• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

consciousness and the multiverse...

I think that Enki got it. My work in cognitive psychology tells me that memory is highly reconstructive: implementation of recall is something like inducing patterns of neural activity similar to the original experience (with differing activity in key neural circuits). There will be numerous gaps, and our brains tend to fill them in unconsciously.

As for the multiverse...well, it tidy's up the philosophical problem introduced by the particle/wave duality in physics...but I sometimes wonder whether the concept is itself a cop-out, to retain a prior conception of what events, things, and truth mean.

As for psychedelia, I believe that moving toward ego death entails moving toward / engaging a simulation of a condition where one enters into and/or engages the timeless realm of possibility that serves as the background for all actual things that come to transpire in time than we typically would. The multiverse idea makes this notion a bit more comprehensible...but is it true?

ebola
 
The multiverse idea makes this notion a bit more comprehensible...but is it true?
Click to expand...

What is "truth" anyway though? What the news media, political pundits, advertising, religious/spiritual gurus/texts tell you is "true"?

If only one person experiences something then it can be argued that they are delusional or had a faulty experience. But if say two or four or ten people share some really strange experience does it mean that because it's not "mainstream" that it is less valid?

It's just hard to say really...I would say that shared personal experiences hold the most weight for my belief system.

I do find it hard to be too objective when life seems so subjective in nature.
 
This is a heavy heavy thread that I just got to reading. :) My belief systems are so strong I don't think I could alter reality in that great of a way.... yet. I do on smaller levels and I see it. But I have never seen it shift in the ways mentioned here. But just by the fact I see I can influence outcomes, make choices, and use free will change some things that occur, it's not that great of a leap for me the think it is possible to change objective reality into subjective reality. While I may not "believe" it yet, I don't close that door all the way either yet. It would be unwise to write this off as "crazy".
 
OP, your experience reminds me of the Phillip K Dick novel "Flow My Tears, the Police Man Said". It's about a celebrity who suddenly wakes up in an alternate universe in which he is completely unknown.

Also, I've experienced a lot of the shit you're talking about, but I attribute it to my flaky brain 100%. :)

ebola? said:
As for the multiverse...well, it tidy's up the philosophical problem introduced by the particle/wave duality in physics...but I sometimes wonder whether the concept is itself a cop-out, to retain a prior conception of what events, things, and truth mean.
Click to expand...

What are the alternative definitions of events, things, and truth that could be incorporated into a formal physical theory?

Also, how does multiverse theory retain our conception of these? In my understanding, they are the same regardless of whether you invoke a multiverse.
 
It`s scientifically proven (on a subatomic particle level ) that quarks do pass from one dimension to another. Have you checked out "Imagining the 10th Dimension on Youtube? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA or Multiverse theory by Dr Kaku?
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nZiROWO6iVs?fs=1&hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nZiROWO6iVs?fs=1&hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
 
The ideas of dimensionality of physical entities and traversing between multiple universes within a wider multiverse are quite distinct. We know that we ourselves inhere in at least 3 straightforward physical dimensions, and that time, as it is perceived, lends itself as a quasi-dimension. There is a much shorter jump to say that we inhere in 10+ dimensions (is that still the minimal number for workable M-theory?) than to say that we move along a single line of jumps between universes within a multiverse.

What are the alternative definitions of events, things, and truth that could be incorporated into a formal physical theory?

Also, how does multiverse theory retain our conception of these? In my understanding, they are the same regardless of whether you invoke a multiverse
Click to expand...

In that, per a straightforward ontological extension of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, reality is as of yet (somewhat) existent but fundamentally un-determined, in some sort of blurry 'flux'. In invoking the very act of observation, as part of the observer-observed experimental complex, part of reality collapses into definite form, as wave forms describing probabalistically zones of possible existence collapse into definite particle-interactions.

The many-universes interpretation of quantum mechanics solves this problem by establishing that all possible events indeed occurred, albeit in distinct universes. This conceptual move conserves our common-sense conceptualization of what it is to exist, and in turn what it is to occur.

ebola
 
Here's an example of a "reality shift" that happened today.

I've been following the story of the shooting of congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and federal judge John Roll.

Earlier today it was reported that Ms. Giffords was pronounced dead and the governor of Arizona (Jan Brewer) and other politicians were releasing statements of condolences.

Then the news changed to show that she is apparently in the hospital and that the doctors are "very optimistic" about her recovery.

In particular Jan Brewer's statement of condolences for the loss of Ms. Giffords was very much a eulogy. But now the same statement sounds almost identical in many ways but is talking about her in present tense instead of past tense and offering hope for her recovery.
 
