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 
> <te...@telmomenezes.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal 
>> <mar...@ulb.ac.be<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 everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <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 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