Q & A and I

Today I posted a somewhat off-topic comment about virtual reality theory (previously discussed here and here) on the blog Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature. After putting it up, I thought of various possible questions and objections, and decided to write them down, along with my answers. The resulting dialogue is sort of an interview with myself.

Self-indulgent? Narcissistic? Solipsistic? Yes, yes, and yes. Here it is, anyway.

First, my comment:

At this point I think reality may consist of just two things: consciousness and information. Consciousness acts like an information processor. The whole shebang may be analogous to a virtual reality environment, in which the "objects" are actually reducible to calculations. Such an environment appears to be real, and is real on its own terms, but the trees, buildings, and bodies of a VR world are not objectively real in the sense of existing in and of themselves.

An interesting article (PDF) by physicist Brian Whitworth argues that a VR world could resolve the conundrums of quantum physics, such as the measurement problem and nonlocality:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

For a taste of Whitworth's argument, consider the well-known fact that subatomic particles seem to exist in a particular point in space only when observed or measured, while the rest of the time they appear to occupy a range of potential positions (the particle/wave dichotomy). Whitworth suggests that a particle's position is calculated only when attention is directed to it - much as, say, a tree in a VR world is drawn by the CPU only when we turn the avatar to look at it.

Whitworth sees consciousness as an emergent property, while I think it is more likely to be either primary or, perhaps, coeval with the basic constituents of physical reality (information). The first position would fall under the category of philosophical idealism; the second would be a form of neutral monism.

How it all works in detail is, of course, far beyond me, and I could be entirely wrong.

Now my simulated Q & A:

"So you're saying consciousness creates reality?"

I would not use the word "creates" because it is ambiguous. Does the CPU create the VR simulation? Yes -- in the sense that it performs the calculations necessary to draw the VR world on the screen. No -- in the sense that it makes no creative choices; it blindly follows a set of instructions (the program). The real creator is the programmer. So who wrote the program that serves as the basis for the VR simulation we call "the universe"? For want of a better term, I would have to say: God. This is why I think consciousness is (probably) primary. God is consciousness, and according to this scenario, God preexisted physical reality.

"Then who created God?"

Unless we want an infinite regress, we have to stop somewhere, at some First Cause. It is difficult to posit anything in the universe as a First Cause, since all observation indicates that every object and event in the universe is contingent on other objects and events. Within the context of the universe, we seem to be faced with a chain of contingency stretching back as far as we can see. If this is so, then the First Cause must be outside the space-time universe, where the chain of contingencies does not apply. This First Cause would be "necessary," rather than contingent. The medieval scholastics, who dreamed up this argument, naturally saw God as the necessary First Cause -- the uncaused cause or prime mover.

"According to your point of view, then, your consciousness can create whatever it wants?"

No, in this model, consciousness -- as an information processor -- is limited to making calculations on the basis of existing (preprogrammed) data. Consciousness cannot conjure up a unicorn, because a unicorn is not part of the available data. Consciousness can conjure up the tree in your backyard, which exists only as a potential until some being's consciousness is focused on it. The tree always exists in the database, so to speak, but the calculations necessary to manifest it as a physical object are performed only as needed. The unicorn, on the other hand, does not exist in the database at all.

"Then consciousness is purely an information processor and has no creative function?"

I would say that information processing is only one role of consciousness. It can perform other roles, which are creative -- such as evaluating what it observes, or imagining new uses for the things it perceives, or directing the body to take various actions in order to creatively explore and interact with its environment. Perhaps the lowest level of consciousness is limited to information processing, while higher levels incorporate this lower level but go beyond it. The evaluative and creative potential of an amoeba is limited at best, but virtually unlimited for a human being.

"When you say 'consciousness,' are you talking about individual human consciousness or God's consciousness?"