We must be careful not to confuse the 'many dimensions' version of particle physics and M-Theory with its 11 dimensions, and the multiverse theory posited to reply to those who invoke the anthropic principle (the fine-tuning argument) to exclude the uniqueness of our universe. Theoretically no interaction could exist between these various universes.

I think it more likely that encounters with other universes remains in the domaine of M-theory, where the curled-up extra dimensions might uncurl to give us visions of these other dimensions that inhabit the same space-locale as our usual three dimensions.
 
ebola? said:
In that, per a straightforward ontological extension of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, reality is as of yet (somewhat) existent but fundamentally un-determined, in some sort of blurry 'flux'. In invoking the very act of observation, as part of the observer-observed experimental complex, part of reality collapses into definite form, as wave forms describing probabalistically zones of possible existence collapse into definite particle-interactions.

The many-universes interpretation of quantum mechanics solves this problem by establishing that all possible events indeed occurred, albeit in distinct universes. This conceptual move conserves our common-sense conceptualization of what it is to exist, and in turn what it is to occur.

ebola
Click to expand...
An interpretation is not really part of a formal theory. Particles (things) and events are defined in the same way in both many worlds and copenhagen.

As far as truth, the copenhagen interpretation asserts a different truth than many-worlds, but it's not a different kind of truth. In both interpretations you have a wave function (a complex probability distribution) propagating through a space (an infinite dimensional hilbert space). Many worlds lets the wave function go about it's merry business, while copenhagen disappears parts of the wave function to keep it coherent, thus avoiding a multiverse.
 
An interpretation is not really part of a formal theory.
Click to expand...

In the case of particle physics, you're right, but we were talking about ontological interpretations. Arguing that everything that could happen does happen, 'explaining away' probability-distributions as basic facets of physical entities (via the multiverse) stands distinct from embracing unobserved reality as existent but as of yet undetermined, in some sense, looking at the possible as actual.

ebola
 
I've heard of a way that people explain visions of "Ghosts" and spirits.
Like how people report seeing a ghost, a translucent individual, that soon disapeers, and this goes for all supernatural phenomena.
The image of a ghost or spirit is caused when the a person briefly flits in and out of a universe.. also a chronic ghost, one that remains in our universe, can be explained as a person being stuck in limbo between two universes, not completely here but still here.
 
ebola? said:
Arguing that everything that could happen does happen, 'explaining away' probability-distributions as basic facets of physical entities (via the multiverse)
Click to expand...

The multiverse interpretation does no such thing. In the quantum multiverse, there are only probability distributions. It's as if the entire universe were an entangled state waiting to be "observed", but the observation never happens.

stands distinct from embracing unobserved reality as existent but as of yet undetermined, in some sense, looking at the possible as actual.
Click to expand...

That's an ontological interpretation that tends to be attached to copenhagen, but it can be applied to the multiverse as well. It's not even incompatible with classical mechanics.
 
The multiverse interpretation does no such thing. In the quantum multiverse, there are only probability distributions. It's as if the entire universe were an entangled state waiting to be "observed", but the observation never happens.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I guess there are multiple interpretations of the multiverse here.

ebola
 
There are many theories of multiverses, depending on whether one if working strictly in H-uncertainty and within Physics and Tegmark's classification, which holds similarity to the Theo-Philosophical use of the multiverse to counter the anthropic principle. There are models with limited, or probable universes, right up to the hypothesis that there are more universes than atoms within our own. Multiverses can be posited to untangle free will and determinism - 'that we live in the best of all possible worlds' Voltaire (?)

One thing is for certain, the various flavours of Multiverses have been used in building arguments in multifarious fields of human enquiry and yet the is not a shred of direct empirical evidence for their existence!! Like the ogdoad of the neo-Platonists with its eight planes of existence..perhaps they were on to something after all.

As for girlygrrl the mere thought of multidimensional time makes my head ache :-)
 
HigherAwareness said:
Hmmmmm...........
Click to expand...




re-reading that post this morning I realise that its poorely phrased, worded and concluded (It made sense to me at the time). The point is valid that within pysics alone there are6-7 interpretations, propabably two in Metaphysics, 11-26 dimensions in string theory.

Of greatest interest I think are Penrose's conjectures that matter that shows emergent agency creates for itself 'consciousness' by observing its immediate area, or, that there is some important link between consciousness and collapse of the wave function.

Apologies if I have taken this discussion outside the OP's question.

FIAT LUX
 
^^^
On the subject of Penrose, I think he has been partly blinded by his own magnificent mind. In other words, his genius is so incredible that he is unable to conceive of it being a product of conventional physics. Consequently, his ideas about consciousness are super kooky, and not taken seriously by his peers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top