Ether or ...

A hundred years ago or more, when trance mediumship was in its heyday, many of the purported spirit communicators talked about the "ether" as a key to the nature of reality. At the time, the idea of the ether - often styled the luminiferous ether - was universally accepted by physicists and was well known to educated members of the public. The consensus was that some sort of extraordinarily subtle and uniform substance, as yet undetected, permeated the universe and served as a conducting medium for light waves, gravitational fields, etc.

In the years since, however, the ether has fallen out of fashion. Attempts to measure the ether proved fruitless. The consensus now is that the ether, at least in its original meaning, does not exist.

So what are we to make of the mediumistic communiques? How could the "spirits" get it so wrong? Were all the references to the ether merely products of the mediums' subconscious minds? If so, how much of the rest of the communications are similarly flawed?

Before we give up on the ether entirely, we might consider the possibility that the general idea was right, but the details assumed by physicists of the time were wrong. This is the tack taken by physicist Brian Whitworth in his recent paper Simulating Space and Time (PDF), which Ben recommended to me.

Whitworth earlier wrote a paper (PDF) arguing that the universe can be understood as a virtual reality simulation. In his new paper he expands on this idea by suggesting ways in which space and time could be created in a virtual world.

First, Whitworth posits the existence of a "grid," which he describes as "the processing screen that creates the pixels, where ... the directions of space reflect grid transfer connections [and] the passage of time reflects grid processing cycles."

The "pixels," in this scenario, are light ("cyclical patterns passed between processing nodes"), matter ("information pattern tangles that stay in a node"), and energy ("the amount of processing in any transfer").

The "nodes" in the grid are comparable to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) on the Web. As the universe expands, new nodes are added, meaning that the universe is "scalable" like the Internet. In each case, "new nodes that increase network load also add more processing. As network supply rises in tandem with network demand, the system can grow indefinitely. Scalability also shares control, which is why the Internet has no 'control centre'.... [S]haring control lets systems evolve better."

But what does all this have to do with our old friend, the ether? In Whitworth's view, the grid is the ether.

He writes:

The idea of an ether that is physical like the objects it contains was shown false by the Michelson–Morley experiment, but the idea of a non-physical ether has never been contradicted:

"Since 1905 when Einstein first did away with the luminiferous aether, the idea that space is filled with invisible substances has waged a vigorous comeback."

The traditional argument against an ether is that a thin, transparent jelly-like substance permeating all space would give a standard frame of reference to all movement, which by Einstein doesn't exist. However a non-physical ether, such as the grid, is compatible both with quantum theory:

"The ether, the mythical substance that nineteenth-century scientists believed filled the void, is a reality, according to quantum field theory."

And with relativity:

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light , but also no possibility of ... space and time..."

If the physical universe is a virtual reality, the new ether is the grid-screen that processes it.

When we view empty space we see nothing, just emptiness. This could mean nothing is there, as objective reality supposes, or that it is a processing host that perfectly transmits all light and matter, as proposed here. When one looks out a perfectly transparent window, the glass transmits the light from objects behind it. One sees the message of light the window passes, but not the glass medium that sends it. One only knows a glass window is there by its imperfections, by its frame surround, or by touching it.

Now imagine a world filled by a perfect transmitter with no imperfections so it can't be seen, that is all around so it has no boundary, and that transmits matter so it doesn't repel touch. If physics is information, then this is not impossible. If this medium filled every direction, one couldn't see around it. If it passed on all light perfectly, it would itself be unseen. And if we moved into it, it would just pass on the matter of our bodies on as it does light. Yet it could be known by logical inference, as is done here.

In the virtual reality conjecture, the grid is like a perfect diamond that completely fills the universe, continuously and flawlessly reflecting the images within it. Empty space then is quite "full", and the idea of “nothing” is just a figment of the human imagination. [pp. 239-240]

In other words (as I read it), the ether exists, but it is not a physical substance suffusing the cosmos. Rather, it is a grid of information-processing nodes - a network of information transfer and storage.

There is much more of interest in Whitworth's paper. I certainly didn't follow all the details on a first reading, and I intend to go back for a deeper look.

But in the meantime, it's tempting to speculate that maybe the "spirit communicators" of a hundred years ago weren't so far off, after all.

