an atom, a dog, a human, a planet, or a universe.

 

Using the omni model, the issue of personal immortality has been analyzed. According to the analysis, entropy (as distinguished from the second law of thermodynamics) is a fake. Omniverse theory would seem to say that the immortality project, as a physical-scientific common-task to resurrect all dead persons by future technology, is ethically imperative.

 

 

 

“What Mary Knows: Actual Mentality, Possible Paradigms, Imperative Tasks” (Tandy, 2008d):

Tandy, Charles (2008). “What Mary Knows: Actual Mentality, Possible Paradigms, Imperative Tasks,” In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2008). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 6: Thirty Years After Kurt Gödel (1906-1978), A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 978-1-934297-03-2). (Pages 265-284).

 

“Omniverse In The First Person” (Tandy, 2009j):

Tandy, Charles (2009). “Omniverse In The First Person,” Applied Ethics Review, Volume 47 (December 2009). (ISSN 10282483). (Pages 1-42). [Approximately reprinted below as PART ONE.]

 

“Extraterrestrial Turning Point: From Man-unkind to Meridian-kind?” (Tandy, 2011):

Tandy, Charles (2011). “Extraterrestrial Turning Point: From Man-unkind to Meridian-kind?” Applied Ethics Review, Volume 50 (April 2011). (ISSN 10282483). (Pages 27-72). [The version reprinted below as PART TWO was a pre-publication draft.]

 

 

OMNIVERSE THEORY WEBPAGES

 

§ TOP OF PAGE [before PART ONE]

§ PART ONE [“Omniverse in The First Person”]

§ PART TWO [“Extraterrestrial Turning Point”] (PART TWO IS ON ITS OWN WEBPAGE)

§ SOME RECENT WORKS BY DR. TANDY [list of works]

§ SOME ADDITIONAL RELATED WORKS [list of works]

------------------------------

 

§ PART ONE

(Tandy, 2009j)

 

Tandy, Charles (2009). “Omniverse In The First Person,” Applied Ethics Review, Volume 47 (December 2009). (ISSN 10282483). (Pages 1-42). [The version below was a pre-publication draft:]

 

 

ABSTRACT

Omniverse in the First Person

Charles Tandy

     The omni model is based in the first person (my self): I have intimations of reality. The omniverse paradigm (a new model of reality) abstracts from the omni-universe (all of reality) two realms: (1) Necessary (or paragonal) realities; and, (2) Contingent (or temporal) realities. Necessary realities include mathematical paragonals and ethical paragonals. Contingent realities include nonpersonal temporals (e.g.: energy; matter; biology) and personal temporals (e.g.: Sentience or feeling = s-beings; Reason or reflection = r-beings, including human-beings and even advanced-beings). After the basic model is derived and justified, then it is fleshed out in more detail. With perpetually advancing knowledge gained from scientific method and golden rule, r-beings are able to improve world and self. Finally, ethical-political and other details or implications are articulated: (1) A new political philosophy is explained and defended. In the long run, almost everyone will be living in extraterrestrial space rather than on a single small planet. We should now enforceably ban weapons and weapons-making from extraterrestrial space while it is still within our power to do so. (2) The omniverse is not altogether reducible to any strictly physical science paradigm. It is ethically imperative that we pursue our common task of developing science and technology for the purpose of resurrecting all dead persons. (3) Eventually we will learn how to engender universes tailored to our specifications, as we continue to play the infinite game. (4) Playing the infinite game means that we are now – and, as we advance in the far future, always will be – hugely ignorant of the infinite omniverse. This is a real motivating force for us to follow the golden rule. The infinity of “coordinated values” in the paragonal realm we may call the Paragon or the Good.  

      KEYWORDS: reality; person; time; reason; magic; Alfred North Whitehead; Jacob Bronowski;  transhuman; ethics; political philosophy.

 

Omniverse in the First Person

Charles Tandy

§0     Preface

§1     Introductory Remarks

§2     Initial Derivation of the Omniverse Model

§3     Fleshing Out the Omni Paradigm

§4     Temporal Reality, Including Time Travel

§5     Temporal Entities, Including S-Creatures and R-Beings

§6     R-Beings and Reason

§7     R-Beings and Knowledge

§8     From Terrestrial Chauvinism to Golden Rule

§9     Closing Remarks

§0     Preface

      I have decided to write this preface, written after the other sections of the paper have been completed. Thus far I have personally presented my “omni” model of reality to a few folks here and there. At first I was a bit bewildered by the diversity and individuality of their criticisms and comments. But now I think I have detected a pattern: Typically specialist X is willing to allow my notions with respect to specialty X but not to all of my other notions. Perhaps the major exception is backward time travel: Most folks, regardless of specialty, seem to find this difficult or impossible to take seriously. To be sure, some specialists, in their specialization, will disagree with me; and sometimes there are misunderstandings (talking past each other) due to my limited communication skills.

      With respect to time travel, I recently spoke with the Australian philosopher William Grey. I interpret his too brief remarks as follows: What I am actually defending is not logically-impossible time-travel but logically-possible world-hopping; Grey believes in neither. Anyway, what I call (practical) time travel (in the backward-travel mode) is defended in a previous paper of mine. On this issue I can only hope you will take time to read my (Tandy, 2007a).

        With respect to my general omni model, whether in its “bare bones” or “fleshed out” versions, I am of course not really claiming to have a proof, regardless of what I may seem to say for ease of communication. Rather, I offer what might come to be accepted as the default cosmological position. I believe the “bare bones” version should be helpful to folks generally and fruitful to philosophers in particular. I believe this too of the “fleshed out” (retro time travel) version, but more tentatively.

§1     Introductory Remarks

      An outline of reality, herein called the “omni” or “omni-universe” or “omniverse” model, is presented and justified below. My self has a sense of Personal (or self) Reality that is influenced by Temporal (or contingent) Reality and by Paragonal (or necessary) Reality in an Omniverse Environment (the omniverse is all of reality). The paper discusses the nature and obligations of temporal personal entities with the ability to reason and be reasonable (“r-beings”) in an omniverse environment. A. N. Whitehead and J. Bronowski prove helpful here. R-beings with the limited reason of humans have an obligation to become advanced r-beings, and advanced r-beings have an obligation to advance further and further. As r-beings advance, they outgrow the chauvinism of my-species and my-planet. With perpetually advancing knowledge gained from scientific method and golden rule, r-beings are able to improve world and self. With this in mind, the paper articulates ethical-political and other details or implications for r-beings in the historical position humans find themselves today.

      Some readers may more or less disagree with the proposed omniverse account of environment but yet find it possible to more or less agree with the indicated ethical shift “from terrestrial chauvinism to golden rule”. On the other hand, the reverse may also be true. Some readers may more or less disagree with the indicated ethical shift “from terrestrial chauvinism to golden rule” but yet find it possible to more or less agree with the proposed omniverse account of environment. (Naturally, I prefer to think of the indicated ethical shift and the proposed omniverse account, as pointing to each other.)

§2     Initial Derivation of the Omniverse Model

      I wanted my model to include all (“omni”) of reality rather than part of reality – and my perspective on reality is that of a philosopher rather than a physicist. So I chose a term that should mean all of reality – not cosmos or universe or multi-verse, as a physicist might do, but omniverse (omni-universe). I will now proceed to derive or justify my omniverse model briefly as follows:

(A) The personal is real;

(B) The temporal is real;

(C) The paragonal is real;

(D) The omniverse is real;

(E) The omni model is unreal;

(F) The omni model is relevant.

      (A) The personal is real. Reminiscent of Descartes, I begin construction of the omniverse model by showing to myself that I am real. (You may be able to apply this reasoning to show to yourself that you are real.) To wit: I am aware that I am reasoning; (therefore,) I am aware that I am; (therefore,) I am aware; (therefore,) I am: Therefore→ ●I am; ●I am aware; ●I am aware that I am; ●I am aware that I am reasoning. (Accordingly: The personal is real.)

      (B) The temporal is real. If it is the case that I am no longer aware (possible examples: dreamless sleep; death), it will nevertheless always be the case that I was aware. My reality (and perhaps your reality) has temporal (contingent) aspects to it (perhaps including experiential blanks). Whether I like it or not, I am a self undergoing experiences in time. (Accordingly: The temporal is real.)

      (C) The paragonal is real. It is necessarily the case that 1 + 1 = 2. There are paragonal realities we associate with such mathematical and logical necessities. There are also paragonal realities we associate with ethical values. Event A or decision B may be in my or our objective (“best”) interest. Alternatively, event A or decision B may be objectively (“really”) harmful to me or us. Such is objective ethical reality even if we are not always certain about the objective ethical status of event A or decision B. Likewise, we may not be very knowledgeable of mathematical realities. Nevertheless, it seems that mathematical and ethical realities are necessarily the case. (Accordingly: The paragonal is real.)

      (D) The omniverse is real. As previously indicated, by omni or omniverse (omni-universe), I mean all of reality. Although all of reality (the omniverse) is necessarily a unique concept-reality unlike any whole or universe or other reality within the omniverse, it seems fair to say that all of reality is real. (Accordingly: The omniverse is real.)

      (E) The omni model is unreal. (Here the Oxford philosopher J. R. Lucas suggested I use the word “fallible” rather than “unreal”.) I have said that the “concept-reality” omniverse is unique. Nevertheless it must be pointed out that concepts and models (paradigms or theories), as such, are not real (other than being concepts/models). My omniverse paradigm is not the omniverse! At any moment the omniverse may well act to upset my simulation of it. (Accordingly: The omni model is unreal.)

      (F) The omni model is relevant. Perhaps you prefer reality to paradigms or models? Unfortunately you do not have much choice in the matter. Let me explain. You interpret the messages you receive as helpful or hurtful based in your favorite paradigm or value-system. Yet a message or its interpretation is open to question. Like it or not, you sometimes receive messages which are illusory or misleading. Thus, if your old paradigm doesn’t seem to work, you may search for a new one. If you lack (much of) a paradigm or model (whether old or new), then you have little or no knowledge of reality. Kenneth Boulding (1956) has pointed out that there is a sense in which “there are no such things as ‘facts.’ There are only messages filtered through a changeable value system.” (p.14) And, as “Francis Bacon wisely observed in his New Method, ‘truth will sooner come out from error than from confusion.’” (Barzun and Graff, 1985: p. 426) In other words, living the life of an ostrich is not an idea to be seriously entertained. (Accordingly: The omni model is relevant.)

§3     Fleshing Out the Omni Paradigm

     Of what general kinds of reality are there? There are necessary kinds of reality and there are contingent kinds of reality. Contingent (or temporal) reality includes non-necessary entities such as numerous alternative universes with alternative (contingent) “universal laws”. Necessary (or non-temporal) reality includes e.g. mathematical forms and ethical values. See §2 (C) above; also note that Rickert (1902) and Li (2002) offer two very different approaches to defending objective values (valid values or objective interests, respectively). I find each approach to defending ethical paragonals persuasive. 

      Thus the omniverse may well contain many different kinds of universes and many different kinds of beings. What we experience as things of a “physical” kind may be an experience not available in some other universes or not possible for some other beings. Likewise there may be a variety of kinds of experience or realms of reality not available in our particular universe and not possible for beings like us.

      Yet there are all sorts of apparent “realities” that provide us with “impossible” experiences. This includes science fiction/fantasy movies, 3-D holographic effects, virtual reality machines, everyday common illusions as the “broken” stick in water, and the delightful tricks we happily experience at magic shows. Advanced beings could presumably not only engender universes with laws tailored to their specifications, and intervene contrary to those laws, but they could also use those laws and interventions to produce strongly convincing virtual realities or appearances in apparent contradiction to “natural laws” – and more, even “contradicting” the laws of mathematics and logic. This is perhaps just the sort of thing Grand Magicians or Advanced Beings or Magisters Ludi would enjoy doing. (Indeed, Descartes was famously concerned with the possible mischief of an “evil demon”.) 

