Clif High - Ontology tools.

May 13, 2025 - Clif High

22:05

Ontology tools.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit clifhigh.substack.com

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello humans.
	Hello, humans.
	It's uh May 13, 1.23 p.m.
	Just thought I'd take a minute to talk about ontology tools for a second.
	Right at the moment, really the dominant ontology tools are humans, human mind.
	An ontology tool for would be defined as mechanism for determining something about the ontology, the event stream or the eternal now, all of which are, you know, uh the event stream and the eternal now, of course, are inside the ontology.
	Um so ontology tools now really are human minds.
	Maybe whales are intelligent enough that they have divination and know what's going to happen and that kind of stuff.
	Uh we don't talk to them, so we don't know.
	Uh aliens, you know, perhaps, who knows, right?
	Uh but humans anyway are ontologically sensitive.
	We get the qualia, and so you get really good, you get people that are good with uh tools such as um astrology or tarot.
	Um my girlfriend here, Heidi is uh Vedic astrologer and uh also does tarot readings.
	So she and she's good at both.
	And she'll tell you that the um the tools uh don't really work for the person applying them.
	So that you know, so she doesn't isn't able to give herself a really quality reading with the tarot cards, and it's because the um the present conscious mind will always intrude, and you'll have a tendency to favor those, the interpretation that favors your own interest of that moment anyway, right?
	And this is even the true with my data.
	So I never look at my data specifically for myself, and the process through which it goes, it basically excludes me and just chunks it out so that I never get my mind interfered with by any um predisposition to believe one path or another will actually manifest, right?
	So I I guide myself as everybody else in this um materium in this eternal now.
	Anyway, so the um the ontology tools are likely to change here as we get the entangled um uh qubit uh uh uh chips into more and more computers and more and more devices, and more and more software programmers play with these devices and and see what they're able to produce, we may indeed get into uh ontology tools.
	We have them now, like I say, in the form of human minds, and there's always going to be some level of interpretation required on all of them, as on the part of the person delivering the ontology report, so to speak, you know, the uh astrologer or the tarot reader, uh, or whatever, uh I Ching or anything, right?
	So the the reader has to uh is basically an ontology interpreter, but then the the receiver of it's also going to do the interpretation themselves for their own life, right?
	Because they they know their life more intimately than anybody else.
	I think it's really a sign of um increasing awareness of how our reality works, that people do go and get things like um astrology readings or tarot readings, right?
	The um just that you're exploring that is um uh an up leveling of your awareness of the potential in terms of how this reality works and how it's not as um mechanistically as uh or as much of a mechanism as is described by uh the rational materialist.
	Anyway, so we'll probably get these ontology tools, and uh we've had some recent um entangled QBit AI breakthroughs towards those kind of um uh structures in software and hardware that may yield these tools.
	Then we're gonna have to actually test them and see if they're uh accurate enough to be able to be used.
	And and this is where you get into the level of interpretation on these.
	Well, these tools yield reports that have to be interpreted through the human mind, or will they be straightforward and we'll be able to test them a, you know, um option A versus option B. I don't think so.
	I don't think it'll be that clear, because our testing procedures necessarily are destructive.
	So if we were given a say we had an ontology tool, a computer that spat out specific data about an upcoming decision point.
	And it describes to you decision point and then option A and option B. And so you know your options going in, right?
	And all decision points come down to option, only two options.
	No matter what you do, that always resolves to two options.
	Even if you don't make a choice, that becomes one option right there.
	And then any other, any choice you do make becomes the other the other option.
	So it's always binary.
	We live in a binary reality.
	And so you um uh you come along in the event stream and you reach that point where the machine described to you this decision point you would have to come to.
	And then you um choose from what it had provided and say it recommended option B. Okay, give you these two options, and you're gonna be faced with this decision point, and you have an option A and an option B. And uh that I, the computer, on based on the following criteria, think that option B would be the most advantageous to select.
	Now, as humans, when we make a decision, thereafter we don't own any of the results.
	Shit just happens, right?
	This is the flow of karma.
	If the computer is prescient enough to pick out the coming decision point, and then it has to be further prescient in order to pick out which option is best, and has to have decent analytical skills and uh corresponding database to support those skills, it will still have to make some level of determination as to what is likely or presumed to transpire from each of these two decision points, right?
	And then here's our real our real problem.
	We can never test both A and B. Because when we arrive at that decision point and we choose uh option B to proceed, we instantly destroy the option A that could have ex that did exist up until the moment of that choice.
	And then once you make that choice, it doesn't exist anymore, and you're on the option B path no matter what.
	Uh and so you can never return and redo and analyze was the computer right in suggesting option B over option A. Uh so this is one of those things where interpretation and over time will again have to be applied.