Comments

[Art]

and in that light,

excerpt from Kelly K's NDE:
"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."
http://www.nderf.org/kelly_k's_nde.htm

and from Victor Solow's NDE:
"The last impression I can recall lasted a brief instant. I was moving at high speed toward a net of great luminosity. The strands and knots where the luminous lines intersected were vibrating with a tremendous cold energy. The grid appeared as a barrier that would prevent further travel. I did not want to move through the grid. For a brief moment my speed appeared to slow down. Then I was in the grid. The instant I made contact with it, the vibrant luminosity increased to a blinding intensity which drained, absorbed and transformed me at the same time."
http://tatfoundation.org/forum2003-12.htm

[Art]

Remember the holodeck in Star Trek: The Next Generation and how it looked? It was almost exactly as what is described above. And have you seen the front cover of Michael Talbot's book The Holographic Universe?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0060922583/ref=dp_otherviews_0?ie=UTF8&s=books&img=0

The faces on the front are in a grid.

[Bruce Siegel]

During my first ayahuasca journey, I clearly remember encountering what I understood to be the inner structure of the universe—an infinite, luminous, grid.

I also remember thinking, "It's all sacred. Inside EVERYTHING I can see or touch is a sacred essence."

This was 15 years ago and some of the details are fading. But I remember how surprised I was to see that grid because I hadn't read or heard of such a thing.

[MatthewX78]

Hits the Like Button for this one.

[Erich]

Ever notice how science - and people generally - always tries to describe the unkown and undescribable in terms of current technology. These days it's all about computer tech analogies. In the past it has been atoms, raido waves, electricity and, for a long time, the alchemical "ether".

I don't think the spirits had it wrong - or right. They were just using an analogy that could be understood by their audience at the time. I'd be curious, if there are currently any verifiable spirit communications, how they are describing this sort of thing today.

[Bruce Siegel]

I should add too, that ayahuasca often triggers a highly visual experience. That didn't happen for me. Except for a display of colorful abstract patterns at the very outset of my journey (a common characteristic of psychedelics use), one of the very few things I remember seeing is that enormous grid.

[Erich]

Ever notice how science - and people generally - always tries to describe the unkown and undescribable in terms of current technology. These days it's all about computer tech analogies. In the past it has been atoms, raido waves, electricity and, for a long time, the alchemical "ether".

I don't think the spirits had it wrong - or right. They were just using an analogy that could be understood by their audience at the time. I'd be curious, if there are currently any verifiable spirit communications, how they are describing this sort of thing today.

[Matt Rouge]

Interesting information, Michael. Thanks!

[Topher]

There was a reason that the adjective "Luminiferous" was added to "aether". Classically there was a number of different aethers. The aether was postulated, essentially, as the mechanism that apparently intangible forces could operate "at a distance" without direct contact. Gravity, the electric force, and the magnetic force were all supposed to be carried by an aether. Some theorized a different aether for each, while others combined these in different ways -- all to avoid "action at a distance" before the modern concept of "fields" allowed us to think of these as not being action at a distance. By the end of the 19th century, it was realized that light, electricity and magnetism were so closely connected that it was accepted that the three aethers were accepted to be only one.

Additional aethers were postulated as carriers of other, more subtle, forces when these were still scientifically respectable: mesmeric influences and thought transference to name a couple.

Some spiritualist writers associated the aether with the luminiferous aether, but it is not clear that they all did. The aether in question was the subtle fabric of the world that the spirits inhabited -- how else could they move about unless there was something for them to propel themselves against. This aether had to exist, whatever its relation to the aethers studied by natural philosophers, therefore it did exist.

That the term has been discarded by spiritists does not mean that the fundamental concept has. There really is no difference except lexicon and minor details between it and terms still in use like "plane", "vibrational level" and "the spirit world".

[Ben]

Nice summary, MP.

Ever notice how science - and people generally - always tries to describe the unkown and undescribable in terms of current technology. -Erich

This is a good point. Are we, as a species, evolving and therefore improving our understanding of reality, or are we simply remodelling reality (imagining it differently as our ideas change?)

What is information anyway? Is it organised energy? Or is it some being’s thought-form masquerading as organised energy? Whatever it is, it can only be gathered by receiving senses and interpreted by a receiving mind. Beyond that it makes no sense and has no meaning.

[Zerdini]

The grid theory is not new.