That's another ambiguity, since the term can refer to either. My guess is that individual consciousness -- the consciousness of particular lifeforms -- is what serves as an information processor, while God's consciousness is analogous to the programmer who set up the system and is now letting it run. That's not to say the programmer doesn't tweak the system from time to time, to make it run better or at least differently. The exact relationship between the individual mind and the mind of God is the $64,000 question. Most mystical adepts would probably say that the individual mind is a small offshoot of God's much greater mind -- sort of an exploratory tendril extended into the universe. We might think of God's consciousness ramifying into billions of minds to explore every nook and cranny of Creation.

"If the individual consciousness 'draws' reality, then is reality different for each observer?"

I would say no, because once the calculations have been made -- i.e., once the information has been processed -- then the resulting structure exists in our physical world, and will be the same for all observers. In other words, reality is independent of the observer in the sense that the information being processed exists independently; but it is dependent on the observer in the sense that the processing is not actually carried out until someone directs his attention in that direction. A tree in a VR simulation always exists potentially at a certain spot, but the CPU does not draw it until the avatar has turned to look at it.* The action of turning the avatar "creates" the tree in one sense (causes the CPU to generate the image) but is noncreative in another sense (the tree already exists in the program; it hasn't been drawn, but all the necessary data are already there).

*This assumes we're looking at the VR environment from the avatar's point of view -- "through its eyes," we might say. I gather that in some VR simulations it's possible to switch from an avatar's point of view to an objective perspective. This might correspond to an out-of-body experience, in which one views one's physical body from an external vantage point.

Comments

[william]

“This is why I think consciousness is (probably) primary. God is consciousness, and according to this scenario, God preexisted physical reality.”

I see awareness as primary and consciousness as the created aspect of what we call reality. Consciousness can have conflict and drama, awareness is stillness or emptiness which most confuse with nothingness. Stillness or emptiness is everything. Nothingness is nihilism but what the Buddhists call emptiness is everything.

What most call awareness is really observation or witnessing of phenomena. Example: I am aware of a sparrow; no we are observing a bird that someone has given a name to. Pure awareness would be aware and the underlying realty of that “bird” as an expression of Oneness. Another example: I am aware of my thoughts; no we observe or witness our thoughts; if we have perfect awareness there is no thoughts to observe only stillness or emptiness. The difference between awareness and observation may be an article or book unto itself.

Now we have degrees of awareness but not perfect or absolute awareness. There is no us meaning souls with perfect awareness just Oneness.

Now this may mean that Meister Eckhart was on to something when he taught there is a Godhead and a God. The Godhead is stillness and God does the creating of consciousness. I prefer the idea of a God as a source and gods doing the creating. Very Hinduism I suspect. One must understand the concept of infinite to understand how gods could do all of the creating aspect of what we call reality. I.e. there is no first cause of consciousness or awareness there is only infinite expression, which we call creation.

There appears to be a first cause of souls and the material universe. But consciousness has always existed in some form even before the big bang. Again it would take many words to explain this idea or concept.

Another possible explanation. Now why does consciousness exist if Awareness is everything? This Awareness has potential, massive potential just look at the universe constant creation occurring. Stated simply infinite Awareness expresses this massive infinite potential through the mode of consciousness, a combination of intelligence and ignorance interacting or expressing.

All consciousness has a degree of unawareness within it. A synonym for unawareness is ignorance but the ego hates the word ignorance. Here is a difficult idea to grasp; without that unawareness there is no unique US just Isness or infinite Awareness. Now that unawareness (ignorance) creates our suffering as the Buddha so rightly realized.

So the question has been answered in my mind that the origin of that ignorance is in the creation or expression of god’s or God’s potential as a process. Started another way the origin of that ignorance is innocence. Stated another way the origin of our ignorance is we are created innocent of our true or perfect reality, which is infinite Awareness or Oneness. Not sure that made any sense.