      One difficulty we have is our huge ignorance of the omniverse both temporal and non-temporal. Given such immense uncertainty, how could we ever know if we daily live our lives in a real or illusory world? Since “ever” is a very long time, perhaps we should enjoy the very long adventure. So let us ask: What ought our first step be in this long journey much longer than a thousand miles or a thousand years?

      First of all, like Hume, I don’t think it practically wise for us to extend Humean skepticism to our everyday lives. If we are in a game, we are not likely to win by not playing the game. (That is to say, the present paper does not deal with many important philosophical questions related to issues such as personal identity, the external world, other minds, cause-effect, and free-will.) Although it seems we are presently far from being Magisters Ludi or Advanced Beings or Grand Magicians of the required sort, still we are not totally ignorant of the game. We have some limited knowledge of the omniverse – and we can see ourselves becoming more and more knowledgeable over time.    

     On occasion we can use our limited knowledge of necessary realities such as mathematical forms to triangulate and identify mere appearances. The magician or the illusionist may seem to tell us that 1 + 1 does not always equal 2. So when we find such an anomalous appearance of the grosser sort, we try to figure out the trick. We may conclude that the two raindrops, now become one, have a volume equal to the two raindrops. Or we add two units of liquid together and get something distinctly more or distinctly less than two units. In such case we may try to invent a new scientific theory to explain the results – we do not say that we have falsified the necessary reality 1 + 1 = 2.    

      Consideration (1): With the help of necessary realities related to Gödel’s logical proofs and/or for other reasons (but anyway Gödel will be explained in §7 below), we may conclude that it is certain or likely that the omniverse is infinite, that necessary realities are infinite, and that contingent realities are infinite. Presumably a large percentage (99.99% density of infinity?) of advanced beings would know this as well.

      Consideration (2): With the help of necessary realities related to ethical values and/or for other reasons, we may conclude that a large percentage (99.99% density of infinity?) of advanced beings would know of matters related to what we loosely call “the golden rule”.

      Consideration (3): If we put considerations 1 and 2 together, then we seem to get something analogous to “the veil of ignorance” (hypothetically) posited by John Rawls (1971) for the purpose of identifying proper or just political arrangements. But now we can see (given 1 and 2 above) that the (veil of) ignorance is real, not just hypothetical; it is real not only for us but for the advanced beings as well. In other words, there is now a real motivating force for “us” (whether human-beings, advanced-beings, advanced advanced-beings, et cetera ad infinitum) to behave toward each other in a “golden” way. (Perhaps we will never be asked to join “the Galactic Club” but rather will automatically become a member of “the Golden Club” when we learn to follow the “golden” way?)

      What exactly this all means for our particular planet or our particular universe may not be altogether clear. As Amartya Sen (1999) and John Rawls (1999) have pointed out, though, a people’s self-respect and self-development is vitally important to their developmental success. (This is a reason why some resource-rich countries ultimately fail while some resource-poor countries ultimately succeed.)  Respect for one’s own autonomy and respect for the autonomy of others seem to be related to the necessary realities I have called ethical paragonals or the golden way. How are the infinity (?) of “ethical values” in the realm of necessary reality related to each other?  How do advanced beings proceed to attempt to weigh values (and conditions) so as to make optimal decisions with respect to a variety of kinds of universes and kinds of beings? (Alas, these relevant questions are somewhat beyond the scope of the present paper.) 

§4     Temporal Reality, Including Time Travel

      It seems that it is always reasonable to ask what, if anything, happened before and after event T (e.g., the big bang beginning of a universe). One may imagine the answer: “Nothing happened except (the “arrow” of) time: T-1, T-2, T-3, et cetera ad infinitum; T+1, T+2, T+3, et cetera ad infinitum. In this sense one may say that the whole temporal realm is infinite with respect to both the past “befores” and the future “afters” (perhaps this is related to the so-called “B theory” of time). On the other hand, at least in terms of the reality of human beings and/or advanced beings, we can say we have some limited free will and some limited ability to influence the details of events that take place within the temporal realm (perhaps this is related to the so-called “A theory” of time). Although deaths and other changes that take place within the temporal realm are important to us and are to some limited extent influenced by us, these deaths and changes should not be confused with the temporality of the temporal realm (the entire environment of infinite ‘befores” and infinite “afters”)! Charles Hartshorne (1951) chose to use the language of Whitehead’s process philosophy to express this distinction, as follows (p. 542, emphasis in original):

“The later event prehends the earlier and so contains it, but the converse is not true; and this one-way relationship remains even when both earlier and later events are in the past … no matter how fully their original immediacy is preserved. Obviously, it is not because of fading or perishing that earlier is contained in later, though later is not contained in earlier. It is rather in spite of perishing. Were loss of immediacy the last word, how could the faded event in its non-faded vividness, as it was when present, be contained in the new present? Yet such containing is the theory of succession under discussion. It is the reality of the new as added to that of the old, rather than the unreality of the old, that constitutes process.”

      At any epoch in time (very short or indefinitely long), deaths may or may not occur – the temporal realm is, so to speak, indifferent to such details.  And, as just explained, not only is the present real, but the past is real also. With respect to what has been called “practical time travel” – and matters related thereto – my previous analysis of the temporal realm (Tandy, 2006) draws the following six conclusions:

1. The past exists as an expanding fixed unity.

2. The present is the leading edge of the past as it expands.

3. The future is not yet fully determined/fixed.

4. The underdetermined future as it proceeds to become more nearly past (fixed) is influenced by the expanding fixed unity (the past), including by free agents of good will [and ill will]. 

5. Sooner or later, barring catastrophe, it seems highly likely that technology will advance so that the capacity for forward-directed time travel is possible. [Suspended-Animation (per molecular nanotechnology) and Superfast-Rocketry (per relativity physics) are examples of forward-directed time travel. Note that conclusion 5 is not controversial; yet its profound implications are rarely discussed.]

6. Sooner or later, barring catastrophe, it seems likely that technology will advance so that the capacity for past-directed time travel is possible. [Time-Viewing is one example of past-directed time travel.]

      A more tentative seventh conclusion was that the concept of intrinsic time or intrinsic history (i.e., the intrinsic-temporality of the time-traveler, as distinguished from either merely-subjective time or literal-clock time) “is especially helpful in characterizing whether time travel did or did not occur in a particular circumstance.” (pp. 383-384)  If one travels backward in time in the (“many-worlds”) omniverse, one does not come from the past but from the future (i.e., from the unique time or history intrinsic to the unique time-traveler). The temporal realm (the omniverse’s temporal environment as such) has its own (“arrow” of) time, but it is another (different) matter that (in addition) each temporal entity within the temporal environment has its own unique intrinsic time (history). According to my proposed general-ontological schema, but unlike almost all physical-scientific theories of backward time travel, it would seem that in principle any past time and any universe is a candidate for visitation. (The ethics of time travel or inter-universe travel is another matter.)   Moreover, the time-traveler – a temporal entity having its own unique intrinsic time within (and thus different from) the omniverse’s temporal realm as such – may be an atom, a human, a planet, or a universe.           

§5     Temporal Entities, Including S-Creatures and R-Beings

      Above I have reasoned (or, like a good magician, waved my hands to show) that there are paragonal (non-temporal, necessary) aspects of reality and temporal (contingent) aspects to reality. Although other universes in the omniverse may differ, the following appears to be true of our universe or our little corner of our universe: Within the temporal realm of our tiny region, there are nonpersonal entities and personal entities, as follows: 1

Temporal nonpersonal entities include: Energy (Quanta); Matter (Atoms); and, Life (e.g., Flowers) (Biosystems).

Temporal personal entities include: Sentience (e.g., Swans) (S-Creatures); and, Reason (R-Beings). Some r-beings are better at reason (reasoning or being reasonable), than others – to wit: Humble Reason (e.g., Human Beings) (H-Beings); and, Advanced Reason (Advanced Beings) (A-Beings).

      Note that in our consideration of to what extent a particular temporal entity is (1) a nonpersonal entity; (2) an s-creature; or, (3) an r-being – we should obviously not base the evaluation on the species to which the being is said to belong. For example, some individual members of the human species (newborn humans; adult humans continuously severely mentally impaired from birth) do not belong in category (3) above. For example, some individual members of non-human species (some individual non-human animals) do belong in category (3) above. The “real-life” boundaries between the species are not sharp; in addition, the “real-life” boundaries between the three categories above are not sharp. The present “anti-speciesist” paragraph should be kept firmly in mind when correcting or correctly-interpreting the present paper.   

      One may also note that according to Confucius, ren is necessary for true learning as distinguished from mere cleverness. Ren may be translated as benevolence or fellow-feeling. Thus perhaps it is wise to identify an r-being with an r-being of the ren-being kind.

§6     R-Beings and Reason

      Whitehead’s The Function of Reason (1929) explicitly specifies three desiderata if we are to function as reasonable beings (“r-beings”, whether human beings or advanced beings); the three functions of any reasonable being are: 2

● Living or surviving (as distinguished from dying-to-death or extinguishing-to-extinction).

● Living well (as distinguished from merely surviving).

● Living better and better (as distinguished from just living well).

      If we combine this with “golden rulish” (empathy/sympathy) or “ren” considerations, then we can apply these reasonable functions or healthy motivations both to individual humans and to humankind (civilization). Thus: Human-beings should strive to become advanced-beings, advanced-beings should strive to become advanced advanced-beings, et cetera ad infinitum. Human civilization should strive to become trans-civilization, trans-civilization should strive to become trans trans-civilization, et cetera ad infinitum. Bostrom and Roache (2007) have emphasized the goal of individual survival for the purpose of becoming better than well. They have also emphasized the special importance of the survival of humankind; if humankind is extinguished, then no human individual will be able to live, to live well, or to become an advanced being.  

      Reasonable beings (“r-beings”) have the ability to reason about the shared purpose of all r-beings, whether human or advanced. Advanced beings may be better reasoners than humans, but they both have, e.g., the capacity to respect each individual r-being and to respect all r-beings as a whole. Inspired by Whitehead’s The Function of Reason, I will attempt to elaborate. 3

      Advanced or transhuman beings (or the so-called “Singularity”) may not be altogether different from lesser r-beings, even those who are as severely challenged emotionally and intellectually as is the case with humans. The range of emotion and intellect is extremely narrow in human beings, but not so deficient as to altogether absolve them of ethical responsibility. A wider range of emotion and intellect means that advanced beings have a greater ethical responsibility than do lesser r-beings.

      Within the temporal realm there appear to be two great contrasting tendencies. One is decay (degradation): Things fall apart or simplify. The other is evolution (renewal): Things become more complex or creative. Apart from input by r-beings, evolution is blind or indifferent or anarchic. Fortunately, the self-disciplined creative reason of r-beings is sometimes able to discipline evolution (regulate matters within the temporal environment) so as to make it sighted or purposeful or ethical. R-beings exercise “moral dominion” (including, sometimes, “immoral” dominion).     

      Thus: A purpose of r-beings is the exercise of moral dominion and the promotion of diversity. R-beings are engaged in the art of life and living. Rocks or atoms are better at survival than are plants or animals. Yet r-beings consider survival of life important, and are not content just with rocks or atoms. R-beings don’t merely live in an environment – they actively change or regulate their environment. For them the art of living involves not only survival, not only living well, but perpetual advancement or enhancement (i.e., living better and better).

