Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Dr. Quantum G 'thooft & Seth Lloyd, Teilhard de Chardin & Friedrich Nietzsche

Expand Messages
  • JACK SARFATTI
    ... My main interest is remote viewing of the future - strong retrocausal signal nonlocality. I mentioned the case reported by Russell Targ at the June 2006
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment

      On Jul 31, 2010, at 1:31 PM, JRJ wrote:

      Dear Dr. Sarfatti,

      It was wonderful to have been able to attend your talk at my uncle's place last night. I particularly enjoyed the personal stories you related. Here are a few of my questions/concerns about the cosmological views you presented:

      1) You mentioned the remote viewing program that grew out of Puthoff and Targ's research at SRI. Consider three phenomena observed in that program: i) the ability to remote view the past; ii) the fact that remote viewers would sometimes become so fascinated by a site that they would 'bilocate' there (i.e. have an out of body experience) and break communication with their interlocutors at the facility; iii) instances where remote viewers were able to exert psychokinetic influence on the environment of the target site or people within that environment. There is no reason why these three phenomena could not be combined into a form of psychical time travel.

      My main interest is remote viewing of the future - strong retrocausal signal nonlocality. I mentioned the case reported by Russell Targ at the June 2006 AAAS at USD.


      It seems to me that an empirical test of your theory could be devised on this basis. According to your theory all of us are simulacra of a quantum computer


      It's not really my theory. The original credit or discredit for this really crazy idea is Gerard 'tHooft and Leonard Susskind. I have merely pointed out that their hologram cannot be the past particle horizon of our observable universe, it must be our future event horizon in the sense of Tamara Davis's


      The question is, is this crazy idea, crazy enough to be true?


      projecting the phenomena of this observable universe backwards in time, and the quantum computer in question is co-extensive with the space-time fabric of this universe.

      I suggest that the computer is our 2D future horizon - and that the interior bulk 3D space (accelerating expansion) is its retorcausal hologram image.

      (There may or may not be others that have been constructed in other universes.) This suggests that: a) we cannot travel to parallel physical universes (any more than holographic characters in Star Trek can step outside of the holodeck);

      Good question/point.

      b) any instances of apparent time travel can only effect self-consistent loops in space-time.

      Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle

      Well, what if a remote viewer bilocates to the past and is tasked with slightly changing an aspect of the past that his interviewers at the remote viewing program have all studied (but one that should not directly alter his past or the conditions of him carrying out the mission in the present)?

      Changing an aspect of the past is not possible in this theory. The past is what it is because the time traveller has gone back to the past to make it what it is in a consistent loop - if there is such a time traveller at all of course.

      If he were to return to the present with different memories of the event targeted for change, then it would appear that one of two things has occurred: either he has wiped out large segments of the time line of his own universe (this means that some people who were originally born may not live the entire lives they have as a consequence of his actions, etc.); or, alternatively, he has crossed over into a parallel universe (and his co-workers who share his memories of the event targeted for change are still back in his original universe, where either the event never changed or his consciousness never made it back into his body from the past).

      Yes, if you believe David Deutsch's model something like what you say there. There is a conflict between the two ideas - Deutsch's vs Novikov's.

      Under both interpretations, you seem to have a problem. One trial would prove nothing, but if remote viewers tasked with carefully altering the past repeatedly returned to the present with different memories than their coworkers in the program, I think we might have an empirical falsification of your theory.

      That's not my theory, but it's a possible theory I suppose. In my theory, any attempt to change the recorded past will fail.

      2) The metaphor of the hologram is vague, and when you speak of being able to compute on the surface of a black hole or of a cosmological horizon similar to it, it is not clear what you could possibly mean from an engineering perspective.

