Tommy Gilbertson
Hello BG: I'm reading your book 'Hidden Dimensions' for the third time lol. It's very excellent. It's the first I've read by you. The good news is now I want to read 'Elegant' and that other one too! Can't wait.
But I have one issue: you state that once the arrangement of all particles is described, then that is all there is. So in a Quilted Multiverse, for example, there would be an infinite number of other universes with exactly the same particle arrangement and hence identical worlds.
I agree in one sense only, as it's my conclusion that there are two fundamentals to describing reality: the order of particle arrangements (in agreeance with you) and the duration of the various arrangements. Unless I really missed the mark, you missed this mark. For there could indeed be two versions of BG in parrallel universes, with identical particle arrangements. But in one universe BG becomes bald after 5 years, while in the other BG does not. Even though the two B's started out with identical particle arrangements, the duration of the 'hair' Parts descriptions are different. Hence, duration is critical when describing reality, and once you have described the order you would not be done. And it would not be all there is. Did I miss something in my readings?
If you can, please peruse my essay entry in the last Contest on fqxi.org. I defined Consciousness using Boolean symbology and the results of the double-slit experiment. Of course, since then I've read you r book and for the first time heard another take on that experiment, where those experimenters cleaned their nickel sample and got different results when shooting electrons at it once again. And the classic double slit experiment is the result and explanation. I had planned on coming full circle, and again defining Consciousness using Boole logic again and representing some current experimental results from the Large Hadron Collider. Then I could eliminate C by equating the old (ds exp.--the equation in the Essay) and new (lhc). This would be a powerful result, describing youn'gs ds experiment in terms of lhc results, with not reference to Consciousness.
Any thoughts? Am I going up an obviously large blind alley here? Thanks for your time. And the notes in your book for the 'mathematically inclined reader'.
about 2 weeks ago · Delete Post
Tommy Gilbertson
also, you (if time allowed) really should have entered the fqxi.org essay contest. In your book THD, you directly address the question of whether the Universe is digital or analogue quite thouroughly in several section. Your take is it's both. That is also mine and the majority of substantive essays in the contest came to the same conclusion, including the winners.
and so, even though my only priniciple when deriving an equation defining consciousness was G. Boole's law of thought X(X-1)=0: a thing cannot have a property X and not have it X-1 at the same time is sound in the realm of mental states, it would seem that in the quantum world (from my readings of your book and research), this priniciple is incomplete in some instances. And the modified principle could be X(X-1)=1. Which would mean if X meant a live cat, for example, that a cat can indeed be alive and dead at the same time. This is the opposite of GB's law of thought, and represents the probablilty mist or haze before a measurement of a quantum state.
So the modified principle should be X(X-1)=P, where P is a number between 0 (never) and 1 (always), inclusive. This is terrible interesting, and would modify my derived equation for C as a result. Throw in a sprinkling of rules for commutativity of the symbols and we would be well on our way to an objective quantum definition of consciousness (objective because the equation would not refer to C--see comment above)...
In this and the fqxi theads I always have the suspicion (due to lack of response) that I am wrong, mistaken, incomplete or just plain viewed as a cook.
Do you, sir, join that bandwagon of silence? And like that excellent independent researcher Julian Barbour ignore my tiny voice while continually winning these essay contests? Throw me a bone (reply). You have no idea how much it would mean to me. Then again, I am known as the witch-Doctor over there in that community, probably because of my lack of circumspection in relation to these difficult and hard-to-verify-experimentally topics!
Isn't string theory purely theoretical as well? In essense, defining C the way I have and string theoretic work are of exactly the same kind of research?
about 2 weeks ago · Delete Post
Tommy Gilbertson
one last: I also dervied equation for I. Asimov's three laws in said Essay. they were derived a while ago after reading Mr. Boole's amazing book The Laws of Thought. I saved them and though they would never see the light of day, but the contest came along and I thougt I'ld give it a shot!
This is probably getting boring, so I'll try to conclude quickly. My original impetus for deriving IA's laws symbolically was to re-combine them in terms of the laws: law one in terms of law 2 and 3, etc. At the time I had just started experimenting with the Italian Arduino controller board. My goal was to hard wire the laws into a little robot I made and see it's behaviour. blah blah if you like I can quote you on my website and put up links to your books. they are so good (well the one i read was HD) that I'll do this for free. You don't need my help, but I desperately need yours lol...
about 2 weeks ago · Delete Post
Ger'rey Marshall
know two snow flakes are alike, just as know two personality's are alike, to me it makes know logical sense to having a double existing in some other universe. What purpose would it serve? Your conscious awareness is what makes you you, if their is know awareness of it being you, then it is not you. Even in your present physical life, if one suffers brain damage were by one loses their conscious awareness, or becomes senile with age, or falls into a coma, we all discribe that person as being gone or lost within their own body even when one dies, they are gone. Its only logical that you are unique to yourself which makes that inherent quality of being the special person you are; It makes know difference how much two idenical twins look alike physically, they still retain their own personality's, because of their conscious awareness of being alive at one single point within this universe as one's self.
about a week ago · Report
Tommy Gilbertson
Very nice, GM. You definately are arguing fromt he Special Philosphy of Mind (I agree with you). But, as you may know, Brian Greene is on the opposite side of that philosophical pole...