      Two major aspects of the ability of r-beings to engage in reasoning have long been abstracted (identified) by philosophers: “speculative” reason and “practical” reason. The first may be identified with the godlike wisdom (or complete understanding) sought by the philosopher Plato. The second with the foxy cleverness (or immediate method of action) portrayed in the fantasy-hero Ulysses.

      If we are not careful, successful cleverness may convince us that Plato was a fool. Against such half-way cleverness a diversity of methods or approaches would seem wiser and may generally help guard against trained incompetence or a hegemonic methodology. We must be vigilant: The methodology of a special discipline (the self-discipline of a methodology) should never replace the self-disciplined creative reason of r-beings. The self-disciplined creative reason of r-beings signifies more than a (life of existentialist) rebellion against the absurd; the moral dominion of r-beings constitutes an actual counter-agency not only to hegemonic thinking but indeed to temporal decay. The active purpose of r-beings is to save and remake the temporal world. It is a perpetual striving toward the infinity we call the golden age or the golden rule or the infinite game. 4 

      Practical reason, unlike speculative reason, is concerned with staying alive and with ethical behavior. But speculative reason has a disinterested curiosity that desires understanding even of all the omniverse; it assumes life as a given; it seeks better and better life. This better life is a process of betterment in the sense of better understanding for its own sake (disinterested curiosity about all things). “Throughout the generality of mankind it flickers with very feeble intensity.” (p. 38)   And it “is tinged with bitterness … of an ultimate moral claim.” (p. 39)      

      It is the advancement of mathematics and logic that gives method or discipline to speculation. Thus, instead of mere aphorisms and inspirations, we can produce a variety of systems of thought we call religions, philosophies, and sciences. Such religious, philosophic, and scientific systems must be perpetually open to modification if they are to progress in a reasonable way.

      It is the interaction of the old reason (practical reason) and the new reason (speculative reason) that has given us modern science and modern science-based technology. Such interaction may historically soon give us a modern ethics and a modern ethics-based politics. But such advance may be resisted by obscurantism (the old insistence of practical reason that free speculation is dangerous). In any given historical epoch, obscurantism may be practiced by those dominant in religion, philosophy, and/or science.        

      Speculative reason (e.g., speculations by philosophers during the European Middle Ages) may build up a huge reservoir of apparently unfruitful concepts over many decades or centuries; then, with a little assistance from practical reason and the historically new environment in which the new scholars find themselves, suddenly there is a great breakthrough producing many fruitful results. Unaware that they would have failed without the huge reservoir of concepts built up by speculative reason, they think they are responsible for the “magical” results. Perhaps a bit too harshly, Whitehead explains practical reason’s blindness to the major background cause (speculative reason) for its new success (modern science) – as follows:

“There is a large audience, a magician comes upon the stage, places a table in front of him, takes off his coat, turns it inside out, shows himself to us, then commences voluble patter with elaborate gestures, and finally produces two rabbits from his hat. We are asked to believe that it was the patter that did it.” (pp. 57-58)    

      Speculative reason seeks to understand all methods and to transcend all method with a higher, comprehensive understanding. 5  This quest for infinity is forever unattainable by r-beings. It is pursued for its own sake.

      Speculative reason holds in trust for future generations its growing supply of creative concepts and disciplined constructions. Mathematics was a mere curiosity for many centuries – until mathematical physics appeared. “The ultimate moral claim that civilization lays upon its possessors” Whitehead advises, “is that they transmit, and add to, this reserve of potential development by which it has profited.” (p. 72)

      Practical reason can help us live and live well. But speculative reason not only helps us live well – it helps us live better and better. The objective of the discipline of speculative reason is not stability but betterment. Up to this point in history our ability to reason, with reference to both speculation and practice, has been dismal. “But it is there,” observes Whitehead; r-beings already have some limited knowledge “of that counter-tendency which converts the decay of one order into the birth of its successor.” (p. 90)         

§7     R-Beings and Knowledge

      Jacob Bronowski’s The Identity of Man (1971) explicitly discusses the difference between “men” (selves/minds of some richness) and “machines”; I will use some of his thoughts to provide possible insight into the nature of reasonable beings (“r-beings”, whether human beings or advanced beings). Inspired by Bronowski, I will now attempt to elaborate. 6

      We think of all r-beings as “one of us” – but yet each of us, each self (r-being) is, and wants to be, a free agent different from other r-beings. On the other hand, the nature of machines (as mere mechanisms or formalized operations or algorithms) is to be law-abiding. But r-beings have the capacity to break out of nature via free agency. “My way”: An r-being wants to be free to be itself, to be different from others. An r-being may actively decide to behave differently when the same situation occurs a second time simply because it knows it is not the first time.

      R-beings turn their growing experience into growing knowledge and their growing knowledge into a growing readiness for action (modification or betterment of self and environment). The r-being is not fixed, but is a process of unending growth. Much of this growth and growing experience happens or is produced inwardly rather than outwardly. The r-being’s mind actively works with images and thus has an “imaginary” (fictional/non-existent?) life – recalling, fantasizing, speculating, foreseeing.   

      A machine has unambiguous input and unambiguous output. A respirator machine or one’s mechanical non-conscious breathing is vitally important; we would die if we had to continuously decide whether to breathe or not! The importance of such unambiguous input and output of air should not be ignored in our analysis of life and world.   

      R-beings derive knowledge based on two modes of experience. (1) Some kinds of knowledge are formal (or can be formalized): I hit my fellow colleague at the symposium. (2) Some kinds of knowledge are informal (or can not be formalized): I embarrass my fellow colleague at the symposium. The informal kind of knowledge is self-knowledge: I recognize myself in my fellow r-being. But a machine does not recognize itself in an r-being way: “we cannot now conceive any kind of law or machine which could formalize the total modes of human understanding.” (p. 25)           

      Although the infinity of all future physical science can never be formalized, at any given point in time our (incomplete) science of the workings of the physical world can be (tentatively) formalized. 7  All r-beings, as integral to practical action, form a picture of the world. This picture changes as their experiences grow.

      In humans the pleasure and pain centers are found mostly in the (evolutionarily) older part of the brain. Many sensory and sensory-interpretation functions are performed either prior to reaching, or without ever reaching, the human’s brain. In terms of capacity to engage in the formal procedures of classical logic and precise calculation, a human-being is far inferior to the machine-computer.

      Often humans do not use such a logic of strict certainty (they lack such capacity except on a minor scale). So the human’s brain attempts to construct a picture of the world rather than engage in precise calculation. The picture it constructs is not one of certainty and precision. Tentative, fallible decisions are made as to whether this is real or that is illusory. (In recent decades, philosophers have introduced the epistemological idea of “reflective equilibrium.”)           

      These considerations suggest that the newer human brain is not about the precision of calculation so much as about the widening of consciousness. The images in the brain increase (widen); with this widening, the interaction between the brain and the senses widens. Thus both our physical (science) knowledge and our self (r-being) knowledge expand. Our knowledge widens while remaining tentative: “certain answers ironically are the wrong answers.” (p. 41)  

      Thus physical-science is part discovery and part invention; it is a kind of language for describing the physical world. Our images or concepts are the vocabulary. The arrangement of the concepts into “laws of nature” is analogous to grammar. A dictionary-like translation of the grammar tells us the relevant observations to test. Language (and therefore science) is a perpetually living, open, changing process.  

      The question of whether we should arrange our concepts into grammar (laws) is less interesting than how we form such arrangements. Our science is based on disciplined guesses and generalizations. Our scientific laws are not forecasts but fallible, unifying explanations.

      The imaginative processes of discovery differ from the formal (mathematical-logical) display of discoveries. At any given point in time, formal science thus displays itself as a closed system; but science as creative process is an open system. Science begins with imagination and then seeks to implode or minimize the ambiguities it finds. Poetry begins with imagination and then seeks to explode or exploit the ambiguities it finds. 8  

      Science helps us gain knowledge of the physical world; the arts help us gain knowledge of the world of self (selves, r-beings). Although an r-being as a self sees itself uniquely from the inside, our science seeks to provide us all with knowledge of a common external world. By identifying yourself with other r-beings, you may not learn how to reason or how to act – but you may gain knowledge of yourself.      

      Science provides us with an “as if” final language, but at every stage the language of the arts is open. The arts cannot be understood unless we understand what it is to be an r-being (self). Both science and the arts begin in the imagination (mental images, not physical sensations). The arts enhance our experiences of being; science enhances our technologies of action.    

      R-beings have conscious imagination. Only an r-being has the ability to converse with itself. An r-being consciously knows it exists in an environment: “no other animal seems to be able to draw a clear boundary between himself and his environment. His memory is too short and his habits are too strong to make him firmly distinguish what he does from what is happening to him.” (p .90)

      There is me (myself) and there is not-me (environment). If the young r-being grows up in an environment devoid of other r-beings, then the youngster will have little understanding of what it is to be an r-being (knowledge of self will be extremely limited). Growing up in a culture (most any culture) is better than growing up devoid of culture or r-beings. Having a worldview (most any worldview) is better than not having a worldview. Cultures, worldviews, and r-beings change over time; not infrequently, change is from bad to better (instead of from bad to worse).  

      An r-being can recall what it no longer sees (perhaps a human gains this ability at about six months of age). For an animal: Out of sight, out of mind. For an r-being: Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

      While all biology follows the arrow of time, r-beings are consciously aware of the future and consciously direct their actions with the future in mind. R-beings are aware that they are different from their environment; and R-beings are aware that they are beings living from the past into the future. The two halves of being an r-being are: imagining our future environments with the help of science; and, imagining our future selves with the help of the arts. 9          

      The process called a self or r-being is not altogether a machine – since such a dynamic is not identical to any mechanism (algorithm or code of instructions). Rather, we experience and develop images in our minds. Some of our mental images name particulars, but mostly they name kinds (types). Every creative imagination, like every natural language, necessarily has ambiguities in it. Science uses concepts that apply not to the unique selves of r-beings but to a common physical world. Science seeks to reduce ambiguity. The arts use concepts relevant to the uniqueness of a self and seek to amplify our experiences; poetry has no need to resolve ambiguities because it is about empathy (being), not about provoking action to resolve differences.

      In the past we have been more concerned that the members of our tribe have similar beliefs than that the beliefs be true. But in a scientific age of weapons of mass death and destruction we can no longer give truth a back seat. It is possible to create a common coherent philosophy and politics (and common task) for all r-beings that gives both truth and empathy a front seat. Empathy (or sympathy or the golden rule) involves self-respect and respect for all r-beings.

      The search for truth about self and environment is a never-ending common duty: “this assumes that the truth has not already been found … [and] that it is not there to be found, once for all.” (p. 115)  A society that has found the truth is an authoritarian culture. A truth-seeking society values originality, independence, and dissent. Justice and freedom are central to the protection of these truth-seeking values. Tolerance is based on respect for self and all r-beings.

