Hi Brian,
You are welcome. It's beautiful explained, you know you are just arrived to explain me at this momment what is the mwi really. Thanks thus. In fact it's the computing. You know I liked so much the film Avatar, it's so wonderful these ideas.
All the best for the final.
Steve
This will help clarify what constitutes Reality (it's only 2 pages, or you could go to the Facebook page referred to):
Reality
Absolute
As it is not possible to know anything beyond the confines of our existence, it has to be assumed that our understanding of it involves presuppositions and limitations. There is always the possibility of other, unattainable, information. Simply, if 'A', there is always the possibility of 'not-A'. This does not imply that there is an existence other than our own, only that there is always the possibility thereof.
So what can be known, irrespective of when or how, may never be absolute. Our knowledge can only ever be regarded as having validity based on an intrinsic perspective. Put the other way around, from an alternative point of reference (which, even if it existed could never be experienced by us) our understanding may be shown to be incorrect.
In delineating what cannot be known, and the boundaries within which we function, this existential conundrum shows how an objective analysis of reality can be formulated (ie it proves, and defines, a specified closed system). As the possible state of 'not-existence' is unknowable, trying to define it, or view reality from that perspective (ie one supposedly without pre-conditions, variously referred to as the 'truth', 'actual', 'real', etc) is pointless scientifically.
For the scientific process then, the task is to investigate reality as experienced by us, and not conjecture about the unknowable.
Reality
Evidence indicates that all individuals have the same experience of certain entities under the same circumstances. Even in other situations, similarities occur. This implies that 'something' (which could be labelled (awkwardly) real reality) exists independently of individual consciousness, and it is then experienced, not created by experience. How this (ie all individuals having a similar experience) ultimately occurs is a metaphysical question, as it addresses the concept of what is the 'true' nature of experience, and is therefore irrelevant to an objective analysis.
First there is the boundary of existence, then there is one that is determined by individual consciousness. So, the reality that can be identified in these individual experiences can only ever be an accurate, but experiential representation, of what actually exists within the confines of our existence. In other words, while procedures can be followed that logically ensure that the inferred reality is correct, that can never ultimately be proven, given the limitation of consciousness.
Simply, 'what might really be' is unknowable. Experiencing 'what is' results in 'what appears to be' (an experience), a first order representation of 'what is'. Then that can be refined to 'what really appears to be'. The latter is best referred to as reality, although it is actually an approximation thereof, since otherwise the narrative becomes over complicated and potentially confusing. And anyway, nothing more accurate is achievable, that is, within the boundaries of our consciousness, 'what really appears to be' constitutes 'what is'. Having necessarily established the correct status of what will be referred to as reality, progress can then be effected in determining how to identify it.
Another way of expressing this would be a less immediately elegant expression of a well know phrase, which would be: 'I know I know, I know you know, you know I know, so we all know we know, but that is all we know, because we do not really know what we know'.
Extrapolating reality from individual experiences
Entities whose manifestation has a form independent of the process of experience comprise reality (ie existent entities). They transcend our experience of them since they exist separately, unlike non-existent entities which only appear to transcend our experience in that they refer to attributes beyond our existence. However, there are several factors involved in perception which interfere with the resulting representation of them.
These can be resolved with the application of reverse engineering to the experiential process, and/or logic, whilst technology can be used to enhance the sensory/thought process. The fundamental aim being to identify what has been, or what could have been, directly (or indirectly) perceived when any identifiable interference resulting from the process of experience is eradicated.
Although reality comprises existent entities, those that are not experienceable directly, for technical reasons, must also be included. Otherwise that knowledge would be lost. Therefore, if an entity can be identified on the basis of other (preferably direct) experiences and verifiable reasoning, then the resulting inferred entity can be deemed to exist, albeit hypothetically (ie it could be labelled as an inferred existent entity, as opposed to a realised existent entity).
So, the criteria for existence is that either entities can be experienced directly, or their existence can be determined logically from other validated experiences. The critical point being whether the inability to achieve an experience is a function of the process, or because the entity alluded to has no form of experienceable existence whatsoever.
Conclusion
Within the inescapable constraints of our existence, our experience of reality does not create it, though it is the only function through which it is manifested. The process of experience interferes with the resulting representation of reality, but those effects can be identified and eradicated in order to discern what actually instigated the experience.