      It's not my theory it's the theory of MIT Professor Seth Lloyd:

      1. The Ultimate Laptop: A Black Hole

         - 2 visits - Jan 18
        Some people may be convinced that they already have a black hole laptop, imploding at the worst possible moments and irretrievably swallowing data. ...
        www.ar-tiste.com/qcomp_onion/.../UltimateLaptop.htm - Cached - Similar

      Search Results

      1. Seth Lloyd's Quantum Computer

        Rated 4.6 out of 5.0
         - 4 min - Feb 21, 2007 - Uploaded by oniTony

        Professor Seth Lloyd talks about the world's smallest universe, quantummechanics, quantum computers, and pushing Moore's Law beyond ...
        www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUMXe9gh7c more videos »
      2. Seth Lloyd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        Seth Lloyd is a professor of mechanical engineering at Massachusetts ... Lloyd, S., Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes On the ...
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Lloyd - Cached - Similar
      3. 2.111 Quantum Computation

        Seth Lloyd. Rm 3-160. 252-1803. slloyd@.... Prof. Isaac Chuang. Rm 26-251 ... M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, ...
        web.mit.edu/2.111/www/ - Cached - Similar
      4. Amazon.com: Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist ...

        In Programming the Universe, Seth Lloyd, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at MIT and the designer of the first feasible quantum computer...
        www.amazon.com › Books › Computers & Internet › Programming - Cached
      5. An interview with Seth Lloyd » American Scientist

        Seth Lloyd Click to Enlarge Image. Such are the dreams of quantum computing, an emerging science that enlists elementary particles to process information. ...
        www.americanscientist.org › ON THE BOOKSHELF - Cached - Similar
      6. Wired 14.03: PLAY

        Quantum mechanic Seth Lloyd says we really are controlled by a computer. Previous: Anatomy of a Nerd | Next: Clean Getaway ...
        www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.03/play.html?pg=4 - Cached - Similar
      7. Edge: THE COMPUTATIONAL UNIVERSE

        SETH LLOYD is Professor of Mechanical Engineering at MIT and a principal ... feasible design for a quantum computer, demonstrating the viability of quantum ...
        www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd2/lloyd2_index.html - Cached - Similar
      8. Technology Review: Q&A: Seth Lloyd

        Seth Lloyd, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, is among the pioneers ofquantum computing: he proposed the first technologically feasible design ...
        www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/17091/
      9. Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on ... - Google Books Result

        Seth Lloyd - 2006 - Computers
        In this clear, informative, and entertaining narrative, a quantum computer scientist examines the history of the universe through the lens of a new theory--that ...
        books.google.com/books?isbn=0307264718...
      10. Seth Lloyd | Programming the Universe

        Is the universe actually a giant quantum computer? According to Seth Lloyd— Professor of Quantum-Mechanical Engineering at MIT and originator of the first ...
        www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/lloyd/ - Cached - Similar
      Searches related to seth lloyd quantum computer

      (By contrast the concrete engineering involved in a Dyson sphere, while colossal, is conceivable.) A computer, even a quantum computer, is a machine. Now suppose you could sketch a suggestive engineering picture of the machine that you postulate exists in our future (please try to do so), then your theory is really another type of Simulation Argument (e.g. Nick Bostrom, Jim Elvidge).

      Seth Lloyd has done that as well as Dyson I think - the basis is the paper by Hawking & Ellis on cosmological de Sitter dark energy horizon thermodynamics - back in early 70's before dark energy was discovered in 1999.

      In that event I wonder how you would avoid a logical fallacy that I think plagues theories of this kind: It is on the basis of problems of physics that you deduce that we are living in a computer simulation, but if we are living in a computer simulation, there is no way to be sure that our so-called 'physics' is anything even close to an isomorphic model of the physics of the first order 'reality'.

      What is "first order reality'? I don't see any logical fallacy here.

      "Problem solving" within the context of this so-called 'physics', of the kind that led to this theory in the first place, would in that case be a fool's errand, since 'physical laws' could be modified at whim by the operators of your Omega Computer. (In fact, such whimsical 'reprogramming' might be suggested by more radical paranormal phenomena than remote viewing or precognition, such as psychokinetic materializations that appear to violate the 'physical law' of the conservation of energy.) It seems to me that epistemologically grounding empirical research in the sciences as a meaningful (self-consistent and productive) endeavor entails a refutation of any type of Simulation Argument, including yours.