      The philosophy of r-beings is derived from physical knowledge (science) and empathetic knowledge (the arts). The two values, tolerance and respect, taken as one, we may call dignity. Dignity serves as an overlap or bridge between the puritan values of science and the intimate values of the arts. Dignity links society and individual; thus the r-being is “the unique and double creature: … the social solitary.” (p. 121)

      The specialness of the r-being is based not on its experience of the physical world but on its experience of other r-beings. With scientific knowledge the r-being acts to become the master of creation. But: “The knowledge of self does not teach him to act but to be; … it makes him one with all creatures.” (p. 122)                   

      Logical proofs provided by Kurt Gödel and Alfred Tarski in the 1930s have profound implications for our search for knowledge. 10  What is to be said about the symbols of “a formal logical language … comes not from physics and chemistry and biology, but from symbolic logic.” (p. 129)  During the 1930s the logician Kurt Gödel proved that “a logical system which has any richness can never be complete, yet cannot be guaranteed to be consistent.” (p. 130)  Also during the 1930s the logician Alfred Tarski proved that “there can be no precise language which is universal.” (p. 131)  These “Gödel-Tarski” theorems, taken together, I will call “g-t theorems”. According to Bronowski (p. 131):

“any logical system to which they [the g-t theorems] apply must include the arithmetic of whole numbers as a basic part, and they must be distinguishable from the rest of the continuum of quantities. But with this proviso … they apply to any system of thought which attempts to set up a basis of fundamental axioms and then to match the world by making deductions from them in an exact language – the language of physics, for example, or the chemical language inside the brain.”

      Thus the classical model (or arrogant ideal or noble dream?) of science is hopeless. Any set of scientific axioms is necessarily incomplete; and, necessarily, any set of scientific axioms must always be open to the possibility that it may be shown to be inconsistent. Any science seeking exactness inevitably and perpetually has these considerable limitations. “That is, only an axiom which introduces a contradiction can make a system complete, and in doing so makes it completely useless.” (p.132)  At a given point in time, scientific knowledge may seem to have achieved a universal, consistent, closed language. But more wisely, the actual language of scientific discovery is always open, not to be represented in the form of a logical machine.         

      Considerations above seem to insist that paragonal realities (e.g., the unlimited realms we identify with mathematics and logic) are infinite and that temporal realities (and the never-ending adventures of r-beings for physical-scientific knowledge) are infinite. It seems that the omniversal or cosmological default position should not be that there are many worlds but that there are an infinity of worlds and an infinity of r-beings. In principle the potential for an r-being to expand its consciousness, and to expand it again and again, is infinite. The omniverse is infinite in an infinity of paragonal, temporal, and personal dimensions.          

      “Any finite system of axioms can only be an approximation to the totality of natural laws. … [Thus natural laws in] their inner formulation [paragonal reality?] must be of some kind quite different from any that we know.” (p. 133)   Our formal logic is not the logic of nature; from time to time our system of science must be enlarged. Scientific discovery lies outside our formal logic.

      R-beings are imaginative and their imagination is free, beyond the bounds of formal logic. Unlike lesser beings, an r-being has the ability to refer to itself – accordingly, the natural language of r-beings is not a machine language. Philosophy requires natural language even when it finds machine language useful. Although logic-and-mathematics is often reliable, nevertheless it breaks down when it refers to itself. But philosophy has a more severe problem since self-reference is integral to it. The axiomatic system is only partly suited to predictive fields such as logic, mathematics, and physical science. The axiomatic system is even less suited to non-predictive fields such as philosophy, social science, and the arts and humanities. The self-knowledge we associate with r-beings “cannot be formalized because it cannot be closed, even provisionally; it is perpetually open, because the dilemma is perpetually unresolved.” (p. 146)              

      The r-being is able to use its imagination to understand self-reference in a way not possible by an algorithm or machine. The imaginative logic or creative imagination of the r-being differs from the formal logic of the machine. R-beings engage in personal (self) reference and thus are able to identify with all r-beings (as in the golden rule of empathy). R-beings find their mathematical and scientific knowledge useful for a time, which later they modify as needed. Provisional science is no substitute for the workings of nature, and summary description is no substitute for the work of art.

      In our comparison of science and the arts as practiced by r-beings, we have located differences between the two processes. But we have also identified similarities: both processes involve the free imagination of r-beings, and both processes remain forever incomplete. 

§8     From Terrestrial Chauvinism to Golden Rule

      Will human r-beings in this local region of this universe soon achieve a higher personhood and become advanced, extraterrestrial, transmortal beings? With the previous considerations (of §1-§7) in mind, I will now attempt to articulate ethical-political and other details or implications for r-beings in the historical position humans find themselves embedded in today – as follows:

          (A) Perhaps we are in transition from human personhood to advanced personhood.

          (B) Perhaps we are in transition from terrestrial personhood to extraterrestrial personhood.

          (C) Perhaps we are in transition from mortal personhood to transmortal personhood.

(A) From human beings to advanced beings

      Above (in §5) I have distinguished nonpersons from persons in the following way:

Temporal nonpersonal entities include: Energy (Quanta); Matter (Atoms); and, Life (e.g., Flowers) (Biosystems).

Temporal personal entities include: Sentience (e.g., Swans) (S-Creatures); and, Reason (R-Beings). Some r-beings are better at reason (reasoning or being reasonable), than others – to wit: Humble Reason (e.g., Human Beings) (H-Beings); and, Advanced Reason (Advanced Beings) (A-Beings).

      Although I have spoken above (in §4) of the infinite past and the infinite future, from the specifically human-limited perspective it would seem that almost all of temporal reality is (is to be) located in the future. 11  With reference to our own universe (or our own little corner of it), it seems that non-persons (nonpersonal entities) have dominated our region’s known past and that persons (personal entities) may well dominate our region’s future. But today’s (human-limited) persons are hugely influenced by the past from which they emerged. However, a future person may have the capacity to reinvent oneself, to restructure one’s own non-teleological (energy-quanta, matter-atoms, biology-teleonomic) systems and also one’s own sentience-hedonic system to conform to the (teleological) results of one’s own reasoning or choice, whether moral or immoral, wise or foolish.

      Restructuring the energy-system of one’s own body might involve advanced subatomic technology as well as insight into reasonable expectations. Restructuring the matter-system, the teleonomic-system, and the hedonic-system of one’s own body might involve advanced molecular (nano) technology as well as insight into reasonable expectations. It is of course conceivable that modifying one system might have unknown consequences for the other systems.

     I’m not sure we know enough about energy or subatomic technology to yet offer responsible advice about the restructuring of the energy-system of one’s own body. However we do have some beginner’s insight into the advanced molecular (nano) technology of the future. We may want to begin with modest modifications to our bodies as we gradually learn more. “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

      Presently I will make a few brief remarks related to the teleonomic-system (biology or life) and the hedonic-system (sentience). The (biology-)teleonomic and (sentience-)hedonic systems of today’s human person are structured based on the non-teleological past. This suggests that great changes to these systems are in the long run to be preferred so as to enhance the lives of persons.

      Some may believe that a teleonomic system (whether of a rose-flower or of a human) is teleological because it seems to exhibit purposefulness and is goal-oriented. But in fact the teleonomic-system as such is not conscious and is the result of evolutionary adaptation. Although there may be good practical reasons for taking a cautious approach to its modification, from a moral-teleological point of view its improvement is imperative. Thus in a thought experiment (rather different from our actual world context, or so I believe) we can imagine a world context in which, as a practical matter, there may be good reasons for not extending the healthy lifespan of persons from 50 years to 500 years. In the world in which we actually live, however, my sense is that such so-called reasons are not really very good reasons – we are biased by confusing teleonomy with teleology.

      Likewise, many fail to see that our hedonic-system (of pleasure and pain) is also based on the past and should be modified with advice from our system of moral reflection (reasoning). Pleasure and pain, given advanced future technology, could presumably be structured in a wide variety of different ways. (To be sure, a variety of hedonic-systems already exist.) We could structure it so that good behavior is painful and bad behavior is pleasurable. Alternatively, we could structure it so that philosophic reflection and moral behavior are the most pleasurable of pleasures. The point is that “having fun” is neither the only nor highest value, but with future technology we will presumably be able to restructure our system of pleasure and pain to make it more ethical-teleological.

      As our own universe (or local region) evolved and became more complex, moral consciousness eventually appeared. Today moral consciousness must learn to unbias or free itself from the teleonomic and hedonic systems of old in order to renovate our blind universe or region. The blade of grass is digesting the dirt, while the insect is eating the blade of grass, while the mammal is devouring the insect. The mammal, caught in a metal trap, sees the human hunter approaching. Our blind universe or region has cruelly set animal against animal – and humans against mortality.

      Here are some of the presumed capacities of advanced beings (or transhumans) as they renovate (well or poorly) our blind universe or region:

        ● Use of free-will and great power to pursue wisdom, to learn self-respect, and to respect all persons, past-present-future.

        ● Insure that no animal kills another animal. This includes both non-human animals (or s-creatures) and human animals (or h-beings).

        ● Insure that no reflective-person (r-being) must die.

        ● Insure that no person must experience unwanted serious pain or hardship.

      Eventually we may be able to do more than merely retrodict or SIMULATE the past. Eventually we may have the ability to run ancestor history EMULATIONS (via time travel or otherwise). R. Michael Perry (2005) has remarked that it would seem to be immoral to run such ancestor history emulations – real persons would experience real pains and evils. Instead, as Perry advocates, the golden rule would charge us with the duty to revive our ancestors – the scientific resurrection of all dead persons in the omniverse’s temporal realm (multiverse of all multiverses).

(B) From terrestrial beings to extraterrestrial beings

      The fact that humans presently exist together in a single biosphere global village is a rather absurd position to be in if we seek to prevent doomsday and promote flourishing. 12  If something catastrophic happens to Earth's biosphere, then something catastrophic happens to all Earthlings. It is not wise to put all of humanity's eggs (futures) into one basket (biosphere). Epitaph: Foolish dinosaurs never escaped Earth.” In the long run, almost everyone will be living in extraterrestrial space rather than on a single small planet. We should now enforceably ban weapons and weapons-making from extraterrestrial space while it is still within our power to do so.

      Advanced Genetic, Robotic, Information, and Nano (“GRIN”) technologies are not required for the development of Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat communities (“SEGs”) or independent, self-replicating biospheres in outer space (Seg-communities, 2008). Advanced GRIN technologies certainly will greatly enhance SEG capacities, however.

        Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat communities (SEGs or seg-communities) should not be confused with space stations. Some argue that if we had chosen to do so, we could have started building SEGs using the "merely super" technology of the 20th century. Indeed, the famous 20th century physicist Gerard K. O'Neill designed such SEGs for the purpose of late 20th century construction. Such SEGs would provide a "green-friendly" environment for humans, animals, and plants superior to the problematic habitats we identify with Earth and other planets. In the 20th century the famous physicist Carl Sagan stated: “Our technology is capable of extraordinary new ventures in space, one of which Gerard O’Neill has described to you… It is practical.”

        Eventually millions of persons in a single SEG community are possible. The SEGs (seg-communities) would be self-sufficient and could reproduce other SEG habitats in extraterrestrial space at a geometric rate. Accordingly, there is “unlimited free land” in extraterrestrial space – with a higher quality of life than is possible on the surface of a planet.     

        SEG communities can be built from extraterrestrial resources mined from asteroids or moons. Rotation of the large and spacious greenhouse habitat provides simulated gravity for the people and plants living on the inner surface. Adjustable mirrors provide energy from the sun and simulation of day and night. Sooner or later, the following would be feasible for SEGs:

    ● “Unlimited energy” from the sun. (The sun never sets in space.)

    ● Control of daily weather and sunlight.

    ● SEGs would be self-sufficient.

    ● Expansion of the (self-sufficient) SEGs at a geometric rate.

    ● “Unlimited free land” via SEGs. (Needed raw materials from asteroids and moons are abundant.)

        The following metaphorical insights have been widely quoted by SEG experts: "The Earth was our cradle, but we will not live in the cradle forever." "Space habitats [SEGs or seg-communities] are the children of Mother Earth." According to Carl Sagan, our long-term survival is a matter of spaceflight or extinction: “All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.” According to the “mass extinction” article in The Columbia Encyclopedia (6th edition): “The extinctions, however, did not conform to the usual evolutionary rules regarding who survives; the only factor that appears to have improved a family of organisms’ chance of survival was widespread geographic colonization.” (For us today, we may call this “the extraterrestrial imperative”.)

