Hi Roger,
On 27 Jan 2013, at 12:46, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno,
It isn't that we influence the universe,
the universe IS us.
Which universe?
Bruno
----- 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 <[email protected]
> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
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, 爏
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牀 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].
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.
__________________________________________________________
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to 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.