      I don't see any force to your argument here. Indeed you should look at Max Tegmark's Level 4 "Different fundamental equations of physics." In fact John Wheeler suggested that our laws of physics are, perhaps, not unique. Agreed, however, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary falsification possibilities.

      multiverse.jpg




      3) Lets assume that you can somehow answer these objections, and others that I could possibly raise. Then (with your postulation that the 'holographic computer' is in our future) you've contributed (together with 'tHooft et al.) to the most significant discovery in the history of Physics. In that event, you should not obfuscate this discovery by drawing a very superficial analogy to Teilhard de Chardin's faith-based metaphysical speculations on the 'Omega Point' and the 'Noosphere'.

      Au contraire - that is what is important to the laymen - the unwashed masses so to speak. You don't expect them to be able to understand the details of mathematical physics. There is nothing in Teilhard's idea that requires irrational faith unsupported by evidence. Indeed, that may be why The Vatican regarded him with suspicion like they did Galileo?

      I haven't read Teilhard since I was a teenager, but as I recall Teilhard's view of the convergent evolution of consciousness in the cosmos is based on a conception of time as duration and of an inherently non-predictable evolutionary growth that is similar to that developed by Henri Bergson. For them the telos towards a cosmic intelligence is broadly discernible, but the specific processes that actualize it cannot be mathematically schematized the way that your development toward the holographic  computer could be in principle (Tamara Davis' mapping project). Teilhard's view of consciousness is the furthest thing from a CPU clocking of information at discrete intervals in a state machine, no matter how small the intervals (10^-43 seconds?). 

      So what? I am not saying Teilhard got it 100% correct, but he came very close. I don't care about this or that quibble - minor details. The point is that the modern idea of consciousness as signal nonlocality combined with the idea that curved spacetime horizons have thermodynamics and are hologram computers, and the Wheeler-Feynman ---> Hoyle-Narlikar ---> Cramer ----> Aharonov-Vaidman are what is important here in a new physics of final cause as well as efficient cause. My point about Teilhard is that he came quite close to the ultimate picture via is own precognitive remote viewing - indeed I think all creative thought is Nietzsche's self-rolling wheel (The Will to Exist) - the Novikov loops in time. Of course Nietzsche did not have the modern physics in which to couch his thoughts. I am deconstructing Teilhard & Friedrich you might say? ;-)

      1. Nietzsche, Friedrich

        The German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 – August 25 , ..... a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. ...
        www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Friedrich_Nietzsche - Cached - Similar
      2. Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book For All And ...

        Free Online Library: Nietzsche, Friedrich - Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book For All And None... a game, a selfrolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. ...
        nietzsche.thefreelibrary.com/Thus-Spake-Zarathustra/3-1 - Cached - Similar
      3. Nietzsche — Excerpt from THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA: “The Way of the ...

        Feb 2, 2010 ... A self-rolling wheel? Canst thou also compel stars to revolve around thee? ...Nietzsche on Black Nationalism: The Most Hu… ...
        whitesurvival.wordpress.com/.../nietzsche-excerpt-from-thus-spoke- zarathustra-the-way-of-the-creating-one-17/ - Cached
      4. Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra (excerpt, part 2)

        Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra (excerpt, part 2) .... A selfrolling wheel? Can you even compel the stars to revolve around you? ...
        praxeology.net/zara2.htm - Cached - Similar
      5. Friedrich Nietzsche Philosophy: Immaculate Perception, Zarathustra ...

        Nietzsche's philosophy of aloneness as a necessity of Creation. ... self-rolling wheel? Can you also compel stars to revolve around ...
        saliu.com/Nietzsche.html - Cached - Similar
      6. The Nietzsche Channel Message Board: Zarathustra: The Three ...