        What political philosophy, then, is “fit” for the extraterrestrial imperative? I suggest “PFIT” – Peace and Freedom, and Intentional Transparent communities, in extraterrestrial space – as follows: What seems to me both practical and fair in this context is to think in terms of a new political philosophy or approach to stable peace in the form of an Extraterrestrial Society of Intentional Communities. There would be two sets of liberties and two sets of responsibilities (for "Extraterrestrial Society" and "Intentional Communities" respectively). Each person is free to found new (intentional) communities. Each Community would determine its own membership requirements. Each Community would have its own culture of liberties and responsibilities; a member would generally be free to leave the community. A mechanism or set of mechanisms would be established to insure that each member is fully and properly informed of their liberty to leave the (intentional) community. (I suppose some communities might still allow their members the possibility of experiencing physical pain – but they would also allow a member to voluntarily leave their community. Too, I suppose banning animal cruelty and serious animal pain would be desirable and feasible.) Note that some ("hermit") communities (SEGs) would consist of only one person.

      On old Terra, it was often difficult or impossible to leave one's community – sometimes expulsion effectively meant the individual’s death. The context of the Extraterrestrial Society of Intentional Communities is radically different. For example: The individual person would be transmortal, whereas on old Terra it was often the community or society (not the human individual) that was seen as transmortal. 

        So at the level of the Society (of Communities) we have: (1) Peace: Weapons, weapons-making, and violence (including animal cruelty and serious animal pain) are strongly effectively enforceably banned; and, (2) Freedom: Every individual person is fully aware of and fully informed of their general liberty to leave their community. This too is strongly effectively enforced. The Society and the communities necessarily work closely together to fully insure the liberties and responsibilities associated with both Peace and Freedom. Also note that since there is "unlimited free land,” this fact will additionally help prevent some old terra-style conflicts and resolve or manage others (this would include some old-style civil conflicts).

        At the level of Communities (in the Society) we have: (1) Intentionality (voluntariness): Within the good-faith transparent enforcement of Society's basic principles of peace and freedom, each Community has wide latitude for experimentation. Although there is a general liberty of members to leave the (intentional) Community, this does not necessarily relieve such persons from certain good-faith responsibilities to the Community; and, (2) Transparency (accountability): Each Community must strongly, effectively, and transparently help enforce the Society's basic principles of peace and freedom.

        I believe the political theory or moral-political approach I have invented above is unique and original. It differs from the "Law of Peoples" conception of John Rawls (1999) in that it primarily chooses a "Law of Persons" model instead. Yet it takes seriously the distinction Rawls makes between a "political conception" and "comprehensive doctrines." In my “PFIT” or "Society of Communities" theory, Society corresponds to a political conception or model, and Communities (SEGs) represent comprehensive doctrines or worldviews.

        Like Charles R. Beitz (1999), my theory takes seriously a cosmopolitan-political "Law of Persons" (as distinguished from a social-political "Law of Peoples") approach. It differs from Beitz in methodology and in the questions asked. Beitz finds the question of distributive justice both highly important and practically difficult with respect to present Terrestrials. This is a question I do not raise since in my extraterrestrial world of the future it seems not an issue or one rather resolvable in that easier context of expanded liberty – there requiring perhaps at most only a bit of good-will and ingenuity.

        "Is stable peace possible if each person or each people is passionately convinced their worldview is basically good and correct – and different worldviews are evil or bad or incorrect?" If you can sincerely and in good faith agree to my political approach above, the answer to this question appears to be YES, such stable peace is possible. If you can at most only agree to my approach as a temporary compromise, then the answer may be NO.

        "If we could enforceably prevent each and every person from killing any person over a conflict (say, a conflict of worldviews) would we do so? If so, how would we resolve our conflicts?" If you can sincerely and in good faith (instead of merely as a temporary compromise) agree to my approach above, then stable peace in extraterrestrial space seems both possible and desirable. This approach, so I believe, realistically outlines a structure of stable peace for World Society and local Communities (SEGs or seg-communities) in extraterrestrial space – pointing toward conflict management in the new framework and encouraging subsequent projects to invent needed specifics.

        The first (temporary, experimental) Extraterrestrial Space Treaty seems doable today. A permanent Extraterrestrial Space Treaty (enforceably banning weapons and weapons-making) seems doable soon (but may not be doable if we wait much longer). A Universal Space Treaty that includes both Extraterrestrial Space and Terrestrial Space may take more time but appears to be a goal worth striving for – indeed, the striving itself may well improve matters. In the meantime, the previous treaties and upward strivings should make these "final strivings" toward a Good Society more nearly achievable for all – even if almost everyone lives somewhere other than at the officially protected historical site and popular tourist museum called Earth.

(C) From mortal beings to transmortal beings with a common task?

      According to the omniverse model presented above, any purely physical-scientific account of reality must be deficient. I believe my general-ontological framework should prove fruitful when discussing or resolving philosophic controversies – and helpful to scientists and lay folks as well. The topic we now turn to is the question of personal immortality. On this issue, the “golden goodwill” of A. N. Whitehead (1929) (1941), Albert Camus (1942) (1951), and the omniverse model triumphs over the “midnight madness” of Martin Heidegger (Shaviro, 2009) 13  and numerous others. 14

 

      Jacques Choron (1973: p. 638) notes that: “The main difficulty with personal immortality … is that once the naive position which took deathlessness and survival after death for granted was shattered, immortality had to be proved. All serious discussion of immortality became a search for arguments in its favor.” “In order to be a satisfactory solution to the problems arising in connection with the fact of death, immortality must be first a ‘personal’ immortality, and secondly it must be a ‘pleasant’ one.”

      How shall we deal with the apparent conflict between immortality and entropy? According to the omni paradigm, is entropy a fake? Note that the “dismal” theory of thermodynamics in the form of its second law (the so-called “entropy” law) applies to closed/isolated systems. But given the context of the omniverse model (see, e.g., §7 above, including Gödel’s suggestive work), we can now say: all-reality (the omniverse) is not a closed/isolated system. “The entropy concept,” according to Kenneth Boulding (1981: p. 10), “is an unfortunate one, something like phlogiston (which turned out to be negative oxygen), in the sense that entropy is negative potential. We can generalize the second law in the form of a law of diminishing potential rather than of increasing entropy, stated in the form: If anything happens, it is because there was a potential for it happening, and after it has happened that potential has been used up. This form of stating the law opens up the possibility that potential might be re-created.” Again I emphasize that the second law does not really say that (all-reality’s) potential is finite. Instead, let me suggest that the second law may be related to the arrow of time or to the fact that “Once I do X instead of Y, X will always be the case” … or whatever the case may be. But my “new default position” claim is that the omniverse is not a closed/isolated system.  

      Work beginning in the 20th century has laid the foundation for eventual realization of transmortality and more, the onto-resurrection imperative or common task of resurrecting all past persons no longer alive. Developments have already taken us to the threshold of what has been called “practical time travel” – or what, loosely speaking, we may call “time travel”: See §4 above. Once forward-directed time-travel becomes feasible in the 21st century, then we can proceed to address the “hard” problems so as to more fully implement our common task of resurrecting all dead persons (rather than resurrecting a few dead persons via cardiopulmonary resuscitation). The first steps occurred in the 20th century on several fronts, including steps in the direction of suspended-animation, superfast-rocketry, and seg-communities. 15  

      Experts tell us that the results of the population explosion (i.e. the size of the human population) will level off sometime in the 21st century (perhaps mid-century). Experts also tell us that current and ongoing industrial-technological activities are dangerously polluting our planet and causing global warming; global warming, in turn, can very easily lead to unprecedented injustices and upheavals in a terror-filled global-village of weapons of mass death and destruction. Presumably we should take global action against global dangers along the lines suggested by Al Gore, Jared Diamond, and other experts; see the Gore-related website about the practical generation of carbon-free electricity: <www.RepowerAmerica.org>; also see the Diamond-related website about “the world as a polder”: <www.mindfully.org/Heritage/ 2003/Civilization-Collapse-EndJun03.htm>. But certainly too we can and should engage in additional terrestrial and extraterrestrial activities to prevent doomsday and improve the human condition. If we are not balanced and careful in our actions, myopia can provide us with badly-needed near-term clarity while preventing us from the broader vision required for survival, thrival, and the common task.

      Perfection of future-directed time travel in the form of suspended-animation (biostasis) seems feasible in the 21st century. I believe it even seems feasible to eventually offer it freely to all who want it. Jared Diamond (2005: p. 494) has pointed out that: “If most of the world’s 6 billion people today were in cryogenic storage and neither eating, breathing, nor metabolizing, that large population would cause no environmental problems.” 16  Too, this might allow them to travel to an improved world in which they would be transmortal. Since aging and all other diseases would have been conquered, they might not have to use time travel again unless they had an accident requiring future medical technology.

      The onto-resurrection imperative demands more than immortality for those currently alive. In extraterrestrial space we can experiment (perhaps, for example, via past-directed time travel-viewing) with immortality for all persons no longer alive. Seg-communities (Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitats, or O’Neill communities) can assist us with our ordinary and terrestrial problems as well as assist us in completion of the onto-resurrection project. Indeed, in Al Gore’s account of the global warming of our water planet, his parable of the frog is a central metaphor. Because the frog in the pot of water experiences only a gradual warming, the frog does not jump out. I add: Jumping off the water planet is now historically imperative; it seems unwise to put all of our eggs (futures) into one basket (biosphere).

      With respect to our common task (the onto-resurrection imperative), I quote Jacques Choron (1973) once again: “Only pleasant and personal immortality provides what still appears to many as the only effective defense against … death. But it is able to accomplish much more. It appeases the sorrow following the death of a loved one by opening up the possibility of a joyful reunion … It satisfies the sense of justice outraged by the premature deaths of people of great promise and talent, because only this kind of immortality offers the hope of fulfillment in another life. Finally, it offers an answer to the question of the ultimate meaning of life, particularly when death prompts the agonizing query [of Tolstoy], ‘What is the purpose of this strife and struggle if, in the end, I shall disappear like a soap bubble?’” (p. 638)

§9     Closing Remarks

      An outline of reality, herein called the “omni” (omni-universe or omniverse) model, has been presented and justified. The paper discussed the nature and obligations of temporal personal entities with the ability to reason and be reasonable (“r-beings”) in an omniverse environment. R-beings with the limited reason of humans have an obligation to become advanced r-beings, and advanced r-beings have an obligation to advance further and further. As r-beings advance, they outgrow the chauvinism of my-species and my-planet. With perpetually advancing knowledge gained from scientific method and golden rule, r-beings are able to improve world and self.

      With this in mind, the paper articulated ethical-political and other details or implications for r-beings in the historical position humans find themselves today. A political philosophy “fit” for the extraterrestrial imperative was suggested: “PFIT” – i.e., Peace and Freedom, and Intentional Transparent communities, in extraterrestrial space. In the long run, almost everyone will be living in extraterrestrial space rather than on a single small planet. We should now enforceably ban weapons and weapons-making from extraterrestrial space while it is still within our power to do so. This new “PFIT” political philosophy was explained and defended; “PFIT” is believed to be a feasible approach to achieving stable peace in the form of an Extraterrestrial Society of Intentional Communities (seg-communities).

