Hi Bruno,

It isn't that we influence the universe,
the universe IS us.


----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Jason Resch 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-27, 00:53:25
Subject: Re: meditation





On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:






On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Hi Telmo,


On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hi all,

I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of "oneness 
with the universe", "non separation", etc.

Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing it's 
complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer moments. Could 
it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the successful 
meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the multi-verse?

Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.



It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that operates with 
dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...). Apparently, they disconnect 
parts of the brain, so that the conscious part get its complexity reduced, and 
that might give a "view of the multiverse" (as in many salvia reports).

The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a theory rich 
enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not becoming trivial. Then 
the point is that to get plural-realities, ?ome probabilistic interference has 
to play a role in the elimination of some infinities.

The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions) and in logic 
(more axioms, less models). It is related with the Galois connection.



For a long time I have this weird idea that I don't have the mathematica 
sophistication to correctly express. The idea aplies to History, for example. 
It's the notion that past event did not actually "happen" in the common sense 
of the word, but are just valid solutions to a system of equations that is 
restricted by current experience.

Telmo,

I am partial to these types of ideas.? I think similar ideas have been 
reflected by many scientists:

John Wheeler's participatory universe: 
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse#.UQS8KvJWKjc
"To Wheeler we are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; weare shapers and 
creators living in a participatory universe. Wheeler's hunch is that the 
universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute 
to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as 
well."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler
"Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and 
here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in 
bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one 
explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?
Martin Redfern: Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we 
and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the 
creators? or at least the minds that make the universe manifest."

It also sounds not unlike the consistent histories interpretation of quantum 
mechanics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories ) or Feynman's 
path integral formulation which is described as a "sum over histories" ( 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation#Feynman.27s_interpretation
 ).

I think what you are describing comes automatically with comp, as any observer 
only knows their direct observations, which could be created by any one of an 
infinite number of possible programs going through the same state.? Any one of 
these programs will have its own consistent history, but unless analyzed or 
explored further, that information is in a sense, undecided.? It is like: 
"Before you finish reading the second half of this sentence, the color of your 
toothbrush could have been any possible color."? However, now that you have 
finished reading it, and performed a memory look up you have changed the set of 
possible programs manifest your consciousness.? It is almost scary to think, 
when you aren't looking or or imagining/recalling what your mother, your wife, 
your children, they could look like or be almost anything (within some 
constraints of what is compatible with your experience in the moment you are 
not thinking of them).? And it is only when we "stop and think" we can for a 
time, lock down that possibility.

Jason


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to