Without that unawareness there is no creation or expression just Isness. Without unawareness there is no interaction; all interaction has to have some degree or level of unawareness if we define God as infinite Awareness as Stillness. Some interaction of consciousness is more valid than others. Politics and religion are classic examples of these phenomena of interactions of unawareness.

[william]

"Then who created God?"

Asking who created God is like asking what was before infinite. The no beginning of infinite cannot be known or even imagined as knowledge, maybe realized, maybe not. By asking who created God is the atheists and materialists last holdout and is often asked out of desperation.

I have been blogging on a website with most being atheists. Someday I have to come with terms why I do that every couple of years. Actually this time I learned the atheists don’t know the difference between qualitative research and antidotes or they don’t want to admit to the difference.

I have been called some pretty nasty names on that website one would think I was talking politics. But not by all, some are very sincere in their dialog. One guy actually had an experience with a group of engineers after their group study being able to lift a table with only their fingers on top of the table and when another engineer walked into the room and did not believe them they put him on a chair on top of the table and lifted the table with the engineer on the table with only their fingers on top of the table. I.e. table lifting common during the heyday of home circles before radio and TV.

To state that this person’s experience of table lifting was rejected by everyone on this website is an understatement.

Concerning table lifting the myth busters on TV were unable to find the fraud at a séance where the people were doing table lifting; the myth busters just walked out of the room and stated this is the oldest bar trick in the world. Of course most of the TV audience took that, as evidence that is was a trick.

Now this person that had experienced table lifting is now more open to paranormal phenomena. Personal experiences can open our minds to new knowledge or possibilities. This atheist website has a group of “distinguished” people as advisors to evaluate their research and guess what; they are all atheists and materialists. Surprise surprise.

[GregL]

"At this point I think reality may consist of just two things: consciousness and information"

Adding evolution as the fundamental process to consciousness and information(actually consciousness can be conceived of as information)and you have all the ingredients needed to deriver our reality from the VR process.

"I see awareness as primary and consciousness as the created aspect of what we call reality."

Yes, but without a self "awareness" until the fundamental process of evolution could act on this first unbroken wholeness and create minor "ripples" of self awareness.
As evolution and awareness continues to evolve this "unbroken wholness" ultimately evolved and created the VR we find ourselves in, by creating the necessary first conditions for our universe.Our own individual consciousness helps to increase the self awareness and lower entropy in the whole.

[Ben]

Nice reasoning, Michael.
I think your logic implies that a unicorn must nevertheless exist in a database (since it can be and it is imagined) – though, as you say, not a database that can be accessed and rendered according to the physics and biological rules of our particular physical reality.

As a matter of interest, there are also VR and Matrix-like possibilities discussed on Andrew Thomas' excellent physics site
www.ipod.org.uk/reality

[Michael Prescott]

"actually consciousness can be conceived of as information"

I wouldn't look at it that way. Information isn't aware, or self-aware. It has no "qualia." It is, perhaps, the raw material of consciousness, but I wouldn't say that it is consciousness.

"Adding evolution as the fundamental process"

This sounds like Tom Campbell's theory, as presented in his book "My Big TOE." I read only part of that book (I found it boring), but it seems to me that Campbell misunderstands evolution, seeing it as equivalent to "progress." To me, evolution means adapting to changing circumstances, which may or may not result in progress (however that is defined). A dinosaur was just as well adapted to its environment as an elephant. I think it would be a mistake to say that the elephant represents progress - i.e., a improvement. It simply represents an adaptation to a different environment.

Of course, I may be misinterpreting Campbell's theory, since I didn't finish the book ...

[Zetetic_chick]

I would have to say: God. This is why I think consciousness is (probably) primary. God is consciousness, and according to this scenario, God preexisted physical reality.

Michael, currently, do you see consciousness (God) as a personal, individual super consciousness (like conceived in monotheistic religions), or more as an undifferentiated, not personal, consciousness?

This is a important point to me, because I'm still undecided about the specific nature of that super consciousness (God, or whatever you want to call it).