      The paper showed that all-reality, or the infinity of infinities I have called the omniverse, is not altogether reducible to any strictly physical-scientific paradigm. A more believable (general-ontological) paradigm was presented. Within this framework, the issue of personal immortality was considered. It was concluded that the immortality project, as a physical-scientific common-task to resurrect all dead persons, is ethically imperative. The imperative includes as first steps the development of successful antiaging-methods, longterm suspended-animation, Einsteinian superfast-rocketry, and PFIT seg-communities. 

      As r-beings learn more and more about the infinite game, presumably they will eventually learn how to engender universes with laws tailored to their specifications – and intervene contrary to those laws. Presumably they could also use those laws and interventions to produce strongly convincing virtual realities or appearances in apparent contradiction to “natural laws” – and more, even “contradicting” the laws of mathematics and logic. This is perhaps just the sort of thing Grand Magicians or Advanced Beings or Magisters Ludi would enjoy doing. Shall we continue to continue to continue … playing the infinite game?

      One difficulty in playing the infinite game is our huge (infinite) ignorance of the infinite omniverse both temporal and non-temporal. The paper’s analysis of the situation of r-beings (both human and advanced) in the omniverse environment finds some analogy to “the veil of ignorance” that is (hypothetically) posited by John Rawls (1971) (1999) for the purpose of identifying proper or just political arrangements. It apparently turns out that in the omniverse environment, a kind of veil of ignorance is real, not just hypothetical, for both human beings and advanced beings. Thus it seems that there is now a real motivating force for “us” (whether human-beings, advanced-beings, advanced advanced-beings, et cetera ad infinitum) to behave toward each other in a “golden” way. It also seems that (Rawlsian or political) “justice” is only one “value” among an infinity of “coordinated values” in the paragonal realm of necessary reality.

      This coordinated “infinity of paragonals” we may call “the Paragon” or “the Necessary” or “the Required” or “the Good”. Some may be tempted to go further (e.g., Whitehead’s divine “fellow sufferer” comes to mind): If the only thing that is good absolutely and without qualification is the Good, then does not the Good necessarily have to embody a Good Will? 17  And, like a compassionate encompassing circle, would not such a Good Will necessarily have to embrace the temporal realm? Indeed, in its temporal aspects, would not such a Good Will have to be conceived as perpetually experiencing and expanding? 18 

Acknowledgements

      I would like to thank the philosophy department of National Chung Cheng University (Taiwan) for their “Visiting Scholar” assistance, and the philosophy department of National Central University (Taiwan) for their “Symposium on Environmental Ethics” interaction. I would also like to thank William Grey and J. R. Lucas for their critical and helpful comments. Adapted from (Tandy, 2009b).

 

Bibliography

 

Barzun, Jacques and Graff, Henry F. (1985). The Modern Researcher: Fourth Edition. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: San Diego.

 

Bergson, Henri (1932). The Two Sources Of Morality And Religion. Translated by R. Ashley Audra and Cloudesley Brereton with the assistance of W. Horsfall Carter. University Of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame. (1932; 1935; this translated edition, 1977).

 

Best, Benjamin P. (2008). “Scientific Justification of Cryonics Practice” Rejuvenation Research vol. 11, no. 2 [April 2008]: Pages 493-503. Also available at <www.cryonics.org/reports/ Scientific_Justification.pdf>.

 

Beitz, Charles R. (1999). Political Theory and International Relations: With a New Afterword by the Author. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.

 

Bostrom, Nick (2003). "Are You Living In A Computer Simulation?" Philosophical Quar“erly 53(211) [2003]: Pages 243-255. Also”see a Nick Bostrom website: <http://www.simulation-argument.com>.

 

Bostrom, Nick and Roache, Rebecca (2007). “Three Big Problems” Pages 147-164 In: Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2007). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 5: Thirty Years After Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 9781934297025).

 

Boulding, Kenneth E. (1956). The Image. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor. (This edition, 1961, Ann Arbor Paperback). [This book offers a plausible account of knowledge change in human life and society, published several years prior to Kuhn’s 1962 history of science-knowledge change.]

 

Boulding, Kenneth E. (1981). Ecodynamics: A New Theory of Societal Evolution. Sage Publications: Beverly Hills.  (First edition, 1978; this edition, 1981). [This book offers a plausible account of physical-biological-societal evolution as it may have operated within our own little universe or local region.] 

 

Bronowski, Jacob (1966). “The Logic of Mind” American Scientist, 54 (1), March 1966, Pages 1-14. This is approximately reprinted as the “supplement” chapter in Bronowski (1971).

 

Bronowski, Jacob (1971). The Identity of Man. Natural History Press: New York.  This is the revised and expanded 1971 (not 1965) edition. The new “supplement” chapter serves as an approximate reprint of Bronowski (1966).

 

Burtt, E. A. (1965). In Search Of Philosophic Understanding. New American Library: New York. (1967 Edition).

 

Camus, Albert (1942). The Myth of Sisyphus. Vintage Books: New York. (Originally published in French in 1942). This translated edition, 1991.

 

Camus, Albert (1951). The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt. Vintage Books: New York. (Originally published in French in 1951). This translated edition, 1991.

 

Catterson, Troy T. (2003). “Letting The Dead Bury Their Own Dead: A Reply To Palle Yourgrau” Pages 413-426 In: Tandy, C. [Editor] (2003). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 1. Ria University Press: Palo Alto, CA.

 

Chaisson, Eric J. (2001). Cosmic Evolution: The Rise of Complexity in Nature. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

 

Chaitin, Gregory J. (1982). “Gödel’s Theorem and Information”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21, [1982], Pages 941-954.

 

Choron, Jacques (1973). “Death and Immortality” in Volume 1 (Pages 634-646) of The Dictionary of the History of Ideas edited by Philip P. Wiener. (1973=vols.1-4; 1974=index vol.). Charles Scribner’s Sons: New York. Available at <http://etext.virginia.edu/DicHist/ dict.html>.

 

De Grey, Aubrey D.N.J. (2007). “Is It Safe for a Biologist to Support Cryonics Publicly?” Pages 235-258 In: Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2007). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 5: Thirty Years After Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 9781934297025).

 

Descartes, René (1637). Discourse on the Method. (Originally published anonymously in French, 1637). (Various translations available).

 

Diamond, Jared (2005).  Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Viking: New York. 

 

Eiseley, Loren (1973). The Man Who Saw Through Time. Charles Scribner’s Sons: New York. (1961, 1962, 1964). This edition, 1973. [Francis Bacon is “The Man”].

 

Ettinger, R. C. W. (2002). “Youniverse” Pages 237-272 In: Tandy, C. And Stroud, S. R. [Editors] (2002). The Philosophy Of Robert Ettinger. Ria University Press: Palo Alto, CA.

 

Ettinger, R. C. W. (2004). “To Be Or Not To Be: The Zombie In The Computer” Pages 311-338 In: Tandy, C. [Editor] (2004). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 2. Ria University Press: Palo Alto, CA.

 

Ettinger, Robert C. W. (2005). The Prospect of Immortality. Ria University Press: Palo Alto, CA. [Privately published 1962, Doubleday edition 1964, subsequent editions in several languages; this edition, 2005].

 

Fahy, G. M., Wowk, B., Wu, J., Phan, J., Rasch, C., Chang, A., and Zendejas, E. (2004). "Cryopreservation of organs by vitrification: perspectives and recent advances", Cryobiology, Vol. 48 [2004],  Pages 157-78.

 

Fedorov, Nikolai Fedorovich (2008). [Two websites about him:] <http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fedorov.htm>; and, <http://www.quantium.plus.com/venturist/fyodorov.htm>. 

 

Feigl, Herbert (1958). “The ‘Mental’ and the ‘Physical’” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Volume II: Concepts, Theories, and the Mind-Body Problem edited by Herbert Feigl, Michael Scriven, and Grover Maxwell. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis. (Pages 370-497). (See especially section “V.c.” on pages 431-438).

 

Feinberg, Gerald (1966). “Physics and Life Prolongation”, Physics Today, November 1966.

 

Ford, Brian J. (2009). “Culturing Meat For The Future: Anti-Death Versus Anti-Life,” In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2009). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 7: Nine Hundred Years After St. Anselm (1033-1109), Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (Hardback/ Hardcover ISBN 978-1-934297-05-6). (Paperback/ Softcover ISBN 978-1-934297-07-0). (Forthcoming: Pages To Be Assigned).

 

Gödel, Kurt (1931). “Über Formal Unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme [Part] I”  Monatschefte für Mathematik und Physik, Volume XXXVIII, [1931], Pages 173-198. (Reprinted with English translation in Kurt Gödel: Collected Works, Volume 1, Oxford University Press: New York, 1986, Pages 144-195).

 

Gore (2006). Al Gore. An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. Rodale Books: Emmaus, Pennsylvania. [This is the first book in history produced to offset 100% of the CO2 emissions generated from production activities with renewable energy; this publication is carbon-neutral.]

 

Hartshorne, Charles (1941). Man’s Vision of God and the Logic of Theism. Willett, Clark and Co.: New York. This is an expanded treatment of Hartshorne (1951) and more. [Perhaps Hartshorne (1951) was first published in 1941?].

 

Hartshorne, Charles (1951). “Whitehead’s Idea of God” Pages 515-559 In: Schilpp, Paul Arthur (editor) (1951). The Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead: Second Edition. Open Court: La Salle, Illinois. [Perhaps this was first published in 1941 in the First Edition?].

 

Hartshorne, Charles (1962). The Logic of Perfection. Open Court: La Salle, Illinois.

 

Jackson, Frank (1982). “Epiphenomenal Qualia”, Philosophical Quarterly, XXXII (32), April 1982, Pages 127-136.

 

Jackson, Frank (1986). “What Mary Didn’t Know”, Journal of Philosophy, LXXXIII (83), May 1986, Pages 291-295.

 

Kant, Immanuel (1785). Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott from the original 1785 German edition. Pages 253-287 In: Volume 42 (Kant), Great Books of the Western World edited by Robert Maynard Hutchins. William Benton: Chicago, 1952.

 

Kierkegaard, Soren (1847). Works Of Love. Translated by H. Hong and E. Hong. Harper & Row: New York. (1962, 1964). [In his journal, Kierkegaard wrote: “Subjectivity is truth.”].

 

Kowal, C. T. (1988). Asteroids, Their Nature and Utilization. Ellis: Chichester.

 

Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. (Second edition enlarged, 1970).

 

Lemler, J., Harris, S. B., Platt, C., and Huffman, T. (2004). “The Arrest of Biological Time as a Bridge to Engineered Negligible Senescence", Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1019 [2004], Pages 559-563.

 

Lepore, E. and Van Gulick, R. [Editors] (1991). John Searle And His Critics. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.

 

Leslie, John (2007). Immortality Defended. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford.

 

Lewis, J. S. (1997). Mining the Sky. Helix Books, Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

 

Li, Jack (2002). Can Death Be a Harm to the Person Who Dies? Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht/Boston/London. [See especially chapter four for a defense of objective interests (objective values).]

 

Lucas, J. R. (2008).  “[Section:] Gödelian Arguments” at his <http://users.ox.ac.uk/ ~jrlucas/reasreal/reaschp6.pdf>. This section is in chapter two of Lucas (2009).

 

Lucas, J. R. (2009). Reason and Reality. Ria University Press: Palo Alto, CA. 

 

Merkle, R. C. (1992). "The technical feasibility of cryonics", Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 39 [1992], Pages 6-16.

 

Nagel, Ernest and Newman, James R. (1958). Gödel’s Proof. Routledge: London. (First edition, 1958; this edition, 2002).

