On Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:46:02 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Hi Bruno, > > It isn't that we influence the universe, > the universe IS us. >
Yes! Us liberals, socialists, Jews, women, Nazis, capitalists.. The universe is all of us. > > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Jason Resch <javascript:> > *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> > *Time:* 2013-01-27, 00:53:25 > *Subject:* Re: meditation > > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Telmo Menezes > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal >> <[email protected]<javascript:> >> > 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 [email protected]<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] <javascript:>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > __________________________________________________________ > *DreamMail* - Enjoy good email software www.dreammail.org > -- 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]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