Most mystical adepts would probably say that the individual mind is a small offshoot of God's much greater mind -- sort of an exploratory tendril extended into the universe. We might think of God's consciousness ramifying into billions of minds to explore every nook and cranny of Creation.

A problem I see here is that there is an ambiguety regarding ther idea we're part of God's consciousness.

The question is if we lose that individuality when united with God. If this is the case, it is not different of death in the materialistic sense, and all the talk and evidence about the afterlife seem to be a temporal joke.

For materialists, we are (as individuals) extinguished after death. This extinction means that we lose our personality or individuality, or better, our sense of "self".

But if we lose the self or individuality in God, then the ultimate effect is the same than in the materialistic worldview (only that by different motives)

On the other hand, if we retain our individuality even after our unification with God, then the idea of an afterlife and the evolution of each soul makes more sense.

I have to confess the idea of a "dissolution" of our self in an ultimate, undifferentiate consciousness (God) is not very appealing to me.

The only reason I don't discard that possibility, is that some mystics refers to that kind of experience, so we have to leave the door open to it.

But if my ultimate spiritual fate is my personal extinction (in God), then I see no real point or valid justification to exist.

[Michael Duggan]

I quite like the idea of personal extinction. I mean, do I really want to carry on indefintely with my lovely collection of idiosyncrasies, neuroses, attitudes, and patterns of thinking. No thanks!

[GregL]

" I think it would be a mistake to say that the elephant represents progress - i.e., a improvement. It simply represents an adaptation to a different environment."
No Michael, I disagree. In the consciousness game the elephant is definately an improvement. It has much greater conscious developement and self awareness than the dinosaur. It therfore improves upon the overall self awareness of the universe. It was evolution as a fundamental process that enabled a basic consciousness to become self aware in the first place. I agree with you on Campbell's take on evolution. I disagree with your overall conclusion. Yes evolution is adaptation, but some adaptation is helpful to self aware developement.

[Zetetic_chick]

I quite like the idea of personal extinction. I mean, do I really want to carry on indefintely with my lovely collection of idiosyncrasies, neuroses, attitudes, and patterns of thinking. No thanks!

Perhaphs you should include the positive aspects of existence too, like loving other people, enjoying your life, learning new things, increasing your awareness, helping other people to be better persons, etc.

Also, the idea of personal survival doesn't entail all your current attitudes will be preserved: it's possible that many of them will dissapear while preserving your own individuality or sense of self.

Afterlife communications suggets that some attitudes or fears (e.g. the fear of death, egotism, hostility) disseapear in the afterlife for many people. But even they retain their individuality. They don't dissapear as individual souls, even if many of their earthly attitudes have been overcome.

This is precisely the process of spiritual evolution that I find reasonable and satisfactory. But if I dissapear after all that effort, then I don't see any sense in it.

I'm not positing a dilemma between preserving all of your current earthly defects, or be extinguished forever.

[Sandy]

I quite like the idea of personal extinction. I mean, do I really want to carry on indefintely with my lovely collection of idiosyncrasies, neuroses, attitudes, and patterns of thinking. No thanks!

Michael, what makes you think all of those things would stay the same? I’m not the same person that I was at 20 or even 30 years of age. People change and keep on changing; it doesn’t seem to matter if they are living or dead. At least that’s what my experience has led me to believe.

[william]

"I see awareness as primary and consciousness as the created aspect of what we call reality." william

"Yes, but without a self "awareness" until the fundamental process of evolution could act on this first unbroken wholeness and create minor "ripples" of self awareness."

gregl could you explain in more words what you mean by this statement.

"As evolution and awareness continues to evolve this "unbroken wholness" ultimately evolved and created the VR we find ourselves in, by creating the necessary first conditions for our universe.Our own individual consciousness helps to increase the self awareness and lower entropy in the whole."

also with this statement please

thanks william

[dmduncan]

"The question is if we lose that individuality when united with God. If this is the case, it is not different of death in the materialistic sense, and all the talk and evidence about the afterlife seem to be a temporal joke."