 

Nagel, Thomas (1974). “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”  Philosophical Review, LXXXIII (83), 4 (October 1974), Pages 435-450.

 

O’Neill, Gerard K. (2000). The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space. Apogee Books: Burlington, Ontario, Canada. (3rd edition). Also see: <http://www.space-frontier.org/ HighFrontier/testimonial.html>.

 

Orwell, George (1949).  1984. New American Library: New York. (First edition, 1949; this edition, 1961).

 

Penrose, Roger (1989).  The Emperor’s New Mind. Oxford University Press: New York.

 

Penrose, Roger (1990). “Précis”, Journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13 (4), [1990], Pages 643-654.

 

Penrose, Roger (1994). Shadows of the Mind. Oxford University Press: New York.

 

Penrose, Roger (2005). The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. Alfred A. Knopf: New York.  (First edition, 2004; this edition, 2005).

 

Perry, R. Michael (2000). Forever For All: Moral Philosophy, Cryonics, And The Scientific Prospects For Immortality. Universal Publishers: Parkland, FL.

 

Perry, R. Michael (2005). Personal Communication from R. Michael Perry to Charles Tandy (21 August 2005).

 

Rawls, John (1971). A Theory Of Justice. The Belknap Press Of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. Revised Edition, 1999. (Original Edition, 1971).

 

Rawls, John (1999). The Law of Peoples: with “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. This edition, 2001.

 

Rickert, Heinrich (1902). The Limits of Concept Formation in Natural Science. Translated and abridged by Guy Oakes. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. [First published in German in 1902.] [Rickert defends valid values (objective values).]

 

Rosen, Carol (2009). The Institute for Cooperation in Space (website): <http://www.peaceinspace.com>.

 

Scientists’ Open Letter on Cryonics (2006). [61 signatories: “Cryonics is a legitimate science-based endeavor … ” etc., plus bibliography]. Pages 247-258 In: Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2007). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 5: Thirty Years After Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 9781934297025). Also available at <www.imminst.org/cryonics_letter/index.html>.

 

Searle, J. (1980). “Minds, Brains And Programs.” The Behavioural And Brain Sciences 3 [1980]: Pages 417-57.

 

Searle, J. (1984). Minds, Brains And Science. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

 

Sen, Amartya (1999). Development as Freedom. Anchor Books: New York. This edition, 2000.

 

Seg-communities (2008). <www.ria.edu/seg-communities>. [Or see these six websites about seg-communities (Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitats, or O’Neill communities):]

(1) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization>;

(2) <http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement>;

(3) <http://www.nss.org/settlement/space/index.html>;

(4) <http://www.segits.com>;

(5) <http://www.spaext.com>; and,

(6) <http://www.ssi.org>.

 

Shaviro, Steven (2009).  Without Criteria: Kant, Whitehead, Deleuze, and Aesthetics. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA.

 

Strawson, P. F. (1958). “Persons” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Volume II: Concepts, Theories, and the Mind-Body Problem edited by Herbert Feigl, Michael Scriven, and Grover Maxwell. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis. (Pages 330-353).

 

Strawson, P. F. (1959). Individuals: An Essay In Descriptive Metaphysics. Routledge: London. (1959; 1964; this edition,1990).

 

Strawson, P. F. (1985). Scepticism and Naturalism: Some Varieties. Columbia University Press: New York.

 

Tandy, Charles (2002). “Toward A New Theory Of Personhood” Pages 157-188 In: Tandy, C. [Editor] (2002). The Philosophy Of Robert Ettinger. Ria University Press: Palo Alto, CA.

 

Tandy, Charles (2003). “N. F. Fedorov And The Common Task: A 21st Century Reexamination” Pages 29-46 In: Tandy, C. [Editor] (2003). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 1. Ria University Press: Palo Alto, CA.

 

Tandy, Charles (2006). “A Time Travel Schema And Eight Types Of Time Travel,” In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2006). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 4: Twenty Years After De Beauvoir, Thirty Years After Heidegger, Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 9780974347288). (Pages 369-388).

 

Tandy, Charles (2007a). “Types Of Time Machines And Practical Time Travel” Journal Of Futures Studies vol. 11, no. 3. [February 2007]: Pages 79-90. Available at <http://www. jfs.tku.edu.tw/11-3/A05.pdf>.

 

Tandy, Charles (2007b). “Teleological Causes And The Possibilities Of Personhood,” In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2007). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 5: Thirty Years After Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 9781934297025). (Pages 399-416).

Tandy, Charles (2007c). “Terrestrial Peoples, Extraterrestrial Persons,” In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2007). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 5: Thirty Years After Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 9781934297025). (Pages 417-432).

 

Tandy, Charles (2008). “What Mary Knows: Actual Mentality, Possible Paradigms, Imperative Tasks,” In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2008). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 6: Thirty Years After Kurt Gödel (1906-1978), Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 978-1-934297-03-2). (Pages 265-284).

 

Tandy, Charles (2009a).”Entropy And Immortality,” Journal Of Futures Studies, Volume 14, Number 1 (August 2009). (ISSN 10276084). (Pages 39-50). Available at <http://www. jfs.tku.edu.tw/14-1/A03.pdf>.

 

Tandy, Charles (2009b). “Personal, Temporal, And Paragonal Aspects Of The Omniverse,” In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2009). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 7: Nine Hundred Years After St. Anselm (1033-1109), Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (Hardback/ Hardcover ISBN 978-1-934297-05-6). (Paperback/ Softcover ISBN 978-1-934297-07-0). (Forthcoming: Pages To Be Assigned).

 

Time-travel (2008). <www.ria.edu/time-travel>. [Or see these websites about (1) time-travel; (2) suspended-animation; and, (3) superfast-rocketry:]

(1) <http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/11-3/A05.pdf>;

(2) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Fahy>; and,

(3) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Resolution_of_the_para dox_in_general_relativity>.

 

Transhumanism (2008). [Two transhumanist websites:]

(1) <http://www.aleph.se/Trans>; and,

(2) <http://www.transhumanism.org>.

 

Ulmschneider, P. (2006). Intelligent Life in the Universe, Principles and Requirements Behind Its Emergence, 2nd Ed. Springer Verlag: Heidelberg, Berlin.

 

Ulmschneider, P. (2009). “O’Neill-Type Space Habitats and the Industrial Conquest of Space,” In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2009). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 7: Nine Hundred Years After St. Anselm (1033-1109), Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (Hardback/ Hardcover ISBN 978-1-934297-05-6). (Paperback/ Softcover ISBN 978-1-934297-07-0). (Forthcoming: Pages To Be Assigned).

 

Waddington, C. H. (1967). The Ethical Animal. University Of Chicago Press: Chicago.

 

Whitehead, Alfred North (1929). The Function of Reason. Beacon Press: Boston, MA. (This printing, 1959).

 

Whitehead, Alfred North (1941). “Immortality” Pages 682-700 In: Schilpp, Paul Arthur (editor) (1951). The Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead: Second Edition. Open Court: La Salle, Illinois.

 

Young, George (1979). Nikolai F. Fedorov: An Introduction. Nordland Publishing Company: Belmont: MA.

 

Endnotes

 

1. §5 is based on Tandy (2007b), pages 407-409.

 

2. I have here paraphrased Whitehead (1929): See especially chapter 1.

 

3. The following five paragraphs are either based on, or inspired by, chapter 1 of Whitehead (1929).

 

4. The following four paragraphs are either based on, or inspired by, chapter 2 of Whitehead (1929).

 

5. This paragraph and the following two paragraphs are either based on, or inspired by, chapter 3 of Whitehead (1929).

 

6. The following four paragraphs are either based on, or inspired by, chapter 1 of Bronowski (1971).

 

7. This paragraph and the following six paragraphs are either based on, or inspired by, chapter 2 of Bronowski (1971).

 

8. The following six paragraphs are either based on, or inspired by, chapter 3 of Bronowski (1971).

 

9. The following five paragraphs are either based on, or inspired by, chapter 4 of Bronowski (1971).

 

10. This paragraph and the following six paragraphs are either based on, or inspired by, the “supplement” chapter (the final chapter, following chapter 4) of Bronowski (1971). The “supplement” chapter serves as an approximate reprint of Bronowski (1966).

 

11. This paragraph and the following eight paragraphs are based on Tandy (2007b).

 

12. This paragraph and the following 14 paragraphs are based on Tandy (2007c). Also see: Seg-communities (2008).

 

13. Shaviro (2009) focuses on the question of “what if” 20th century philosophy had taken Heidegger less seriously and Whitehead more seriously.

 

14. This paragraph and the following eight paragraphs are based on Tandy (2008).

 

15. See: Time-travel (2008); and, Seg-communities (2008).

 

16. This may be an exaggeration in that the production of liquid air/nitrogen requires energy; even so, Diamond would appear to be mostly correct here. But it is also conceivable that all or almost all power plants and related technologies will become carbon-neutral or even carbon-extracting. For example, see one of “Al Gore’s websites” related to the practical generation of carbon-free electricity: <www.RepowerAmerica.org>. (Some environmentalists say that the additional step or capacity of carbon-extraction is required – or is at least desirable to make our lives easier. Whether practical carbon-extraction techniques would or would not require advanced molecular nanotechnology is not immediately obvious to me. Whether carbon-extraction, carbon-offsets, weather-modification, or terra-forming might be used as a doomsday weapon or weapon of mass death and destruction is yet another matter.)

 

17. Kant (1785) famously declared: “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will.” (p. 256)

 

18. Effectively but not intentionally, it turns out that several philosophic aspects of the omni model are apparently explicated in greater detail, and defended more ably, by Lucas (2009). (However I also believe we take contrary positions on several philosophic issues – e.g., retro time travel.)

 

------------------------------

 

§ PART TWO

(Tandy, 2011)

 

Tandy, Charles (2011). “Extraterrestrial Turning Point: From Man-unkind to Meridian-kind?” Applied Ethics Review, Volume 50 (April 2011). (ISSN 10282483). (Pages 27-72). [The version below was a pre-publication draft:]

 

Click HERE for § PART TWO [“Extraterrestrial Turning Point”]

 

 

OMNIVERSE THEORY WEBPAGES

 

§ TOP OF PAGE [before PART ONE]

§ PART ONE [“Omniverse In The First Person”]

§ PART TWO [“Extraterrestrial Turning Point”] (PART TWO IS ON ITS OWN WEBPAGE)

§ SOME RECENT WORKS BY DR. TANDY [list of works]

§ SOME ADDITIONAL RELATED WORKS [list of works]

  

(PART TWO IS ON ITS OWN WEBPAGE)

      

------------------------------

 

§ SOME RECENT WORKS BY DR. TANDY

 

Charles Tandy, Ph.D.

(Photo)   Charles Tandy, Ph.D.    (2007)

 

Dr. Tandy’s Curriculum Vitae:

http://www.ria.edu/cetandy/cv.html

http://cetandy.tripod.com/cv.html

 

Dr. Tandy’s Image Via Photos:

http://www.ria.edu/cetandy

http://cetandy.tripod.com


Dr. Tandy’s WWW Homepage And Sites:

http://www.DoctorTandy.com

http://www.HelpHachi.com

http://www.MedStable.com

http://www.OurOmniverse.com

http://www.ria.edu/papers/index.htm

http://www.SEGITs.com

 

Dr. Tandy’s Publications (Partial Listing):

 

Tandy, Charles (2011). “Extraterrestrial Turning Point: From Man-unkind to Meridian-kind?” Applied Ethics Review, Volume 50 (April 2011). (ISSN 10282483). (Pages 27-72).