	So, in that sense, an ontological tool derived from AI or even a predictive AI, is going to have to be evaluated based on uh rational criteria that involve duration.
	And so you'll have to have these criteria that says, okay, we're gonna do this AI, it's gonna it's gonna predict all this stuff.
	We're gonna have to analyze these predictions to see how they're accurate or not accurate over this period of time, and let's just say we eliminate the actual timing and just go on the sequence of the events appearing.
	Then we're gonna have to um say, okay, what if the computer gets you know 60%?
	How are we going to to uh apply manifesting reality descriptions to the um the computer's forecast?
	And then you get into the real weeds of it all in terms of how you are going to analyze whether it's actually the computer is predicting 15 items that you could easily identify as materializing within the reality.
	And that gets really tricky, okay, because and that's why I'm such a stickler on all aspects of language, is because the definition of the language really does guide you in dealing with such things as uh these woo predictions of of um you know pr uh potential futures and stuff, right?
	Because the uh tendency will always be for the for our our involved conscious minds to intrude, as it does with the uh tarot and astral readings.
	So we'll always do that.
	Now, when Heidi does a reading for someone else, she can be extremely accurate and very psychic, all right?
	And this is because her conscious mind at that stage is doing things to restrict its impact on the ontologically prepped mind that she uses for the astrology or for the tarot.
	In other words, uh because it's not her, because it's for someone else, she can be detached enough that her mind does not go in and lean or favor one uh set of options over another as she uh determines that there's um option points in your future.
	And this is this is the way it's gonna be with with all good tarot readers.
	Their own lives will be as anybody else's, somewhat ruled or always ruled by karma, but somewhat appearing to be involved in the in the chaos, etc.
	that everybody else goes through.
	They're not exempt just because they have these skills.
	And so nobody is going to be.
	Um we all end up getting hoisted uh by our own skill set and then discover at some point that our skills can't be applied to our own lives.
	Again, I think it's like a rule that universe won't allow you to have that level of control uh over information ahead of decision points because it fucks with the very nature of things.
	If you knew for instance, uh if you could always make the appropriate choice, then there's no risk involved in life or in any of your choices.
	And if you always made the appropriate choice uh for yourself or whatever, then you're going to uh distinctly affect the way that karma works.
	Karma has to have a level of risk, it has to have uh the level of uncertainty involved in order for the potential for in order for chaos to be created, and in order for the potential for novelty to emerge from that chaos.
	It's not particularly complicated, but it is very complex in its actual manifestation.
	So now ontology tools, in my opinion, when they come on out, will have to be dealt with at a uh very suspicious level.
	We'll have to really analyze how we're going to decide if these things are accurate, because there will our conscious minds will intrude, especially on the people using the devices that invented them and so on.
	And they'll intrude and they'll say, okay, you know, it is this way, because my conscious mind feels this, right?
	Because I feel this particular way.
	And that conscious mind intrusion will alter the interpretation of what should be data sets that or data that's coming out that need not be interpreted.
	Now, I don't think we're going to get to the point where we're going to have devices that will actually sense qualia appearing, but we may get something that is close to that.
	We may get devices that are able through quantum entanglement through atomic level entanglement to be able to uh anticipate to some level of um uh electronic prescience, so maybe a few milliseconds all the way up to a couple of seconds,
	maybe a few minutes, and maybe for large stuff, you know, further out, but they'll be able to sense some like level of disturbance in the force as the event stream uh is gonna be manifesting something that's relatively large in the um general scheme of things.
	And so um because we're all frequencies and all of these other issues.
	And so I think that they we will have those devices, but they're gonna have to be uh dealt with in the uh realm of the same thing as like tarot cards.
	People that are using them are not necessarily the best people uh to be interpreting them if they're those things are going to be impacting their own lives.
	So I don't think it'll ever get to the point that we have AI providing us with, you know, um, even uh uh uh any more in the way of accurate decisions than we're able to come up with on our own, because That underlying karmic engine requires that level of uh risk and stupidity and bad decisions, etc.
	Uh so it's just a um uh yet more of the ontology revealing itself, just as we now have uh more questions as we get into uh revelation, secrets revealed, and so on, it's not like any of these things answer as many questions as they raise.
	So they're all participating at that level of karma, and so all of our actions will continue to do that, even in spite of uh having oncology tools.
	Um and so the ontology tools though will um uh emerge as a result of the work that people are doing on the entangled computers, the Q chips, and so on.
	And uh I think that those are relatively uh they may be existent now to some extent.
	I I'm not saying that they're gonna have um uh computers that would do like remote viewing work or anything like that.
	Um, but they may indeed have computers that are able to provide some level of mathematical uh analysis as to levels of energy that may be manifesting from the event stream.
