I have discovered the most remeakable answer to the long convoluted threads in which Little Hawk and I -- like bonded heros of ancient times -- have held our stance, back to back, swinging our vorpal blades against the bitter, methodical, materialistic probability theory of such curmudgeons as Bill D. and his ilk, who endlessly seek to rebut the notion of any spiritual existence or ability.

The answer lies in an understanding of computational theory and the nature of Turing machines.

From Wikipedia, the following observations can be found:

"1. Anything a real computer can compute, a Turing machine can also compute. For example: "A Turing machine can simulate any type of subroutine found in programming languages, including recursive procedures and any of the known parameter-passing mechanisms" (Hopcroft and Ullman p. 157). Thus, a statement about the limitations of Turing machines will also apply to real computers.

2. The difference lies only with the ability of a Turing machine to manipulate an unbounded amount of data. However, given a finite amount of time, a Turing machine (like a real machine) can only manipulate a finite amount of data.

3. Like a Turing machine, a real machine can have its storage space enlarged as needed, by acquiring more disks or other storage media. If the supply of these runs short, the Turing machine may become less useful as a model. But the fact is that neither Turing machines nor real machines need astronomical amounts of storage space in order to perform useful computation. The processing time required is usually much more of a problem.

4. Turing machines describe algorithms independent of how much memory they utilize. There is a limit to the memory possessed by any current machine, but this limit can rise arbitrarily in time. Turing machines allow us to make statements about algorithms which will (theoretically) hold forever, regardless of advances in conventional computing machine architecture."

The key lies in item #2, which points out that a Turing machine -- the embodiment and seed-bed of the whole field of computational theory and information processing -- is constrained to operate with finite data sets. This of course makes sense. Unlimited data sets completely contradict the fundamental concept of computation in time arriving at a result.

But what Little Hawk understands, Lord bless him, is that it is the soul that is itself both the generator and appreciator of data, and brings it into existence in instants of creation in the fiery flux of raw experience.

By definition, therefore, the data set relating to this numinous Self is unlimited and therefore cannot be approximated by any computational method derived from a Turing machine; and as a corollary, is also capable of states beyond those which any Turing based state-machine can embrace in its set of possible solutions, or describe in its algorithm-derived set of possible outputs.

This explains the magic of MOAB; it is a non-algorithmic repository of created reality-states safely embedded in the spidery webs of a cyber-environment which, in turn, is erected and presumably safeguarded by Turing machines! A lovely apparent paradox, easily dispelled but amusing in its presumption.

A