 

Tandy, Charles (2010).  “The UP-TO Project: How To Achieve World Peace, Freedom, And Prosperity,” In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2010). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 8: Fifty Years After Albert Camus (1913-1960), A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (Hardback/ Hardcover ISBN 978-1-934297-10-0). (Paperback/ Softcover ISBN 978-1-934297-11-7). (Chapter 17). Available (in PDF) at: http://www.ria.edu/up .

 

Tandy, Charles (2010).  Camusian Thoughts About The Ultimate Question Of Life,” In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2010). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 8: Fifty Years After Albert Camus (1913-1960), A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (Hardback/ Hardcover ISBN 978-1-934297-10-0). (Paperback/ Softcover ISBN 978-1-934297-11-7). (Chapter 16). Available (in PDF) at: http://www.ria.edu/camusian .

 

Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2010). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 8: Fifty Years After Albert Camus (1913-1960), A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (Hardback/ Hardcover ISBN 978-1-934297-10-0). (Paperback/ Softcover ISBN 978-1-934297-11-7).

 

Tandy, Charles [Screenwriter] (2010). Cryonics Fundamentals [A Lifeboat Foundation Educational Video – Directed By Edgar W. Swank] December 9, 2010. Available at: http://lifeboat.com/ex/educational.videos .

 

Ettinger, Robert C. W. (2010). [Sinclair T. Wang, Translator 王振祥,翻譯者 ]. [Charles Tandy, Editor 唐萬龍,編輯者 ]. The  Prospect  Of  Immortality  In  Bilingual American English  And  Traditional Chinese 永生的期盼美式英文—繁體中文雙語版本  [By Robert C.W. Ettinger 羅伯  艾丁格 著 ]. A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (Hardback/ Hardcover ISBN 978-1-934297-00-1). (Paperback/ Softcover ISBN 978-1-934297-01-8).

 

Tandy, Charles (2010). “Environmental Ethics In An Omniverse Environment: From Terrestrial Chauvinism To Golden Rule,” In Lee, Jack [Editor] (2010). [Charles Tandy, Editor-In-Chief].  Sustainability and Quality of Life, A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 978-0-9743472-1-9). (Pages 171-216).

Lee, Jack [Editor] (2010). [Charles Tandy, Editor-In-Chief].  Sustainability and Quality of Life, A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 978-0-9743472-1-9).

 

Tandy, Charles (2010).   21st Century Clues: Essays In Ethics, Ontology, And Time Travel, A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (Hardback/ Hardcover ISBN 978-1-934297-08-7). (Paperback/ Softcover ISBN 978-1-934297-09-4).

 

Tandy, Charles (2010). "The Help Hachi Project,” March 15, 2010. [The purpose of Help Hachi is to help the loyal dog Hachi (1923-1935) find his owner (1871-1925). This level of technology would allow the resurrection of billions of (“legally dead”) persons, some of whom would have been “temporarily dead” for many centuries or even millennia.] See: www.HelpHachi.com .

Tandy, Charles (2010). "We Need Perfected Biostasis Technology,” March 14, 2010. [A petition.] Sign the "Our Global Village Needs To Perfect Biostasis Technology" petition at: 

www.thepetitionsite.com/1/suspendedanimation .

 

Tandy, Charles (2010). "Medstable,” February 10, 2010. [Webpage of links about MedStable. MedStable = longterm biostasis (medical stabilization)]. See: www.medstable.com .

 

Tandy, Charles (2009). “Omniverse In The First Person,” Applied Ethics Review, Volume 47 (December 2009). (ISSN 10282483). (Pages 1-42).

 

Rothblatt, Martine; Tandy, Charles; and Van Nedervelde, Philippe (2009). "Lifeboat Foundation PersonalityPreserver,” December 31, 2009. [Webpage of links (and more) about methods of preserving persons (or just their personalities), including cryopreservation, uploading, and time travel]. See: http://lifeboat.com:80/ex/personality.preserver .

 

Tandy, Charles (2009).  “A Philosopher Looks At Posthumanity: Inconclusive Conclusions?,” In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2009). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 7: Nine Hundred Years After St. Anselm (1033-1109), A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (Hardback/ Hardcover ISBN 978-1-934297-05-6). (Paperback/ Softcover ISBN 978-1-934297-07-0). (Pages 451-468).

Tandy, Charles (2009).  “Personal, Temporal, And Paragonal Aspects Of The Omniverse,” In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2009). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 7: Nine Hundred Years After St. Anselm (1033-1109), A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (Hardback/ Hardcover ISBN 978-1-934297-05-6). (Paperback/ Softcover ISBN 978-1-934297-07-0). (Pages 393-450).

Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2009). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 7: Nine Hundred Years After St. Anselm (1033-1109), A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (Hardback/ Hardcover ISBN 978-1-934297-05-6). (Paperback/ Softcover ISBN 978-1-934297-07-0).

 

Lucas, J. R. (2009). Tandy, Charles [Editor]. Reason And Reality: An Essay In Metaphysics, A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (Hardback/ Hardcover ISBN 978-1-934297-04-9). (Paperback/ Softcover ISBN 978-1-934297-06-3).

 

Tandy, Charles (2009). “Environmental Ethics In An Omniverse Environment: From Terrestrial Chauvinism To Golden Rule,” November 21, 2009 Presentation With Publication At The “Symposium On Environmental Ethics” at National Central University (Taiwan). (Pages 219-256).

 

Tandy, Charles (2009)."Entropy And Immortality," Journal Of Futures Studies, Volume 14, Number 1 (August 2009). (ISSN 10276084). (Pages 39-50).

Tandy, Charles (2009). "Time-travel,” February 14, 2009. [Webpage of links about what has been called “practical time travel” – divided into three categories: (1) time-travel; (2) superfast-rocketry (forward-directed time-travel via superfast-rocketry); and, (3) suspended-animation (forward-directed time-travel via suspended-animation)]. See: www.ria.edu/time-travel .

 

Tandy, Charles (2009). "Seg-communities,” February 14, 2009. [Webpage of links about seg-communities (Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitats, or O’Neill communities)]. See: www.ria.edu/seg-communities .

 

Tandy, Charles (2008). “What Mary Knows: Actual Mentality, Possible Paradigms, Imperative Tasks,” In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2008). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 6: Thirty Years After Kurt Gödel (1906-1978), A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 978-1-934297-03-2). (Pages 265-284).

 

Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2008). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 6: Thirty Years After Kurt Gödel (1906-1978), A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 978-1-934297-03-2).

 

Tandy, Charles (2008). "Neither Doomsday Nor Dystopia: Are We ‘Up To’ A ‘Pfit’ Future?," May 9, 2008 Presentation With Publication At Conference Entitled “Moral Thinking And Moral Concern” at Tamkang University (Taiwan). (Pages 1-30). Also See (February 14, 2008): www.ria.edu/Segits/index.htm#ndooms .

 

Tandy, Charles (2008). "Book Review Of Jack Li’s Can Death Be A Harm To The Person Who Dies?," Journal Of Humanities (National Central University, Taiwan), Volume 33 (January 2008). (ISSN 19939167). (GPN 2007200015). (Pages 225-236). Also See: www.ria.edu/papers/deathharm/index.htm .

 

Tandy, Charles (2007). "16 Candles For Childhood’s End: Outline Of Transmutation To Almost-Universal Security And Prosperity," December 25, 2007. See: www.ria.edu/Segits/index.htm .

 

Tandy, Charles (2007). "Terrestrial Peoples, Extraterrestrial Persons," In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2007). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 5: Thirty Years After Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 9781934297025). (Pages 417-432).

 

Tandy, Charles (2007). "Teleological Causes And The Possibilities Of Personhood," In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2007). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 5: Thirty Years After Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 9781934297025). (Pages 399-416).

Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2007). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 5: Thirty Years After Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 9781934297025).

 

Tandy, Charles (2007). "Types Of Time Machines And Practical Time Travel," Journal Of Futures Studies, Volume 11, Number 3 (February 2007). (ISSN 10276084). (Pages 79-90).

Tandy, Charles (2006). "A Time Travel Schema And Eight Types Of Time Travel," In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2006). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 4: Twenty Years After De Beauvoir, Thirty Years After Heidegger, A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 9780974347288). (Pages 369-388).

 

Tandy, Charles (2006). "Extraterrestrial Liberty And The Great Transmutation," In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2006). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 4: Twenty Years After De Beauvoir, Thirty Years After Heidegger, A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 9780974347288). (Pages 351-368).

 

Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2006). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 4: Twenty Years After De Beauvoir, Thirty Years After Heidegger, A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 9780974347288).

 

Tandy, Charles (2006). "‘Wild-West’ Versus ‘Space-Age’ Systems Science: An Extraterrestrial Prisoner’s Dilemma?" In Klein, Eric (Editor), Lifeboat Foundation – lifeboat.com, http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.charles.tandy . (December 2006).

 

OMNIVERSE THEORY WEBPAGES

 

§ TOP OF PAGE [before PART ONE]

§ PART ONE [“Omniverse In The First Person”]

§ PART TWO [“Extraterrestrial Turning Point”] (PART TWO IS ON ITS OWN WEBPAGE)

§ SOME RECENT WORKS BY DR. TANDY [list of works]

§ SOME ADDITIONAL RELATED WORKS [list of works]

 

------------------------------

 

§ SOME ADDITIONAL RELATED WORKS

(Under Construction: Your Suggestions Please! tandy@ria.edu )

 

Bronowski, Jacob (1971). The Identity of Man. Natural History Press: New York.  This is the revised and expanded 1971 (not 1965) edition.

 

Fedorov, Nikolai Fedorovich (2008). [Two websites about him:] <http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fedorov.htm>; and, <http://www.quantium.plus.com/venturist/fyodorov.htm>. 

 

Leslie, John (2007). Immortality Defended. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford.

 

Li, Jack (2002). Can Death Be a Harm to the Person Who Dies? Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht/Boston/ London. [See especially chapter four for a defense of objective interests (objective values).]

 

Lucas, J. R. (2009). Reason and Reality. Ria University Press: Palo Alto, CA. Also available free on the internet.

 

Penrose, Roger (1994). Shadows of the Mind. Oxford University Press: New York.

 

Penrose, Roger (2005). The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. Alfred A. Knopf: New York.  (First edition, 2004; this edition, 2005).

 

Perry, R. Michael (2000). Forever For All: Moral Philosophy, Cryonics, And The Scientific Prospects For Immortality. Universal Publishers: Parkland, FL. Also available free on the internet.

 

Rickert, Heinrich (1902). The Limits of Concept Formation in Natural Science. Translated and abridged by Guy Oakes. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1986. [First published in German in 1902.] [Rickert defends valid values (objective values).]

 

Shaviro, Steven (2009).  Without Criteria: Kant, Whitehead, Deleuze, and Aesthetics. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA.

 

Whitehead, Alfred North (1941). “Immortality” Pages 682-700 In: Schilpp, Paul Arthur (editor) (1951). The Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead: Second Edition. Open Court: La Salle, Illinois.

 

Young, George (1979). Nikolai F. Fedorov: An Introduction. Nordland Publishing Company: Belmont: MA.

 

 

Also see the references listed in PART ONE and PART TWO above.

 

 

 

OMNIVERSE THEORY WEBPAGES

 

§ TOP OF PAGE [before PART ONE]

§ PART ONE [“Omniverse In The First Person”]

§ PART TWO [“Extraterrestrial Turning Point”] (PART TWO IS ON ITS OWN WEBPAGE)

§ SOME RECENT WORKS BY DR. TANDY [list of works]

§ SOME ADDITIONAL RELATED WORKS [list of works]

 

 

 

 

This website is sponsored by

Dr. Charles Tandy <www.segits.com>