        Apr 18, 2007 ... Post a Response | The Nietzsche Channel Message Board ] ... a new beginning, a game, a selfrolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. ...
        members3.boardhost.com/nietzsche/msg/1176924497.html - 
    • JACK SARFATTI
      Deconstruction (WickedPedia) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For the approach to post-modern architecture, see Deconstructivism; for other uses, see
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment

        Deconstruction (WickedPedia)

        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        Deconstruction is an approach, introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of exposing the contradictions and internal oppositions upon which it is apparently founded and showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible. It is an approach that may be deployed in philosophyliterary analysis, or other fields. - and now physics.
        Deconstruction generally tries to demonstrate that any text is not a discrete whole but contains several irreconcilable and contradictory meanings; that any text therefore has more than one interpretation; that the text itself links these interpretations inextricably; that the incompatibility of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus that an interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point. Derrida refers to this point as an aporia in the text, and terms deconstructive reading "aporetic." J. Hillis Miller has described deconstruction this way: “Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently-solid ground is no rock, but thin air."[1]
        On Aug 2, 2010, at 7:14 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:


        On Jul 31, 2010, at 1:31 PM, JRJ wrote:

        Dear Dr. Sarfatti,

        It was wonderful to have been able to attend your talk at my uncle's place last night. I particularly enjoyed the personal stories you related. Here are a few of my questions/concerns about the cosmological views you presented:

        1) You mentioned the remote viewing program that grew out of Puthoff and Targ's research at SRI. Consider three phenomena observed in that program: i) the ability to remote view the past; ii) the fact that remote viewers would sometimes become so fascinated by a site that they would 'bilocate' there (i.e. have an out of body experience) and break communication with their interlocutors at the facility; iii) instances where remote viewers were able to exert psychokinetic influence on the environment of the target site or people within that environment. There is no reason why these three phenomena could not be combined into a form of psychical time travel.

        My main interest is remote viewing of the future - strong retrocausal signal nonlocality. I mentioned the case reported by Russell Targ at the June 2006 AAAS at USD.


        It seems to me that an empirical test of your theory could be devised on this basis. According to your theory all of us are simulacra of a quantum computer


        It's not really my theory. The original credit or discredit for this really crazy idea is Gerard 'tHooft and Leonard Susskind. I have merely pointed out that their hologram cannot be the past particle horizon of our observable universe, it must be our future event horizon in the sense of Tamara Davis's

        <DavisFig1_1cHologram.jpg>

        The question is, is this crazy idea, crazy enough to be true?


        projecting the phenomena of this observable universe backwards in time, and the quantum computer in question is co-extensive with the space-time fabric of this universe.

        I suggest that the computer is our 2D future horizon - and that the interior bulk 3D space (accelerating expansion) is its retorcausal hologram image.

        (There may or may not be others that have been constructed in other universes.) This suggests that: a) we cannot travel to parallel physical universes (any more than holographic characters in Star Trek can step outside of the holodeck);

        Good question/point.

        b) any instances of apparent time travel can only effect self-consistent loops in space-time.

        Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle

        Well, what if a remote viewer bilocates to the past and is tasked with slightly changing an aspect of the past that his interviewers at the remote viewing program have all studied (but one that should not directly alter his past or the conditions of him carrying out the mission in the present)?

        Changing an aspect of the past is not possible in this theory. The past is what it is because the time traveller has gone back to the past to make it what it is in a consistent loop - if there is such a time traveller at all of course.

        If he were to return to the present with different memories of the event targeted for change, then it would appear that one of two things has occurred: either he has wiped out large segments of the time line of his own universe (this means that some people who were originally born may not live the entire lives they have as a consequence of his actions, etc.); or, alternatively, he has crossed over into a parallel universe (and his co-workers who share his memories of the event targeted for change are still back in his original universe, where either the event never changed or his consciousness never made it back into his body from the past).

        Yes, if you believe David Deutsch's model something like what you say there. There is a conflict between the two ideas - Deutsch's vs Novikov's.

        Under both interpretations, you seem to have a problem. One trial would prove nothing, but if remote viewers tasked with carefully altering the past repeatedly returned to the present with different memories than their coworkers in the program, I think we might have an empirical falsification of your theory.

        That's not my theory, but it's a possible theory I suppose. In my theory, any attempt to change the recorded past will fail.