	Not that the people that are that are getting this information understand what they're actually looking at.
	They may be thinking of it as you know, time waves or something, you know, and just not really understand how this stuff works and uh and what they're actually seeing.
	Then I also have um another wonder about the ontology tools, and that is will they ever be better than the human mind is at doing these things.
	Bear in mind that uh our brains are uh antenna at a very subtle level of energy, much more so than maybe even all the way down to a quantum level.
	And it may be that there's an entangled quantumness that allows for such things as telepathy, uh, such as the, and I don't know if it's telepathy or or if it's a qualia or how I'm I'm phrasing it, but there was that strange episode that was uh uh not just a simple word or phrase,
	but was an afternoon of activity uh between Heidi and myself, in which she she was like compelled to uh provide me with photographs of her closet.
	I know that sounds really weird, but and that that same um the previous evening into that morning, which led to this afternoon of activity, um, I had been writing a chapter about the main character in this book, encountering a bunch of clothes in a closet.
	And then here Heidi was compelled to, and that was one of her things was that she felt a distinct uh almost a need to send me photographs of her closet, right?
	So this was just rather odd.
	But it was a huge, huge qualia.
	And um uh so is that telepathy?
	Is that in trained mind?
	Is that uh the ontology trying to um uh connect us at this particular level?
	Uh, you know, it's it's it probably it is all of those, but but extracting the meaning from that is uh you know is more than simply a uh one-go thinking at it.
	So I'll think about it uh repeatedly and will gain more insight from it repeatedly as I go along here.
	And I think human minds are gonna be far better at uh being ontology tools.
	And that may be why you hear these persistent rumors about humans being kidnapped and um basically used as like psychic slaves uh in the secret space program kind of shit, right?
	A sold-off world and all this other stuff.
	None of which I have any um reason to uh give credence to, but it is within the realm of possibility, not probable, extremely unlikely, but it is possible that such things could occur.
	But we don't see it's it'd be really weird.
	I don't know, you know, the circumstances, right?
	Uh We do see people leaving, but we don't see a great deal of value being added to the planet in exchange for uh you know all the millions of of missing people every year.
	It could be uh different levels of value exchange.
	So, you know, you give us a million people, we give you uh, you know, a zero point energy uh generator, that sort of thing, as opposed to a pound of gold per person or something.
	But it but I'm just not seeing an energetic exchange that would support the idea that um it's anything more than predation.
	Uh uh so um uh so there is there is that's that aspect of it.
	But anyway, so um the uh in trained um uh qubit thing is going to certainly uh take off.
	We're in the midst of that right now, and there's gonna be more and more countries piling on it, and this will be an aspect of what uh Trump is calling his AI initiative stuff, right?
	Because the AI is gonna take a uh different form and be fed by uh the uncertainty that is within the entangled uh uh particle chip structure.
	And we'll see these things, and those are also going to be very sensitive.
	They're not going to be as sensitive as the human mind, in my opinion, because they're actually trying to, in these in these quantum chips, they're trying to dampen out the uh the observer effect and the impact of consciousness.
	When they start developing chips that will that are designed to pick that up, then we're really going to have something.
	Because that would be like AI augmentation of your own psychic ability.
	Maybe you'd have a little uh AI psychic ability generator, and you just put it in your room when you're doing your tarot card reading, and all of a sudden you can, you know, you're a hundred percent on everything you say and be extremely predictive of it because the um of the entangled AI embrace or uh worked um chip uh would be able to modify the and
	magnify those uh frequencies that are actually supporting the uh ontology uh reaction within the human mind.
	And so we may head that way, right?
	I don't know if we're gonna call that um an augmented human or you know something like that.
	It's not transhumanism.
	It's certainly a magnification of local radiation that you then allow the human to feel, and the human becomes that much more psychic.
	That's the idea.
	So I think those things are coming as a result of these uh entangled chips.
	There's a lot of things that you could do with these chips that are not instantly apparent to those people that are outside of the technology.
	Anyway, this is going on too long, and I've got to get some more stuff here done before I can call my workload done for the day.
	Just was taking a moment for some tea and uh contemplating um uh basically contemplating why I abandon astrology after a little bit of time investigating it, and it turns out in my thinking that was because I couldn't make it work for me.
	Same thing was true of the tarot cards.
	I mean, I I've looked at all these divination tools over time because my interest in the event stream, etc., even way back when.
	But they never worked for me personally.
	Then to discover that um that Heidi also says this that you know the the cards are not necessarily giving to her relative to revealing stuff because her conscious mind gets in there in the way.
	And uh and you want, you know, even doing it for yourself.
	You want a specific outcome, right?
	So um anyway, so I think that's how the ontology tools are gonna work, that we may end up with some kind of uh augmented human uh by a device that does that sort of thing.
	We'll see how, but over the next four or five years, we'll certainly be dealing with these.

▲