On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:00 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Richard, a very good paper you have there. The Mindspace recording mechanism > you invoked sounds exactly like the Hindu akashic records feature to their > religion. For people like myself, you'd need to expand on the particular > physics of the recording, such as what is analogous to the read-write head, > and what is analogous to disk memory?
The recording mechanism is a product of computation. The CY particles in a cubic lattice (BTW they are 1000 planck lengths across according to Yau) compute everything that could possibly happen anywhere and anytime. If MWI is correct, then everything that could happen does happen and its all written in the Mindspace ahead of and behind time. If SWI is correct, then everything possible is still written in the virtual Mindspace but only a small part (one world) becomes physical and which part is physical also is written there. I cannot say much about the actual recording mechanism. It appears that the flux that compactifies 6 space dimensions (and is also somewhat like eigenfunctions if not actually)------ that the flux is part of the computation process. The flux may even be what consciousness is made out of. Anyway the results of computation determines the configuration of the flux. The flux BTW is a higher- order kind of EM flux. As I said in the paper, only flux and dimension seem to be fundamental to string theory, and dimension can be computed. So maybe flux (or consciousness) is fundamental. During the Big Bang the flux creates a number system out of Calabi-Yau compact manifolds, which in turn makes mathematics from the natural numbers, which in turn makes mind and matter. Consciousness->Math->Mind->Matter->Life After all most eastern religions say that consciousness is where everything comes from. >Yes, indeed, as the Japanese > expression goes: "To a hammer, everything in >the world looks like a nail." > But it would be helpful to see the How of the >Recording might physically > occur? It does not happen physically. The recording of everything that will or has happened is in the virtual mindspace > > Are Leibniz's monads emerging from a virtual >space, a phase space, a > Platonian great beyond? They exist in a singular physical space (like the non-zero volume of a black hole singularity) as 9 uniform, orthogonal space dimensions, 3 of which inflate as 6 dimnesions curl up into the CY particles or monads during the Big Bang. >Are these monads conscious, semi->consciousness > waiting a brain to actualize them? I did not write about that in the paper, but each monad appears to see or sense every other monad in the universe instantly. So they have extreme awareness, something the Buddhists attribute to Indra's jeweles. The monads compute the brain. The monads actualize everything physical. >It sounds also like not only Tegmark, but > Beckenstein, with the Beckenstein Bound (1 x 10^120). I believe the Lloyd limit is the same as the Bekenstein-Hawking Bound for a black hole S=kA/4 where A is the surface area of the black hole. The number you quote is the result if you use for A the area of the observable universe. Then it's called the Lloyd limit. >How could or does > intelligence make use of this aspect of the universe, if it at all can? I would say that the computations that the monads are capable of are intelligent when the resources (comp power) required are within that bound; and the conjecture is that consciousness emerges when the required comp power in bits of information exceed that bound (not to be confused with the speculation above that flux is consciousness) >Its > a bit like Stephen Wolfram thinking, he can re->create the knowledge of > unknown extra-terrrestial life, if we, but merely, >compute it properly, and > extract the useful data. Wolfram has not >spoken at all on this, since he > made his conjecture over ten years ago. Perhpas it was a bit of flipancy on > his part? Like I said in the paper, Tegmark was not the first one with a math ToE but perhaps the most famous. I did not know about Wolfram's statement. I bet that such thinking goes way back to Pythagoras. I agree that Pythagoras is more famous than Tegmark. I sent the paper to Tegmark last week but have not heard back. He may have thrown it into the crack pot. Richard > > Very good paper(s) at your site, indeed. Thanks. The second paper down speaks more about the recording process and motivates the 14/12 dimension split between the Metaverse and the universe. Thanks for the kudos Richard > > -Mitch > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