I'm not sure this is necessarily true. The worst sort of death in a materialist sense occurs in a universe in which consciousness is purely the product of physical processes, in which morality is merely the battle between different opinions, in which there is nothing greater to belong to beyond oneself, in which all one's works as much as all one's molecules will eventually dissolve into nothingness with no trace of one ever having been.

Dissolving into God, on the other hand, is not necessarily a permanent death or even a comparable sort of non existence, for you may exist as a template in God's mind without having a personal existence. The death of materialism is permanent, but that would not necessarily be true of the death in which you dissolve into God and become a template because the possibility remains of you existing again.

Most important is the subjectivity of time. A trillion trillion years would pass instantaneously between one's death and the experience of reawakening. The time is long only to those who measure time by awakened consciousness.

I certainly don't think the different ways possible of thinking about how it might work have been exhausted yet.

[Michael Prescott]

"Michael, currently, do you see consciousness (God) as a personal, individual super consciousness (like conceived in monotheistic religions), or more as an undifferentiated, not personal, consciousness?"

Good to see you commenting here again, ZC. Honestly I don't know what God is like, but if He/She/It designed the cosmos - whether it is a VR simulation or a holomovement or whatever it may be - then He/She/It presumably had/has intention, purpose, goals, and values of some sort.

Beyond that, I have no clue.

"if we retain our individuality even after our unification with God, then the idea of an afterlife and the evolution of each soul makes more sense."

The evidence - NDEs, mediumship, etc. - certainly indicates that we do retain our individuality, though we may shed some of our earthly hangups.

"In the consciousness game the elephant is definitely an improvement."

Hmm. You may be right. I hadn't looked at it that way.

I wish "My Big TOE" were more readable, because there are probably some interesting ideas in there, but the author's style just turns me off every time I try to get into it.

[Leo]

Hello there guys,

I know this is off topic again but my family and i have some very bad news. This morning my Mom got a phone call from the hospital. My father had small heart attacks , now they have him hooked up to a machine giving him morphine. My mom was in tears and so am i , were both depressed. Our big concern now is a lot of the time well small heart attacks can lead to a big heart attack. My sister came down this morning saying he may need a pacemaker. So please pray for my family right now. We have had a lot of bad luck lately with my older brother having his vehicle stolen, my other brother probably not going to see his kids again. Also our cat continuing to have seizures.

[GregL]

"I wish "My Big TOE" were more readable, because there are probably some interesting ideas in there, but the author's style just turns me off every time I try to get into it."

It is a tough read, but contains some really important and pertinent ideas. I read thru it once, and attempted a second read skipping the personal stuff, but failed. On the other hand, Tolstoy is no walk in the park either.

[M.X. Palidan]

I enjoyed all the comments, but have to go with yours, Michael, with the model of an information field creating the VR hologram we call "material reality" via an awareness and consciousness as making creative choices, etc. I'm sure all of this can be modeled in different ways to suit various personal dispositions.

What is not being addressed here is how I feel all of you, at least in these comments, are limiting "personal" consciousness. I submit that consciousness is able to directly and indirectly shape and influence what is termed the "material" world and of directing the ongoing circumstances of one's life[via sychronicities]. This obviously gets into the "magick" and "occult" views and traditions, which would be too lengthy to go into in this comment forum.

I'm refering here to the essence of "magick", which is the working of consciousness, and not to any kind of outward ceremony, ritual, garb, instruments, group, organization, etc.

This is certainly a worthy area to explore, both intellectually and "hands-on" practical experimental wise. And also, would be an interesting topic for you to cover, Michael.

Interestingly, I've just read an early review of Dan Brown's new novel, "The Lost Symbol", which says that the lead female character is a researcher in consciousness affecting material reality!