Ronald Pearson B.Sc. explains it here:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/articles/pearson/summary.htm

[rick49]

Physicist Tom Campbell postulates in his My Big Toe trilogy the idea that physical reality can be digitally modelled as a virtual reality. Other theoretical physicists are also incorporating the idea that information is fundamental to the universe, see Vlatko Vedral's highly readable explanation of information theory Decoding Reality.
Cambpell often states in his lectures that one should not mistake the map(model)for the reality. Digital and virtual reality is currently providing some interesting ideas that incorporate current advancement in Information Theory and quantum physics.

[RabbitDawg]

"Ever notice how science - and people generally - always tries to describe the unknown and undescribable in terms of current technology." -Erich

When I first encountered serious discussion concerning the idea of a holographic universe, I dismissed it as too many people taking the Matrix movie way too seriously.

Then I read several of Art's posts over at the NDERF Forum, and he made it sound like a reasonable idea. So I dug a little deeper, and to my surprise, I saw how the Matrix movie got its inspiration from preexisting science theory.

David Bohm (a protege of Einstein),and Karl Pribram started laying the groundwork for holographic theory, independently, way back in the 1940's. Later, they got together and developed their ideas further. Many others followed and helped, of course.

The computers, holograms, and digital goop that we enjoy today came along shortly after the theories and groundwork for them were laid down.

I believe that by developing a better, deeper understanding of the possibilities for our physical surroundings, we developed our technologies. Not the other way around.

[Art]

When I read near death experience descriptions that describe their experience in terms that parallel, corroborate, or are congruent with things that I've read in popular science books and articles I find that very evidential. I find it very strange that people who most likely knew very little or nothing about quantum physics or the holographic nature of our universe come back after having had a near death experience and say things that can only be described as "holographic." As far as I'm concerned the out-of-body veridical descriptions of NDEs are not the only thing that cause me to believe that NDEs are "real", meaning some kind of visit to another dimension or reality. Besides the connection to quantum physics and the holographic universe theory there are the changes in people's lives, their personalities, their loss of the fear of death, and suicidial people coming back after their NDE and saying that they learned that suicide is not the answer. Something very profound and amazing happens during these experiences. Kelly K's and Victor Solow's description of what they saw and experienced in their NDEs is almost exactly the same as what Michael Prescott described in his blog. I find that very evidential. So my belief in life after death does NOT entirely hinge on whether the AWARE study is successful or not. I all ready know that there is something mystical and transcendental about near death experiences and death bed visions.

[Leo]

This sounds very similiar to Ron Pearsons's theory does it not?

[Michael Prescott]

From what little I've read of Pearson, I would say there's not much similarity. For one thing, Pearson rejects relativity theory, unlike Whitworth.

At any rate, Whitworth isn't claiming that the idea of the grid is original with him. He writes, "This is not a new idea," and then cites the work of Fredkin, Wilczek, Wheeler, D'Espagnat, Tegmark, Campbell (the "My Big TOE" guy), and Barbour. He also cites Feynman as reportedly comparing "a point in space-time" to "a computer with an input and output connecting neighboring points."

[Leo]

It doesn't sound like he rejects General Relativity only because it doesn't allow a background medium which would allow for survival. i am just wondering the kind of implications this would have on the question of life after death? psi?. He certainly doesn't mention what impact it would have on the mind-body problem.

[Art]

I get a little bit irritated when I hear talk that belief in NDE's rests solely on evidential information like from the AWARE study. Like the changes in people's lives and personalities is totally irrelevant or the connection between NDEs and the holographic universe and quantum physics doesn't mean anything or the fact that the millions of people who have had these experiences and are convinced they are real is illogical. People have been convicted, thrown in jail, and sentenced to death on a whole lot less evidence. Until somebody can explain away to me the connection between NDEs and the holographic universe theory I will continue to believe that they are real.

[RabbitDawg]

Below, is a link to an article by Physicist Frank Tippler dealing with the cult of science. As a teaser, I'll point out that it starts out with a quote from Richard Feyman, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”.
Be advised up front, this article is hosted at a website (Pajamas Media) that has a decidedly political perspective - more or less Libertarian.

In fact, I guess you could say that this article is about politics. The politics of science.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-difference-between-true-science-and-cargo-cult-science/?singlepage=true

[RabbitDawg]

I might need to add that I did not post the above link to trigger a discussion about global warming. It's obvious that something bad is going on, but IMO, this isn't the place for that kind of discussion - the topic would segue even further away from the Micheal's original article than I've already steered it.