        2) The metaphor of the hologram is vague, and when you speak of being able to compute on the surface of a black hole or of a cosmological horizon similar to it, it is not clear what you could possibly mean from an engineering perspective.

        It's not my theory it's the theory of MIT Professor Seth Lloyd:

        1. The Ultimate Laptop: A Black Hole

           - 2 visits - Jan 18
          Some people may be convinced that they already have a black hole laptop, imploding at the worst possible moments and irretrievably swallowing data. ...
          www.ar-tiste.com/qcomp_onion/.../UltimateLaptop.htm - Cached - Similar

        Search Results

        1. Seth Lloyd's Quantum Computer

          <attachment.jpeg>
          <play_c.gif>
          <nav_logo14.png>
          <nav_logo14.png>
          <nav_logo14.png>
          <nav_logo14.png>
          <nav_logo14.png>
           - 4 min - Feb 21, 2007 - Uploaded by oniTony

          Professor Seth Lloyd talks about the world's smallest universe, quantummechanics, quantum computers, and pushing Moore's Law beyond ...
          www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUMXe9gh7c more videos »
        2. Seth Lloyd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          Seth Lloyd is a professor of mechanical engineering at Massachusetts ... Lloyd, S., Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes On the ...
          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Lloyd - Cached - Similar
        3. 2.111 Quantum Computation

          Seth Lloyd. Rm 3-160. 252-1803. slloyd@.... Prof. Isaac Chuang. Rm 26-251 ... M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, ...
          web.mit.edu/2.111/www/ - Cached - Similar
        4. Amazon.com: Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist ...

          In Programming the Universe, Seth Lloyd, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at MIT and the designer of the first feasible quantum computer...
          www.amazon.com › Books › Computers & Internet › Programming - Cached
        5. An interview with Seth Lloyd » American Scientist

          Seth Lloyd Click to Enlarge Image. Such are the dreams of quantum computing, an emerging science that enlists elementary particles to process information. ...
          www.americanscientist.org › ON THE BOOKSHELF - Cached - Similar
        6. Wired 14.03: PLAY

          Quantum mechanic Seth Lloyd says we really are controlled by a computer. Previous: Anatomy of a Nerd | Next: Clean Getaway ...
          www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.03/play.html?pg=4 - Cached - Similar
        7. Edge: THE COMPUTATIONAL UNIVERSE

          SETH LLOYD is Professor of Mechanical Engineering at MIT and a principal ... feasible design for a quantum computer, demonstrating the viability of quantum ...
          www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd2/lloyd2_index.html - Cached - Similar
        8. Technology Review: Q&A: Seth Lloyd

          Seth Lloyd, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, is among the pioneers ofquantum computing: he proposed the first technologically feasible design ...
          www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/17091/
        9. Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on ... - Google Books Result

          Seth Lloyd - 2006 - Computers
          In this clear, informative, and entertaining narrative, a quantum computer scientist examines the history of the universe through the lens of a new theory--that ...
          books.google.com/books?isbn=0307264718...
        10. Seth Lloyd | Programming the Universe

          Is the universe actually a giant quantum computer? According to Seth Lloyd— Professor of Quantum-Mechanical Engineering at MIT and originator of the first ...
          www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/lloyd/ - Cached - Similar
        Searches related to seth lloyd quantum computer

        (By contrast the concrete engineering involved in a Dyson sphere, while colossal, is conceivable.) A computer, even a quantum computer, is a machine. Now suppose you could sketch a suggestive engineering picture of the machine that you postulate exists in our future (please try to do so), then your theory is really another type of Simulation Argument (e.g. Nick Bostrom, Jim Elvidge).

        Seth Lloyd has done that as well as Dyson I think - the basis is the paper by Hawking & Ellis on cosmological de Sitter dark energy horizon thermodynamics - back in early 70's before dark energy was discovered in 1999.

        In that event I wonder how you would avoid a logical fallacy that I think plagues theories of this kind: It is on the basis of problems of physics that you deduce that we are living in a computer simulation, but if we are living in a computer simulation, there is no way to be sure that our so-called 'physics' is anything even close to an isomorphic model of the physics of the first order 'reality'.