[dmduncan]

"a particle's position is calculated only when attention is directed to it - much as, say, a tree in a VR world is drawn by the CPU only when we turn the avatar to look at it."

I don't see it this way at all. I look at particular forms of consciousness, whether that consciousness is human, dog, or lobster, as essentially being filters. The world looks the way it does because our bodies and their senses are constructed in the particular ways that they are. The sky isn't "really" blue. It's blue to us. It is actually impossible to speak of this world of particular things independent of the means of sensing things and the particular forms that we sense, because that's what "the world" means. It means the particular things we see and are aware of, and we can't speak of those things while abandoning the particular modes of sensation that lead us to speak of them.

So I don't think that we "draw" reality. I think our physical forms are constructed in such a way as to perceive particulars rather than everything at once, which means that we filter out everything our senses are not capable of sensing or our minds assimilating, and the end product then becomes what we call "reality."

Beyond our perception I think there really is something there, but what it is in itself is beyond the particulars we are accustomed to seeing that make up the world we live in.

That doesn't mean what we perceive is false or mistaken. It's just incomplete and always partial.

[william]

“That doesn't mean what we perceive is false or mistaken. It's just incomplete and always partial.”

Very well stated.

It is our reality depending on our degree or level of awareness. The idea that all is illusion underestimates the creative powers and intelligence of the divine to create a reality that has substance and real to the observer.

This condition also applies to other dimensions of existence.

[Larry Boy]

Leo, I hope things turn out well for you.

As for the question of personal vs impersonal God, I prefer the latter view. I prefer to see the stuff around us, as well as ourselves, as something that has evolved in some way, rather than having been created by some entity. This means I believe the afterlife has evolved as well. I still believe though that there's something that has some kind of "infinite" existence, underlying all of creation. This could be consciousness. In the end I don't think time as we conceive of it has any objective existence (which is implied by relativity theory as well), which means the source of being cannot really be "destroyed" or "cease to be". It just is, unchanged and untouched forever.

Can we merge with the source? I think so, but I don't think this necessarily has to be the end of our existence as individual beings. Of course merging with the source would imply losing one's identity as an individual being, but if the source was able to "split" into many individual beings once, why couldn't it do it again? What I imagine is that there will be a point where all individual beings merge with the source again, and all of creation loses its momentum, a little bit like when the physical universe cools down and comes to a halt. I then imagine that at this point there will be another "Big Bang" of consciousness again, and many small individual consciousnesses will come into being, evolve, build little worlds around them, and yet again climb up (or down?) the ladder to reach the source. This cycle continues over and over.

[william]

“I have to confess the idea of a "dissolution" of our self in an ultimate, undifferentiate consciousness (God) is not very appealing to me.”

I think for most of us if we are truly honest with ourselves this is how most of us feel but won’t admit to these feelings. But I think that self evolves in awareness to a more “wholeness” and less individualistic outlook on our existence and the reason for our existence. Hope so?

“But if my ultimate spiritual fate is my personal extinction (in God), then I see no real point or valid justification to exist.”

Maybe we exist to express infinite Oneness or Absolute? Also it appears we may continue to advance in consciousness and awareness to a level of having no personal individualistic self. But we never give up any our identity. Our “identity” becomes that that is.

I have often wondered if our greatest personal fear of losing our individualistic personal identity is unfounded. I suspect from my research that as we advance in love and divine intelligence we begin to see a very valid justification to exist. It appears we do not have the personal freedom or free will not to exist and express our or God’s potential.

Some Buddhists state we are like a goose in a bottle stuck there so to speak until we attain nirvana. But then those Buddhists don’t appear to believe we advance to greater degrees or levels of love and divine intelligence and we feel less and less stuck; if stuck at all in any bottle.

“I quite like the idea of personal extinction. I mean, do I really want to carry on indefinitely with my lovely collection of idiosyncrasies, neuroses, attitudes, and patterns of thinking. No thanks!”

