« Forum? I'm against 'em! | Main | Grab-bag of gab »

Comments

Michael I object to much of what you (your sources) present above, from a scientific standpoint. But its too much form my split mind to handle. You are remarkably productive. I am really impressed! You win by brute force. My second language writing process is like a snail crossing the trail. And yours like the guy coming walking on it. Crrsshhh..

I would say that the theory that this blog is bringing forward is very much like panpsychism, a theory that was strongly favoured at the Esalen Survival conference and one that is gaining popularity among philosophers and even mainstream scientists.

Would anybody agree with me on this point?

Is this the Norman Friedman who is described in wiki as a 'naval analyst'? If so maybe that should have read 'navel analyst' :)

Ok, just thought I would drop this in, some of you may know more about her, or the method used.

Michelle is a trained hypnotist as well as a medium who hypnotisies her clients to allow them to communicate on a personal level with spirits that want to connect. If you are visual for example, as the spokesperson on the video, you may end up in the presence with the spirit and communicate in person. She acts as the facilitator of the exchange.

The tape is long - 3/4 of an hour, and I found myself wishing they would talk faster, but of interest all the same. "Michelle"(calls herself-The Corporate Woowoo) has a web site called soul-felt.com , for those that may to experience the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vKwy6M3qoE

Lyn x.

"Is this the Norman Friedman who is described in wiki as a 'naval analyst'? If so maybe that should have read 'navel analyst' :)"

Different guy. Good joke, though!

"You win by brute force."

Not trying to win anything, really. Just tossing a bunch of ideas against the wall and seeing if any of them stick.

"I would say that the theory that this blog is bringing forward is very much like panpsychism"

I'm not very knowledgeable about panpsychism, but isn't it the view that everything is conscious - that mind pervades the universe and can be found in all things? If so, I would say that it differs from the view suggested here. Everything physical may be reducible to information, but information isn't mind (as I see it). An encyclopedia consists of a great deal of information, but it has no awareness and it can't think.

A great deal of this is beyond me (though interesting to see Seth referenced). I probably have it all wrong, but from where is everything being projected? I can sort of see the universe as being constantly refreshed - but from where or what? Interesting too that as with an image made of pixels (even just a photo in a newspaper), you can only see or understand the image from a certain vantage point (if you're too close, you just see meaningless dots). It's the same with a test for color blindless - if you can't see colors, you won't be able to see characters in the image.

"Just tossing a bunch of ideas against the wall and seeing if any of them stick."

But you seem to find these ideas very credible. If everything is indeed calculated, do you think it possible, or even probable, that deceased spirits and mediumistic insights are simply calculations too - "imaginary beings" who don't actually occupy any space or astral dimension?

"from where is everything being projected?"

From N-space, a matrix of pure information.

"the universe as being constantly refreshed - but from where or what?"

M-space, the mind-space we explore and call reality, is constantly refreshed for each of us. From where or what? From N-space, the underlying information field.

"If everything is indeed calculated, do you think it possible, or even probable, that deceased spirits and mediumistic insights are simply calculations too - "imaginary beings" who don't actually occupy any space or astral dimension?"

We are all "imaginary beings" in that sense. It doesn't matter if we are deceased or not. Discarnate spirits continue to project their own M-space, just as they did when incarnated. (Actually the term "discarnate" is misleading, since they still experience themselves as having bodies and moving through space, just as we do.) Nothing occupies any space, because there is no physical space. There is only N-space (pure information), M-space (a mental projection or construct), and the mind (consciousness). The "astral dimension" is just a particular kind of M-space, originating in the same information matrix that undergirds all experiences.

I'm not claiming to be sure of this, of course - just explaining what the ideas would logically entail.

Excerpt from Daisy Dryden's death bed vision:
"she stretched out her little hands from the bed, and with a gesture said, "It is here and it is there; I know it is so, for I can see you all, and I see them there at the same time."
http://www.survivalafterdeath.info/books/barrett/dbv/chapter3.htm
--------------------

I always thought of the "other side" or "heaven" as being another dimension. After learning about the holographic universe theory I figure that the "holographic film" is in another dimension, and that it's the place we call "heaven."

Damn! Lol
Although the Norman Friedman I refer too also appears to have a PhD in Theoretical Physics

Makes a lot of sense, but I have a problem with a couple things.

I don't believe there could really be "calculations" going on. If the calculations were themselves performed by *something*, then that something would be a system (like our Universe) that would require its own explanation, and we would be back to square one, so to speak. (IOW, if we are like a virtual reality program running on a physical or even non-physical system, that system would require a science of its own.)

Since there are no calculations IMO, then there is no limitation to processing power, and I think any explanation in terms of such a processing limitation is on the wrong track.

To me, it makes sense to see the speed of light as an arbitrary rule of our system and not a limitation to processing power or anything of that sort.

I think it boils down to information, but it is not like information inside a computer.

"Since there are no calculations IMO, then there is no limitation to processing power"

I'd be reluctant to give up on the idea of a limitation on processing power, because it is so useful in explaining things.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can be understood as the inability of the system to hold more than one of two complementary values in the same memory space at the same time. This would not be a problem in a system without limitations.

Wave-particle duality can be understood as a consequence of the preservation of processing power, with the necessary calculations being performed and the "images" being rendered only when called for (i.e., when observed). Again, this would not be an issue for a system with unlimited power.

Relativity effects, as mentioned in the post, also can be understood in terms of the limitations of processing power. As the system strains its capacity in attempting to handle near-light-speed conditions, it must slow down some of its calculations to compensate.