He believes nothing is special, and only the mathematical description of it matters, if complete. When it comes to us and our unique personalities, he claims that an identical pattern of particles in a parallel universe would be a complete copy. Another you. A real You, just like you. lol
He's great, but mistaken on this one tiny detail, mayhap. hey i'll trade you the hidden universe for the Fabric of the Cosmos GM? Your thoughts?
about a week ago · Delete Post
Ger'rey Marshall
I understand how most scientist feel, but what i think they do not understand is mathematics is also an indivisual thing that is limited to being the very thing it is, in other words mathematics is only able to calculate and measure things in this vast universe and is unable to calculate or measure the finer things that exist in the universe, such as love, hate, compassion, consciousness, subconsciousness, intellect, or just one's general feelings about all things in general, not to mention the extremely fluid life energy that i have found through logic that permeates through out the universe; These are all forces that elude calculations. Even the force of gravity can only be measured to a limited degree, because it is so thinly vailed that it almost escapes mathematical computations and can only be used in formulas to a limited degree. They have put all of their egg's in the mathematical basket, which has its limitations. There are other forces within the universe that have an extremely powerful impact, that cannot be calculated or measured in anyway shape or form and dark matter may prove to be just one more of these forces that exist.
about a week ago · Report
Ger'rey Marshall
As far as other parallel universes out there, at best could only be some form of an energitic copy of the original universe that retains the conscious awareness of self. Just like when you go to make copies of an original document, there is only one original and the rest, well their just faxsimilies of the original.
about a week ago · Report
Tommy Gilbertson
Unfortunately, that's the rules of Science proper: rule #1 There is no God, in the sense that He/She could arbitrarily change the laws of nature so we would discover nothing in our experiments. When you measure the strength of the em force of an electron, it is always the same. This is stated in the Scientific Method as, "The laws of the Universe are Knowable".
Unfortunately again, our must current understanding of experiments and observations have made us conclude that there are some things in nature that can't be understood/knowable, like the space inwhich the wavefunction resides, or paralell universes, or exactly where a particle will be found. This means that either (or both!), there actually is a God, and Science has found this limitation to human knowledge thru discoveries of QM and GR, or that The laws or the universe are indeed unknowable. This is religion not science.
There needs to be created a new framework, based on mathematical probability that incorporates this limit to our knowlege in Science, and the easy answers to questions like (why is the sky blue? why is the quarks mass what it is? etc) "God". This is a form of MetaPhysics that Aristotle greatly worte about, and needs to be fleshed out and extended. I begin this work in my essay mentioned far above in the fqxi.org Contest, and continue through independent research.
But the conclusions are so new, they require a huge pardigm shift. I am no Copernicus, or Gallileo, or Hawking or Greene. So I'm withholding results until the idea is more accepted in the community. Can't afford to be labelled a 'quack' before I even have a reputation, now can I?
about a week ago · Delete Post
Ger'rey Marshall
I was an atheist for many years, til i found the scientific evidents for a super consciousness that exist that could only come from God, which in no shape or form is anything like God is viewed in general. When i can find more time i will explain what the scientific evidents is i have discovered that turns out to be extremely profound in nature. I did begun to start to explain some, if you go to discussions and read before the Big Bang, you will get a partial brief summery of the conceptual idea that preps one for the evidents. I am into other things so I am not worried if people label me as a quack, but i do try to give examples and explain the evidents to the best of my abilities.
about a week ago · Report
Ger'rey Marshall
The mathematical structure in the world of science is so rigid it prevents and limits them from seeing the little fine subtle details that exist within nature that reveals things about the universe that otherwise could never be seen through the process of mathematical computations. Math is a very powerful tool for unmasking many things about the universe and should be used were it can be best applied, i just feel it is relied upon to much to come up with what cannot be defined with mathematical equations, their by blinding one's ability to see beyond the universe of equations. If the mathematical equations was the answer to all things in the universe, then by now we are long past due for having a craft that can fly by some sort of anti gravitational field.
about a week ago · Report
James Kemp
Think of all your other me's" as twins. Twins in this universe don't share a consciousness, so why should twins across Multiverses!
on Thursday · Report
Tommy Gilbertson
I think a better analogy would be Clones. There have been no studies on human clones sharing consciousness, so it could go either way: clones may or may not share consciousnesses across different universes, or within this one.
Just saw a fascinating film where biologists are re-discovering that programmed cell death is the way of evolution (and life in all animals--and perhaps plants). For example, our hands (and all other animals) are webbed when we are developing. And the skin between u ndergoes cell suicide to form the digits. Noone yet know s how this is accomplished, only that it is so. Also, 80-90% of our neurons in our nervous system all die off before we are born. Nature solved the problem of complex form and development by making way too much, and then using controlled cell death to create final forms. Death of the individual cell (the fundamental unit of life) is the way of life (societies of cells--you). Turns out the only reason all the cells in an animal's body don't die is because they are constantly being told not to by other cells in the community. Divide, grow, make, self, other, die, live: quite a conversation constantly going on in the trillions of cells in a multi-celled critter!
To drag this metaphor a little to far maybe, maybe the multiverse is the same: make way too many. And use programmed universe death (the anthropic principle) to only keep universes where complex life can arise. Wow, that's really fascinating if I don't say so. And I just did!
C'mon BG, chime in here! This discussion is getting pretty good! And whoever you other people are, Bravo! Good to see there are other thinking societies of cells out there! Don't feel quite so alone anymore, with my own measly trillions of cells chattering amongst themsel ves.
Shut up, Self! Except those cells of you imploring your neighbors not to die. You keep on signalling. Except cancer cells. Please remind them that they can die right now if they want....
23 hours ago · Delete Post
Tommy Gilbertson
and especially if they don't want...
23 hours ago · Delete Post