I suspect that maybe those lovely collections of idiosyncrasies; neuroses, attitudes and patterns of thinking are reduced in frequency and size as we advance in our level of consciousness and awareness. Interesting enough it appears that as we advance in soul development and become less individualistic in our patterns of thinking; these “problem” patterns of thinking become less of a “problem”.

It appears we begin to feel less individualistic and more connected to the whole of humanity and other souls as we move into these other dimensions of existence. This is an interesting idea considering we as a nation teach that individuality is some kind of divine plan or right for humans. I think it is divine in that it is a phase or learning opportunity for soul development. The perfectly imperfect idea of reality.

Now where does that advancement in soul development stop or does it ever stop. I suspect we are gods in the making that attain profound creative powers the closer we “get” to oneness. Now as gods do we ever merge or become that that is or are we gods forever into the infinite. I lean in the direction that we do indeed become that that is but that is only an opinion based on limited knowledge and not meant to be stated as a fact.

[The Major]

Best of luck, Leo.

[GregL]

"I then imagine that at this point there will be another "Big Bang" of consciousness again, and many small individual consciousnesses will come into being, evolve, build little worlds around them, and yet again climb up (or down?) the ladder to reach the source."
Larry Boy
I posted the following( with some paraphrasing) on another board, regarding VR theory:

"Most mystical thought, I believe, tends to equate the highest state of consciousness to be one of union. Similarly MBT(My Big Toe) sees our physical selves as a small part of a bigger consciousness. This bigger consciousness is in turn a small part of an even bigger consciousness, and so on, ultimately all are part of the "one." Is it possible that the end product of the whole process is a re-emerging of the absolute oneness, as one undifferentiated consciousness? Only to segment again into individuals? This would give us an oscillating "Big Bang" theory of consciousness. With each oscillation the "one" consciousness is an improved version of itself. This makes some sense as it parallels current physical theories of the universe."

This may sound like semantics, but I don't see this process as an actual "merging" of separate parts, but a consolidation of a much more self aware whole. By the way, time in the VR theory is "real" it is a measure of the speed of "game" turns. In our universe, maximizing at the speed of light.

[specialis_sapientia]

"In our universe, maximizing at the speed of light."

No. QM allows correlations beyond light-speed.

[Michael Prescott]

"QM allows correlations beyond light-speed."

Whitworth discusses nonlocality in his paper. (Link appears in main post.) He doesn't seem to think nonlocality contradicts the idea of lightspeed as a maximum veloocity. His explanation in VR terms:

"The processing that creates a virtual world is not limited by the space of
that world, e.g. a CPU drawing a screen is no 'further' from any one part of the screen than any other. All screen points are equidistant with respect to the CPU, so VR processor effects can ignore screen distance, i.e. be non-local. If our universe is a three-dimensional 'screen'
its processing is 'equidistant' to all points in the universe, so the non-local collapse of the quantum wave function could be such an effect."

[Jens]

I will simply quote some of the sayings of the world's deepest NDE:er to you that are of some relevance to this discussion.

I know most of you are more interested in the epistemology of paranormality, but I went beyond that long ago (I mean, the evidence is THAT overwhelming even in the cradle of this research). I've been doing "NDE-philosophizing", if you could call it that.

Anyway, here goes a little:

"I saw that multiple incarnations (where we experience many different kinds of lives; some poor, some wealthy, some with beauty, some with disfigurement or disease, some with fame, some with misfortune or a mixture of everything) are all necessary; as these help us examine the unlimited amount of vantage points into the remarkable, endurable, unchangeable and complex natures of our own Soul."

"Many lifetimes are necessary so that we might improve our Soul's mental and emotional ability to create what we think of as identity  all so that we might come to know and stabilize our own intentionsand realize how powerful they are!"

