Levy wrote:

>Marchal wrote
>
>> >GL:Ok. Physics is pattern of laws perceived by the consciousness observing
>> >the plenitude. The consistency filter that restricts consciousness is the
>> >same filter that restrict the world that consciousness observes. This is
>> >why the world is understandable and this is why there are no white rabbits.
>> >White rabbits are not consistent.
>>
>>BM: Unfortunately I don't think this is true. The problem with the white
>> rabbits is that there are consistent! For exemple we can dream of
>> white rabbits.
>
>This is too simplistic.
>It could be that we differ because of semantics or maybe because of confusion
>with regard the frame of reference. Let's explore the issue with some thought
>experiments.
>
>1) Let's consider dreams that I've had. I have dreamt many times of flying
>(white rabbits? to be determined). In those dreams, I strongly believe that
>flying is a natural ability that I have and I wonder why sometimes in the so
>call real world I cannot fly. Everything in the dream world seems to be
>consistent and I can fly. Flying, from the dream world perspective is not a
>white rabbit. In fact the so called real world seems to be false and not 
>having
>the ability to fly IS a white rabbit!

I'm afraid I don't think dreams are thought experiment (unless you take TE
in the trivial sense of any mind experience). I think dreams are definitely
real experiences. Funny, bizare, delightfull or frightening, ....
I write my nocturnal dreams since 1976 and the first application of G and G*
(and Z and Z*) was on the dream state (including the relation with Descartes'
Cogito).
It is true that in some dreams you can do experiment, though.


>In the dream world,  the rule of physics seem to be different and allow 
>flying.
>My belief system appears to conform to those physical laws and I do not 
>find any contradiction. Flying is OK in the dream world!


Indeed.


>The resolution of the paradox is simple. The frames of reference are 
>different.
>What appears to be a white rabbit in one frame  is not in another! 


Do you think the dream and awake state are symmetrical?
I am not sure. It seems to me that in the dream state you can realise 
you are dreaming, but that in the "awake" state you can never realise 
you are awake. "awakenings" go from more relative inconsistencies to
less relative inconsistencies. 

(To be awake is akin to <>t, to be
dreaming is akin to []f, at least in a first approximation.)


>Now, is the dream world frame of reference consistent? As far as I 
>tested it it was. I did not do much testing.


You do what is called "lucid dreams". Dreams in which you are aware you 
are dreaming (or dream with narration including sentences like "I dream"
for a more positivistic definition).
With training you can test more and more. The ninethteen century is full
of big dreamers who test consistencies of their dreams. Their works, 
although quite systematic, has been a little hidden by Freud attempt
to interpret dreams.
(Frederic van Eeden, La marquis Hervey de St. Denys) etc.

Oh OK, I see on your more recent post that you practice and know about
lucid dream. 

I have coined the term "contralucid dreams" for the dream in which you
assert yourself "I am NOT dreaming". They are the royal road toward
metaphysical doubts.

Do you know the experimental verification of lucide dreams by Hearne 
and those by Laberge. During the dream your muscle are disconnected
in some way, except the ocular muscles, so during a lucid dream you can
communicate with people in the sleep laboratory.

>
>2) Here is an example in which a kind of dream state Uncertainty Principle 
>seems
>to preserve consistency. 

Latter (I am super-buzy) I will tell you my dream n 423 (23 february 1983)
which illustrates very well that "consistency preservation" point.

>I dream sometimes of seeing shapes and color ( these
>are a form of phospenes produced by the brain in the dream state.) These
>phospenes begin as relatively simple geometric patterns but then, as I enter
>deeper into the dream state, they evolve into wonderful geometrical 
>shapes, or
>animals or people etc... They are so beautiful that I try to stop them form
>changing, to be able to analyze them in detail. A soon as I attempt to 
>focus on
>them, they disappear. I can't perform any kind of consistency analysis on 
>them.

Mmhh...Those images are probably hypnagogical images. Tibetan Buddist 
have studied them quite in deep. A tibetan test for knowing if you are 
dreaming or in a hypnagogical state is trying looking at your hands. 
Normally during hypnagogical imagery you should not be able to see your
hands.
EEG are different too.
Unfortunately I get hypnagogical images only one time until now, so I have
not been able to test my hands.


>3) Here is another dream which illustrates how the discovery of an 
>inconsistency
>brings the dream to an end. 

It is not necessary to wake up at this moment, but OK you know that.


>I sometimes dream of out of body experiences Are
>they real or not? Being a amateur physicist -even in my dreams - I want to 
>know
>if these experiences are "real". So I give myself a test: to find out what is
>the arrangement of certain objects in another room.  When I tried that I 
>came up
>blank. I just couldn't do it. So, in the dream, I realized that these out of
>body experiences were not real and that I was dreaming. This realization,
>effectively, put an end to the dream - even though I continued dreaming, I 
>knew
>it was a fake.

It is a lucid OBE. You know you were dreaming. It is a kind of lucid dreams.


>To summarize:
>White rabbits are inconsistent by definition. The issue is "inconsistent with
>respect which frame of reference?"
>If we dream of a real world white rabbit (inconsistency as seen from the real
>world point of view) then it may be perfectly consistent in the dream 
>world. If
>it is consistent in the dream world, no problem. No paradox in the dream 
>world.
>No paradox in the real world..
>If we dream of a dream world white rabbit (inconsistency as seen from the 
>dream
>world point of view), then we realize the dream world is a fake and we 
>wake up.
>No more dream world. No more paradox.
>
>We can resolve the white rabbit paradox if we take relativity seriously.

But not too much. In the sense: you cannot relativise everything.
If you do that you will relativise your relativisation, and that produces the
smell of the absolute, isn't it? 

Violation of Bell's inequality are evidence that the "physical" is a product of
dream sharing. (BTW I agree with you contra Schmidhuber: I don't think that we
can emulate random quantum correlations with pseudorandom generators, unless
P = NP or something similar!).

Bruno



Reply via email to