Reality does not exist a priori, in the sense that an experience causes one option amongst many to be realised, and the other 'possibilities' may or may not continue to exist. It exists a priori in that it is independent of the sensory/thought process whereby it is realised.
© Paul Reed
April 2011
Extracted from Theory of Reality and Time posted on Re Ality (Facebook, look for the boy with his cat)
Defintion of Key Concepts
Not Real Reality
That which possibly exists, but is not experienceable
Real Reality
That which is experienceable by any living organism.
Entity
Anything which is experienceable by any living organism (ie Real Reality).
[NB: In the sense that everything is undergoing a continuous process of change, then every discrete stage of every sequence of change represents a different entity, because the previous state (ie entity) no longer exists. As this is too cumbersome to account for grammatically in a narrative description, then labels such as 'attribute', 'characteristic', etc, are used to refer to changes when the entity is not 'fundamentally' changed. This is the elementary unit of Real Reality].
Reality
That which is deemed to exist once any interference in an experience of Real Reality has been eradicated.
Process of experience
The entire process whereby any entity is detected by any living organism.
Experience
The representation of an entity resulting from a process of experience effected by any living individual organism.
Sight based experience
A representation of any entity which is enabled by that part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum which is able to convey information that is realisable as a direct optical image of that entity.
Interference
Any effect which alters the representation of Real Reality during the process of experience.
Change
The process whereby any entity becomes another entity.
Hi Paul,
Good to hear from you and your view on your reality.
I advise you to read the article in NEW SCIENTIST n° 2812 (14 may 2011) : "THE GRAND DILUSION" by Graham Lawton (deputy editor of New Scientist), it gives another view on the reality as we are aware of.
best regards
Wilhelmus
Hi Brain ,
want to congratulate you on your win. Congratulations! Thank you too for taking the time to respond to my questions posted here on this essay thread. Very thought provoking stuff. I think the whole "what is reality" question is very interesting.I am unsure if the "uncaused" definition is sufficient on its own but thank you for explaining.
Well done.
Brian,
Congratulations on your win. Yours was one of the most original papers.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Georgina
Thanks for thinking of me and your question certainly made me think. A normal cause is an event between objects assumed to self-exist, e.g. the sun causes light to shine on earth. If the entities caused - the sun's photons - exist in and of themselves, we call them real. But if I see my image in a mirror, it is unreal as its very existence is caused, i.e. it doesn't exist in or of itself. It only exists because I look. Likewise, if the physical world only exists if we observe it, like an image thrown up on demand, it isn't objectively real. The hypothesis that the physical world is a processing output is testable, and the paper gives ten factual reasons in support. The next chapter, on matter, makes a prediction to test the theory.
all the best,
Brian
Hi Edwin,
To win anything is nice, but really I posted to get feedback from knowledgeable people, like yourself, for which I thank you.
kind regards
Brian
Dear Brian,
Congratulations. You are right about virtual reality, this the nature of the relativistic view of the universe and hence it is digital. The absolute view of the universe is sigularity and it is analog. Please see my article submitted in this contest at your convenience.
I am virtual reality i is absolute truth
I am digital i is singularity or analog.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Dear Brian,
Congratulation for the prize. Thanks also for the limited discussion we had and your contribution to a new look of Nature that (I think) is closer to "reality".
regards
narsep (I. Hadjidakis)
Dear Sridattadev,
Thanks indeed for your kind good wishes, but note that if by sigularity you mean the singularity of physics, then this model has no such thing. In it, the big bang began with a single photon, that by a cascading process (inflation) tore apart the original grid to create existence, as space expanded to allow it, and then also stopped it. So the universe never was all at a point. Nor are black holes a singularity, though the equations suggest so, but rather many grid nodes processing at maximum capacity. Or if you mean that the universe is singular, or one thing, then physical realists would agree, calling it a closed system. Or if you mean that there is an absolute universal "I", then I am you and you are me, so why should we discuss if we are both one? In this model, every electron "observes" the virtual reality, so it does not claim that our minds create it. Rather we are not necessary for it at all.
kind regards,
Brian Whitworth
Thanks Narsep and and likewise!