The point is to think about what we really mean when we say "according to science...".

[Sandy]

MP, Have you seen this yet?

http://selfconsciousmind.com/AwareStudyLetter.pdf

[anonym]

An old joke, freshly abused:

Q: "Is it eether or iither?"

A: "Ah sure, æther will do."

[Sandy]

=)

[Zerdini]

Ronald D. Pearson B.Sc. has written the following:

Intelligence Behind the Universe (book, 13 chapters) - Published by Two Worlds Publishing Co. Ltd.

Origin of Mind (booklet, 9 chapters)

Quantum Gravitation: The Key to Consciousness (booklet, 6 chapters)

An interview with Pearson can be read here:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/articles/pearson/interview.htm

[Michael Prescott]

I have to admit I lost interest in Pearson when I learned that he had shown his theory to Brian Josephson, the Noble Prize-winning quantum physicist who is also very sympathetic to parapsychology, and Josephson found a very basic error in it right at the start.

As I recall, Pearson objected that the error (which he didn't deny) was irrelevant to his main thesis. But Josephson seems to have felt that someone who makes a basic mistake in physics is unlikely to have solved the most challenging problems in the field.

[Zerdini]

MP:Do you have a link to the Josephson/Pearson article please?

[Michael Prescott]

Here's a link to Pearson discussing Josephson's reaction to his paper:

tiny.cc/62q9c

[Zerdini]

Thanks Michael for that link which I saw some years ago. What I was actually looking for was Josephson's original critique of Pearson's booklet.

Do you have a link for that as I can't seem to find it?

Dismissing something summarily seems unlike Josephson which is why I want to read what was actually said.

[Michael Prescott]

No, unfortunately I don't have a link to Josephson's critique. I'm not even sure it was a publicly posted article. I have the impression it was a private response to Pearson. (But I could be wrong.)

[Art]

So am I like the only one who is amazed at how closely Kelly K's and Victor Solow's NDE description parallels the grid description? Isn't it rather bizarre that someone off the street would come back from one of these experiences and describe it in such an unusal way that just happens to be very similar to what some physicists say about our universe? Don't ya'll find that evidential?

[realpc]

Yes the universe is made out of information. In other words, it's made out of intelligence. In other words, everything is God's mind. I love it when science and mysticism converge. And I'm sure they will more and more.

[Bruce Siegel]

As a complete non-sequitur, I was just playing boggle online and cracked up when I saw the screen name of one of the players: Thank God for Atheists.

[Zerdini]

No, unfortunately I don't have a link to Josephson's critique. I'm not even sure it was a publicly posted article. I have the impression it was a private response to Pearson. (But I could be wrong.)

Thanks for your reply Michael. If anyone else comes across Josephson's original critique I would be very interested to read it. Thanks.

[Zerdini]

Bruce: A couple more for your amusement -

An atheist is someone who thanks God for what he doesn't believe in.

An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support.

[The Major]

Isn't 'Thank God I'm an atheist' a Luis Bunuel quote?

[Bruce Siegel]

"An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support."

Hey, I like that one Zerdini.

And since this thread (thanks to me!) seems to be winding down to one-liners, here's a Woody Allen quote I just read today in "Life After Death" by D'Souza:

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying."

I think he also said something like:

"I'm not afraid of dying. I just don't want to be there when it happens."

OK—I just went to check that quote in my copy of Allen's book "Without Feathers". I didn't find it, but I just re-encountered a hilarious chapter in the book entitled Examining Psychic Phenomena. Here's an excerpt:

"Mr. Albert Sykes reports the following experience: "I was sitting having biscuits with some friends when I felt my spirit leave my body and go make a telephone call. For some reason, it called the Moscowitz Fiber Glass Company. My spirit then returned to my body and sat for another twenty minutes or so, hoping nobody would suggest charades. When the conversation turned to mutual funds, it left again and began wandering around the city. I am convinced that it visited the Statue of Liberty and then saw the stage show at Radio City Music Hall. Following that, it went to Benny's Steak House and ran up a tab of sixty-eight dollars. My spirit then decided to return to my body, but it was impossible to get a cab. Finally, it walked up Fifth Avenue and rejoined me just in time to catch the late news. I could tell that it was reentering my body, because I felt a sudden chill, and a voice said, 'I'm back. You want to pass me those raisins?'