"It was in this moment that I became more fully aware of the fact that God (our Creator) wants us to experience everything that we wish to experience. Nothing is denied us, only that which we inherently deny ourselves. And while certain experiences do not always lead to pleasant outcomes, they do lead to a certain amount of enlightenment. Especially as one returns his or her thinking to The Light and focusing on God's wish for us to learn a more loving way to live our lives."

Etc. There's so much more. Here is the link:

http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/index.html

Enjoy :)

[william]

“With each oscillation the "one" consciousness is an improved version of itself.”

Can infinite attain an improved version of itself? I think this concept fails to understand that infinite has no beginning. Maybe only in a concept of time does this improved version of itself have a meaning.

This is a couple of quotes below from the website Jens linked. I have to say this is the first time I have read about body parts that mimics spirit attributes. Because I have never read such material does not mean these body attributes as spiritual are not valid. But I use a cross validation approach to my research, which is not perfect but may help validate some of my findings.

All and all I found the website interesting and much but not all of what I have read so far does cross validate well with my research. I have not read all of the material yet.

http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/index.html

“Usually when we find ourselves deeply infatuated with a particular body part, it is because we are subconsciously longing to evaluate the values and strengths a person *might* hold in their Soul. Most of us subliminally understand in our Spirit that a person's outer body often mimics and produces an outward physical reflection or response to what we know and call our inner manso, as we set out to choose a mate, physical attributes will always be considered.

For instance:
Legs and Feet = a person's long-term stability, giving indication as to how well they might emotionally endure a long-distanced, life-journey. When the legs are strong and the feet are beautifully intact, this indicates Self care. Self care is always a subliminal indicator of a person's self awareness.

Rear End = a person's ability to enforce self control over their feminine attributes, giving clue to potential level of long-term stamina, grace and personal sense of self esteem or ambition.

Vagina = new hope, emotional warmth or psychological blanketing

Erect Penis = potential extension of passion and masculine-based personal power, plus it can be a subliminal indication of one who might be able to provide direction.”

“Traveling at a velocity faster than the speed of light, with one super sonic boom right after another”

I think this is the first time I have read that someone traveling into the light experienced super sonic booms. Again this does not make his NDE invalid, as it appears to me that NDE’s are very personal and often reflect the beliefs of the person experiencing the NDE. Buddhists see Buddha, Christians see Christ, etc.

[HID Kit]

Thanks such for information.I really like it.Thanks again.

[Michael Prescott]

You're welcome, HID Kit!

Oh, wait, you're spam.

Never mind.

[GregL]

"Can infinite attain an improved version of itself? I think this concept fails to understand that infinite has no beginning."

William
In this VR theory, the " One" is not infinite to itself just to us.

""In our universe, maximizing at the speed of light."
No. QM allows correlations beyond light-speed."

Specialis
You are talking about entanglement. In a virtual world there is no "space" just information and processing. No need for "faster than light" speed here. The QM correlation does not apply. I would say this theory actually explains this entanglement better than QM.

[william]

William
”In this VR theory, the " One" is not infinite to itself just to us.”

This sounds like the One is not the ultimate source of intelligence or vitality but gods that have the power to create and utilize this ultimate source for creative purposes. Goes along with Meister Eckhart’s Godhead and God teachings with the Godhead as stillness and the Gods doing the creating part.

Maybe the creation of universes is the last stage of consciousness development before these gods or god merges with this Oneness or Infinite. This could explain what appears to be the two sides of God as stillness but yet dynamic through creation.

In a timeless reality it appears that the source of all that is would have to be infinite or does this source have to always be in a creative mode to be infinite. The very nature of pure awareness or cosmic consciousness is expression, which we view these expressions as creation.

[GregL]

" This could explain what appears to be the two sides of God as stillness but yet dynamic through creation."

It is true that our best descriptions of "God" or the "One" are at most, good analogy. VR is another good analogy. Your description of God in movement or God at rest fit well with the VR description of the "Oneness" moving and thusly discovering itself.