"If the calculations were themselves performed by *something*, then that something would be a system (like our Universe) that would require its own explanation"

I'm assuming the calculations are performed by an information processor, what Thomas Campbell calls the cosmic CPU. Of course, it is not a physical information processor. Where it comes from and how it all got started is beyond me. The cosmic CPU could be "God." But why does God have to be infinite and unlimited? (In fact, certain philosophical problems are easier to address if we take God to be limited in some respects.)

"it is not like information inside a computer."

Well, not literally a computer, of course. But remember that wave functions can be expressed as equations, and can be calculated. So if we want to picture N-space as quantum wave functions, or as wave-interference patterns in an evolving holographic plate (Bohm's "holomovement"), it still amounts to the same thing: information forming patterns and undergoing transformations in accordance with algorithmic rules.

"or as wave-interference patterns in an evolving holographic plate (Bohm's "holomovement"), - Michael Prescott
---------------------

Well that's certainly how near death experiencers describe our Universe. The things many near death experiencers describe parallel what Michael Talbot described in his book The Holographic Universe.

"I had the realization that I was everywhere at the same time...and I mean everywhere." - excerpt from Carl Turner's mystical experience,
http://www.beyondreligion.com/su_personal/dreamsvisions-kundalini.htm

"I literally had the feeling that I was everywhere in the universe simultaneously." - excerpt from Mark Horton's NDE,
http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/nde/markh.html

"The next thing I recall was being shown the universe. I remember thinking, "So, THAT'S how it is! I was in awe. It was like a huge net, or chain link fence, everything in the universe is connected." - excerpt from Kelly K's NDE description,
http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Experiences/kelly_k%27s_nde.htm

Michael,


||I'd be reluctant to give up on the idea of a limitation on processing power, because it is so useful in explaining things.||

It's not useful if it makes no philosophical sense. :)

||Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can be understood as the inability of the system to hold more than one of two complementary values in the same memory space at the same time. This would not be a problem in a system without limitations.||

We are talking about a system with near-infinite processing power anyway. It's not as though the system *tries* to do both but merely fails. It *never* does both. That means that there is a law that says that it never *can* do both.

Now, you could argue that the law was established to preserve processing power, but that doesn't make a lot of sense either. The only time this particular type of processing would be needed was when humans were doing a certain type of experiment. "Go ahead, give them both this time--just this once! Oh, they did the experiment again? OK, just give it to them every time they do the experiment--no biggie. We've got bigger fish to fry.

Same thing about wave-particle duality.

||Relativity effects, as mentioned in the post, also can be understood in terms of the limitations of processing power. As the system strains its capacity in attempting to handle near-light-speed conditions, it must slow down some of its calculations to compensate.||

I don't see why the system would "strain"; the kinds of calculations we are talking about could be performed on ordinary physical computers. It's not as though calculating in a pure Newtonian system would be harder; if anything, it would be easier.

||I'm assuming the calculations are performed by an information processor, what Thomas Campbell calls the cosmic CPU. Of course, it is not a physical information processor. Where it comes from and how it all got started is beyond me. The cosmic CPU could be "God." But why does God have to be infinite and unlimited? (In fact, certain philosophical problems are easier to address if we take God to be limited in some respects.)||

If the non-physical Cosmic CPU is limited, then there would have to be *reasons* for such a limitation--and what could they be? There would also have to be an explanation for why it (or someone/something else) chooses to save processing power in one way and not another way. Even if we call such a system "non-physical," it would be analogous to a physical system and would require its own explanation, probably its own complete science. Thus, we are back to the problem of explaining a physical system in terms of another physical or analogously physical system. We could mentally draw a big circle around the whole thing (the Universe and the Cosmic CPU) and say, "This *all* needs to be explained."

||Well, not literally a computer, of course. But remember that wave functions can be expressed as equations, and can be calculated. So if we want to picture N-space as quantum wave functions, or as wave-interference patterns in an evolving holographic plate (Bohm's "holomovement"), it still amounts to the same thing: information forming patterns and undergoing transformations in accordance with algorithmic rules.||

I agree. But I don't think actual computations are being made. I think the whole idea of "calculations" is a metaphor that leads to philosophical error in this case.

Relativity effects, as mentioned in the post, also can be understood in terms of the limitations of processing power. As the system strains its capacity in attempting to handle near-light-speed conditions, it must slow down some of its calculations to compensate.

It is interesting that a rough value of the cosmic computer operation rate could be estimated for a "Universe simulation". This rate would be limited by the so-called "Planck time", supposedly the absolute minimum time for any physical transition, a sort of ultimate granulation of the Universe. "The Planck time is the unique combination of the gravitational constant G, the relativity constant c, and the quantum constant h, to produce a constant with units of time" (Wiki).

This estimate would be the number of elementary particles in the observable universe (about 10^80) times the maximum possible rate per second of transitions in physical states (the inverse of the Planck time, 10^45). This is 10^125 operations per second. This estimate would actually be very very low because of not accounting for dark energy and dark matter (which have been discovered to make up most of the energy and mass of the Universe), and the fact that each cosmic computer "operation" would have to actually be a complex computation of its own embodying a large number of elementary operations involving other elementary particles. This unimaginably great total computational burden would only be part of the total, since it represents just the calculations necessary to maintain "N space" independent of whether or not it is rendered into any consciousness. We still have to add the rendering calculations. And this doesn't include any simulations of other N-spaces and other M-spaces to account for afterlife states of consciousness.

I don't believe there could really be "calculations" going on.

But I don't think actual computations are being made. I think the whole idea of "calculations" is a metaphor that leads to philosophical error in this case.

This reminds me of Searle idea that nature does not calculates, but the calculations are only an instrument that put us in nature. It would be like saying that the planets solve Newtonian calculations to orbit, but it is not because the planets simply orbit and Newtonian calculations are our way of describing their orbits. Even so this does not exclude that there fundamental limitations are to be admitted as primitive.

The comments to this entry are closed.