On Jan 3, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Hi,
>  Is hurting or make the puppet suffer morally correct with your position ?
> If it is not, then this is strange since they are only puppets and you
> *are*...(means you can't hurt them because they aren't) This is simply
> sollipsism and (un)fortunately completely circular.
> Also as you acknowledge other "pilots" existence in "other" universe, how is
> this different than acknowledging simply the existence of other people ?

Günther Greindl wrote:
> This is the question of why _I_ experience the world as I do and not the
> other worlds.

This is not the identity crisis question of why am I not that person
over there, nor is it circular, or solipsism (although if true it
could lead to a philosophy of solipsism).

This is basic quantum theory applied to the macro-world. Ever since
Schrödinger disapprovingly amplified the uncertainty of atomic decay
and showed that quantum uncertainty extends to the macro-world, this
issue has been apparent. I am certain this "observer over observed"
issue has been discussed before. Someone has mentioned that John
Wheeler described this, describing a "free floating" observer that
dictates reality all the way back to the big bang. He just didn't
discuss the issue of pilots and puppets.

In the instant I observe the contents of the box the uncertainty
collapses, however, the colleague who walks in the room one second
later in pilot form is not subject to my observation, for them the
outcome of the event is still uncertain until they open the lab door
and look in, at which point they branch into two futures defined by
different pasts, me in tears (I love cats) or the cat alive and me
happy. Their observation of me (tears or jeers) will correspond to
their observation of the cat. HOWEVER, the colleague I observe (their
observation) is predetermined (made measurably deterministic) by my
earlier observation. Their observation will correspond to my
observation, in a sense making them a puppet of the universe I

It helps to imagine a person inside the box wearing a gas mask
watching the cat. They don't see a quantum uncertainty or a
probability cloud. But from your perspective outside the box the
indeterminacy of the cat as dead or alive now extends to what the
person in the mask observes. There are necessarily two copies of the
observer inside the box. When you open the box you connect to one of

Also, the cat experiment box can have two doors and be placed in
between two rooms, so that two observers in different rooms open their
own door at the same time to see the outcome of the event. The outcome
of one observer in one room has no influence on the outcome of the
other. But having observed an outcome, each observer interacts with
the colleague who observes the same outcome. This is a more
complicated example of the EPR paradox, i.e., spooky action at a
distance, or one outcome effecting a remote other outcome.

The floating observer is constantly sampling a probability landscape
governed by the whole of what is possible for a given event or
situation. Each observation rules the entire scope of their o-region
by turning the uncertainty of infinite possibilities into a finite
observation. If lab personnel walk in every ten minutes each branches
into both dead-cat / live-cat time lines as they learn of the cats
demise. Same applies to what's behind every door in the macro-world.
Sub-atomic decisions add up and trace forward to extremely varied
possible worlds. Until we pick up and read the newspaper there is no
definite news. We still live with the uncertainty of history back to
the big bang every time we view deeper into the universe, or discover
other planets around stars. There isn't just one world out there, or
one history to select from, just as there isn't one future.

Observations of what are naturally assumed to be other observers (how
they response to stimuli, behavior, belief systems, intelligence,
individual spontaneity) are inevitably subject to the same sampling
process which decides if the cyanide canister has been broken. There
of course might be a great deal of selection bias for various reasons,
in the same way what is observed corresponds to the laws of nature.
There is certainly room for Karma based upon the same symmetries that
dictate conservations, forces, laws and constants.

So suppose we do put a colleague in Schrödinger's box instead of the
cat without the gas mask. The first sampling decides if they are dead
or alive when we open the box. A second sampling is of how they react
to having been put in the box and experimented on in a life or death
situation. For the survivor, there is a very wide but definite range
of possible reactions, anger, horror, crying, nervous breakdown,
hidden resentment, disinterest, objectivity, laughter, excitement,
exhilaration, enlightenment. Considering how a thousand different
colleagues would react, there are distinct probabilities, let's say
25% anger, 15% horror, 15% crying, 1% nervous breakdown, 8%
resentment, 1% disinterest, 2% scientific objectivity, 10% laughter,
17% excitement, another 3% are exhilarated, and wouldn't you know it,
just a meager 3% report experiencing enlightenment from their nde, or
64% negative, 3% neutral, and 33% positive. Pretending this is
accurate of what the observer experiences in others, the BIG question
I am wresting with is, do these same numbers describe how 1000 pilot
observers react. Could there possibly be a difference? Could there be
a difference between sampled behavior and the behavior of floating
pilots. Maybe observers are much more likely to react to situations in
a particular way. For example, maybe observers are more curious about
the world.

This all becomes increasingly complicated and personal as we try to
localize the observer or consciousness, since our own bodies are
subject to quantum sampling. Most of the complications reduce to an
issue about the linearity of time. I don't know how the concept of
time can be maintained without some form of linearity, perhaps in the
background of space connecting objects, or linearity exists in the
observer or consciousness. Yet then here comes quantum mechanics and
splits up one's linear experience into states, and it seems we are
observing a movie film built of many individual 3D frames. As time
progresses particular frames are selected, or sampled, from the whole
of possible states.

It is funny because we can write a letter for example, thinking it
will get to other pilots, as I am doing now, but we have to know then
that the response is made by quantum sampling. If we apply quantum
theory to the macro-world, we have to give up the idea that there are
single individuals in our environment who are continuously locked into
the one world we experience. Although it follows that the non-local
universe (the possible realm) is dictating what someone says and how
they react, at very least we are interacting with a living universe. I
have not suggested here that those person's who we observe are hollow
or not real. Not suggesting that at all. Rather we are interacting
more directly with the universe itself than we are used to imagining.
Of course some would describe this as the observer and God
interacting. I personally appreciate the idea of the Universe and God
being synonymous, and natural Karmic laws. But again, are puppets and
pilots existentially the same. Most recognize in a many worlds,
multiverse, or anthropic scenarios that two identical copies of a
given universe are the same universe. This to me is a simple
existential fact, so perhaps each observed person is identical to each
"floating" observer, so there would be no reason to differentiate.
This doesn't eliminate the sampling issue but it does with great
relief at least unite us together with other pilots.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to