On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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,  some
>>> 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.
>

Nice. I always felt that but never expressed it so clearly.


>
>
> 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