        What is "first order reality'? I don't see any logical fallacy here.

        "Problem solving" within the context of this so-called 'physics', of the kind that led to this theory in the first place, would in that case be a fool's errand, since 'physical laws' could be modified at whim by the operators of your Omega Computer. (In fact, such whimsical 'reprogramming' might be suggested by more radical paranormal phenomena than remote viewing or precognition, such as psychokinetic materializations that appear to violate the 'physical law' of the conservation of energy.) It seems to me that epistemologically grounding empirical research in the sciences as a meaningful (self-consistent and productive) endeavor entails a refutation of any type of Simulation Argument, including yours.

        I don't see any force to your argument here. Indeed you should look at Max Tegmark's Level 4 "Different fundamental equations of physics." In fact John Wheeler suggested that our laws of physics are, perhaps, not unique. Agreed, however, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary falsification possibilities.

        <multiverse.jpg>




        3) Lets assume that you can somehow answer these objections, and others that I could possibly raise. Then (with your postulation that the 'holographic computer' is in our future) you've contributed (together with 'tHooft et al.) to the most significant discovery in the history of Physics. In that event, you should not obfuscate this discovery by drawing a very superficial analogy to Teilhard de Chardin's faith-based metaphysical speculations on the 'Omega Point' and the 'Noosphere'.

        Au contraire - that is what is important to the laymen - the unwashed masses so to speak. You don't expect them to be able to understand the details of mathematical physics. There is nothing in Teilhard's idea that requires irrational faith unsupported by evidence. Indeed, that may be why The Vatican regarded him with suspicion like they did Galileo?

        I haven't read Teilhard since I was a teenager, but as I recall Teilhard's view of the convergent evolution of consciousness in the cosmos is based on a conception of time as duration and of an inherently non-predictable evolutionary growth that is similar to that developed by Henri Bergson. For them the telos towards a cosmic intelligence is broadly discernible, but the specific processes that actualize it cannot be mathematically schematized the way that your development toward the holographic  computer could be in principle (Tamara Davis' mapping project). Teilhard's view of consciousness is the furthest thing from a CPU clocking of information at discrete intervals in a state machine, no matter how small the intervals (10^-43 seconds?). 

        So what? I am not saying Teilhard got it 100% correct, but he came very close. I don't care about this or that quibble - minor details. The point is that the modern idea of consciousness as signal nonlocality combined with the idea that curved spacetime horizons have thermodynamics and are hologram computers, and the Wheeler-Feynman ---> Hoyle-Narlikar ---> Cramer ----> Aharonov-Vaidman are what is important here in a new physics of final cause as well as efficient cause. My point about Teilhard is that he came quite close to the ultimate picture via is own precognitive remote viewing - indeed I think all creative thought is Nietzsche's self-rolling wheel (The Will to Exist) - the Novikov loops in time. Of course Nietzsche did not have the modern physics in which to couch his thoughts. I am deconstructing Teilhard & Friedrich you might say? ;-)

        1. Nietzsche, Friedrich

          The German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 – August 25 , ..... a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. ...
          www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Friedrich_Nietzsche - Cached - Similar
        2. Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book For All And ...

          Free Online Library: Nietzsche, Friedrich - Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book For All And None... a game, a selfrolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. ...
          nietzsche.thefreelibrary.com/Thus-Spake-Zarathustra/3-1 - Cached - Similar
        3. Nietzsche — Excerpt from THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA: “The Way of the ...

          Feb 2, 2010 ... A self-rolling wheel? Canst thou also compel stars to revolve around thee? ...Nietzsche on Black Nationalism: The Most Hu… ...
          whitesurvival.wordpress.com/.../nietzsche-excerpt-from-thus-spoke- zarathustra-the-way-of-the-creating-one-17/ - Cached
        4. Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra (excerpt, part 2)

          Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra (excerpt, part 2) .... A selfrolling wheel? Can you even compel the stars to revolve around you? ...
          praxeology.net/zara2.htm 

          (Message over 64 KB, truncated)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.