PS. To listen to a Chronicle of Higher Education podcast discussion with Jeff Young on this theory with me talking, just post this link into your browser URL: http://chronicle.com/article/Audio-Imagining-Our-World-as/63403/
kind regards
Brian
Dear Brian,
Thank you for reading my comments. All I am trying to convey is that we are in the universe which is with in us. As scientific experimenting and mathematical theorization are one way of understanding what the universe is, so is spirituality and self realization. Singularities in physics are like unexplainable points in space-time. Can science explain what happens when one dies. We as humans can observe these phenomenon of death at a distance in the form of black holes. In the relativistic view (relativity theories) of the universe there seems to be multiple singularities in multiple black holes. But up on further understanding the scientific world will realize that all these black holes are indeed connected and there is only one singularity at the heart of them all, which means there will be no more singularities but just one continuous system. There is neither a begining nor an end to this system or whatever we might want to call this existence.
To the self realizaed there are no more unknowns. This asbolute observer becomes one with everything and is continuous, you may call this state singularity. You are right about saying that you and me are one and the same and this truth will be revealed either through self realization or death or by entering a black hole as in science. Please consider this a revelation of simple and inherent truth in all of us and not a discussion. All the spiritual teachers experience this singularity and speak of this absolute truth and ask the rest of us to love each other and respect each other. As science has become teh popular medium for our kind to understand and accept the truth, it is my humble attempt to merge spirituality with science for all of us to enjoy this beutiful experience called life in harmony in this vast play ground called universe. I hope that I have conveyed the truth in simple enough words to touch the scientific hearts.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Dear Brian,
We are in mutual agreement on our understanding of the universe, we differ in only the terminology that we use to express our understanding. I would like to eloborate my unerstanding of the truth in technical terms as I am a
software engineer as well. If we consider ourselves as objects instantiated from a class called human in some super system as you put forth, we feel that we are different entities as long as we are in the run time environment or
till we are alive. Once the objects are set to nothing (death or black hole) and the memory is reassigned to the original source the objects become the same source. If some how the objects in run time are capable of understanding
their self composition, then the object will realize it is no different from any other object in the system. Now the beauty of our being is that we are not only capable of being that special object which can understand the funcamental composition of itself and its relation with other objects in the system, we can also comprehend the entire system as a whole and raise to the point were we become the architect (universal I) of the system. As a father of three boys on this planet earth, I could now being fully aware of myself say that I created the universe for them.
Duality is to think that I am not the universal I.
Singularity is to know that I am the universal I.
To draw a parallel to the popular scifi movie matrix, I am a Neo, universal I is the architect of the architects leading up to infinity. I say this because it is inherent nature of the scientific mind to question who created the architect in the first place, as duality suffers with the limitation of arrow of time in the vastness of space. Only in singularity or self realization the space-time disappears as there is only one absolute self.
As you have said, once the scientific world knows the truth, we should start a discussion to see where we as a whole society stand in realizing the truth. It will be the responsibility of the knowers to merge various groups of scientific, spiritual, religious, political workers to unite all humans as one realized society to live in love and peace. But what I see as it is in the world is far from what I want this world to be. We are fighting in the name of the very foundations we were supposed to be united and this will lead us to extinction. It is time for us in this duality to realize the singularity of love and live in peace. If we are not wise enough to make the necessary changes in our behaviour we will be no more and this is for sure. Being manifested as a human being at this time in duality and becoming a father of 3 boys, I want to make sure that I pass the knowledge of singularity to them by making it popular, as kids only follow the popular science as it is the inherent nature of our being, and to the rest of our kind before I am no more dual in entirity.
Conscience is the cosmological constant.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Dear Sridattadev,
I don't think singularity means what you think it means. In physics, it is an equation infinity, which is not unusual. This model has no singularities. Its big bang started with one photon, that by a cascading inflation process tore the grid apart to create our universe, as oscillations on the 3D surface of a 4D bubble. The ripping stopped as the expanding surface it created, our space, diluted the waves, i.e. the universe never did all exist at a point. Nor are black holes singularities - just the grid processing at full capacity. Or if you are saying that the universe is a singular thing, then physical realists, who see it as a closed system agree, e.g. the physical atoms of our bodies were once stardust. Or if you mean that "I" am "You" and we are both an absolute universal "I", then why discuss? Why does "I" talk to "I"? How is there a universal "I" with by definition no "you" outside it? Do you mean a universal "We"? This theory is not that our minds create the universe, nor that the universe is holistic or that nothing really exists, but that what we see is in essence a simulation. In it the entire phenomenal world of sensations, actions, causes and results is an information processing output. Not just the physical body, but also the brain and its ideas, are the virtual reality. The ego self, or "I", is just a useful construction of the brain. We create a cognitive "bubble" to manage the world around us, not to reflect it. Yet information processing transfers need a source and a destination, here the grid, to generate a sense of being an observer, if that is what you mean by "I". But dynamic processing is not contained by static concepts like love, harmony, an ego self, other selves, or a universal I. Our world is a bubbling flux because it arises from processing choices, i.e. like a TV image, it must be refreshed to exist. A processor mediates any input, whether love or hate. A world of harmony and love is a better virtuality, but spirituality, in my view, is about changing the program not its output. Even in a virtual reality, the processing is real, i.e. our choices are real even if the outcomes are virtual. If we are sub-programs, we can't change the operating system. Nor can one program change another. But by changing the choices of our being, we change the ongoing universal program of everything.
kind regards,
Brian Whitworth
Dear Brian,
You are absolutely right about singularity and I totally agree with you. Singularity is absolute equality and not just relative infinity as in theoritical physics models.
The mathematical truth about singularity can be deduced as follows.
If 0 x 0 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 0 is also true
If 0 x 1 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 1 is also true
If 0 x 2 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 2 is also true
If 0 x i = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = i is also true
If 0 x ~ = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = ~ is also true
It seems that mathematics, the universal language, is also pointing to the absolute truth that 0 = 1 = 2 = i = ~, where "i" can be any number from zero to infinity. We have been looking at only first half of the if true statements in the relative world. As we can see it is not complete with out the then true statements whic are equally true. As all numbers are equal mathematically, so is all creation equal "absolutely".
This proves that 0 = i = ~ or in words "absolutely" nothing = "relatively" everything or everything is absolutely equal. Singularity is not only relative infinity but also absolute equality. There is only one singularity or infinity in the relativistic universe and there is only singularity or equality in the absolute universe and we are all in it.
Universal I is the same as the grid you are referring to. Universal I is not the ego or an individual emotion. Unviersal I is not only the processor of information, but also the source of it. We can all experience this state of mind or Universal I or singularity if we only realize ourself fully. You have expressed the truth about this state as a simulation and grid. In a simulation nothing is really important as long as the observer assigns a value to the sequence. So are these feelings of love, peace, hate and war just some choices in this simulation called human life. We have a choice and I choose Love and Peace, as a wise man these are the better choices for continued existence of our kind on this planet in this simulation.
Be in Love to Rest in Peace,
Sridattadev.
Dear Dr,
I have recently come across some interesting publications on your website, which exposit the idea that our universe is a virtual reality. Upon reading the papers, I have some questions which I would appreciate if you could answer in a timely manner.
The grid architecture of space you exposit, is based on grid computer networks that exist in this world. It is evident that the computer grids on earth are based on physical laws of our universe. Given the fact that your idea of the universe is a "non-physical reality observing itself virtually" and given the fact that the grid computers we know work based on laws of physics, wouldn't it imply that the grid architecture you mention as the source of our reality should also be running based on some underlying laws? If so, that implies that the non-physical reality you mention must also be physical since no non-physical reality could have laws of physics as we know.
With the above point being made, it begs the questions;
· If a non-physical reality is what is observing itself virtually, why would it need to use grid architecture?
o Why can't it be a dream? , a hologram? Or something else? Why should it be grid based architecture?
· How can you use known physics of earthly computer grids to explain a virtual reality emanating from some kind of non-physical reality?
The questions I have posed above are not intended to outsmart, debunk/refute or undermine the points you have eloquently exposited in the multitude of publications you have formulated. Instead the above questions are asked due to genuine curiosity about the subject under discussion, which I am thoroughly interested in. I would be grateful if you can shed some light on my questions in a timely manner.
Along the same lines but from a philosophical perspective:
https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Framework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_Kants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic