Hi Mike:

First, I don't know how you concluded that it does not disprove wave/particle duality. Do you conclude that, just because of somebody's comment? Second, are you assuming that MBT specifies that there has to be a wave/particle duality? I think that being both a wave and a particle is easier to be the case if the reality is virtual than if it is purely objective or as some call "real". Are you assuming that my comment about being not a duality is anti-MBT? BTW, what is the MBT interpretation of QM?

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

It's my own tentative conclusion based on what I've read and understood so far. It's what I think to be the case, but I'm not 100% sure. I'm open to new data but also don't have time or the desire to study physics full-time, so I try to achieve a balance that works for me. I can't do the experiments myself, so I read about the objective results of others.



No. I think MBT offers an interpretation to the concept of wave/particle duality.



I can both agree and disagree with this statement depending on how I interpret it. Are you suggesting that something like a photon can be a wave and particle at exactly the same time, and that it is easier than being one or the other at different times? I don't think reality is purely objective and is more likely to be virtual too.



I don't understand your question. What is "being not a duality"? What is "anti-MBT"?



Many of the video lectures by Tom give an MBT interpretation of QM. If I had to guess, I thought you would have seen them. Also, there have been posts by Tom and Ted about the VRRE that greatly expand on this topic.

_________________
Mike

Thank Mike.

The MBT interpretation of QM is? Is it that this is a VR? Is it that we "live" in a probabilistic isotropic Reality (I "really" don't completely know what that "means")? Or? Just checking myself here.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Bette,

The MBT interpretation is that the levels of our fractal VR collapsed out of the probability field is variable, in order to save calculation effort, so that only those levels that are required to produce the observations that can be made by a particular consciousness experiencing the VR are collapsed out of probability. That means that if that consciousness is not using a telescope, etc., then you only have lights in the sky, not the whole universe to be represented in their input data stream. If no microscope or such is in use, then you don't have to go beyond representing dirty water in their input data stream. If no apparatus capable of displaying quantum level effects is in use to make the quantum level observation, then that fractal level need not be collapsed out of probability to be displayed to that consciousness.

The MBT interpretation of the whole VR is that the VR is only complete at all fractal levels within the probability fields within The Big Computer. The presentation to the consciousness of an IUOC, a FWAU experiencing the PMR VR produce by the VRRE aspect of TBC to present to that VR participant need only be built from the 'central' fractal levels only as observable to that consciousness. What cannot be perceived need not be calculated. Thus most of the time the very greatest and very smallest fractal levels need not be considered and the reality being experienced is built out of the central size range of fractal levels only.

Thus you end up that unobserved QM levels are not collapsed out of probability, just as for all other levels of fractal dimensions that are not observable at the time by that conscious observer.

Ted

Hi Mike:

In the first part I suggest that since it is a virtual reality, TBC can simulate a behavior that acts both as a wave and as a particle. There is nothing that would prevent a computer simulation to simulate any behavior. Problem comes to try to match these two different behaviors (and possibly both acting in the same experiment measurements) to a reality that is not virtual.

I interpreted you associated MBT to the concept that there has to be a wave/particle duality. Probably Tom said to an audience that the particle "comes to exist" after a measurement, but bottom line is that everything is information, and we try to figure out how information behaves, or how a particular virtual reality behaves (what are the rule-sets).

What is being not a duality is being able to behave as both a wave and a particle. When you observe photons through a double slit being shot one at a time in the back screen you see that they act as a particle (impact the screen) and also land following a wave pattern and interfere as two interference between two waves (like two waves interfere in water). People came up with the wave/particle duality to make room for an objective not virtual reality, to explain that they have to behave as one or the other depending on the circumstances for the reality to hold as a non virtual one (cause and effect). Brian Whitworth explains light behavior very well. Light knows where it goes (where it will end up landing) because from all possible paths (through different densities/materials), it always chooses the fastest path. All these things are possible and hold no controversies if this reality is virtual.

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

Hello:

In the gathering OM made a comment to Tom from an example I told him on Friday night, there. If there is a person in an island never visited before. That person can be killed from the impact of a branch caused by a storm breaking up a tree. He wouldn't see the branch, the branch wouldn't be rendered to him but he will be out of the game from something he never perceived/observed/measured/collapsed.

My reasoning is that in this virtual reality probabilities cannot produce events. Events happen even when there are no observations. There is an aspect of the VR that runs the simulation regardless of the observations (e.g.: Comet paths that may hit planets, radiation, cosmic-rays, etc.). I think Tom mentioned this in the gathering as a result of the consistency of the simulation. Comets, asteroids, radiation, cosmic-rays seem to have been causing damages before they were being observed and their effect don't seem to increase after being observed more. We discover more comets, but they don't seem to hit as more now than before we were not observing them as much.

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

Claudio, I agree with what you're saying.

The thing about wave/particle duality that I think is similar to MBT's interpretation of QM is that a photon can't be a wave and particle at exactly the same time. It's either exists as probability in TBC or is "collapsed" into a particle (for each time increment), according to our understanding of the ruleset.

So, when you were citing articles and the experiment that attempted to falsify wave/particle duality (Copenhagen interpretation, many world's theory, etc.), I made the assumption that you disagreed with MBT's interpretation - due to the similarity mentioned above. I understand there are differences since contemporary physics believes in a purely objective reality.

_________________
Mike

Tom says that till they were measured they were probabilities. That is not the crux of the matter. Tom considers everything a probability before being measured no matter if you have beams of light, randomized photons, electrons, molecules, etc. Also in the same Wiki page there is a critic against Kastner's critic that they did the same experiment with coherent laser beams (not randomized photons) and they got similar results.



I think as highly probable that Afshar interpretation that the photons behave both as wave and particles in the same experiment is true. The critics rely in low probability combinations of events to discredit it. A virtual reality allows photons to behave both as wave and particles in the same experiment.

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

Claudio, there is a huge difference between acting as a wave and a particle at the same time versus the same experiment.

_________________
Mike

Claudio,

While you said:
While in the sense of 'I didn't see it coming', that person did not 'observe' with his visual sense that the branch fell from out of the line of his sight, they will most certainly observe the impact of the branch in a very real sense. While you might think of this as an instantaneous death in a sense of being quite fast, there would still be a sense of impact, starting to fall or rather being knocked down and time to register some pain before you would blank out of PMR. Have no question that this occurrence was fully 'observed' by the person participating in the incident. All of their participation within PMR up until they absolutely quit participating will be rendered for them, for their consciousness.

You further said:
This is a flawed way of looking at events occurring in probability within TBC's calculated probability wave but not being observed by a conscious observer. Probabilities are just that. An event that 'probably' occurred does not have to be rendered for observers if there were none but the effects will be rendered later when there are observers. A large meteorite striking the earth before it is inhabited is not observed by conscious observers so TBC simply maintains a record of the probability of that meteorite impact within its probability field. Later when there are conscious inhabitants, that probability of the far past is rendered as the resulting crater with all of the results of weathering and possibly a crater lake as developed by the intervening probabilities of all the passing years. The concept of a probability as employed by TBC is more than how you are thinking of probabilities. There does not have to be an actualization to be kept as a record collapsed out of the probability so that event can be kept track of. A probable event still continues to have effect even if it is not actualized by a conscious observation. The primary record in TBC continues to develop tick by tick. It is sort of a short hand notation that saves a lot of calculation and record keeping. There is no staging area where every sub atomic particle and 'event' has to be kept track of. This is an important concept in the operation of a VR simulation to understand. Instead of all of those years of unobserved probability accumulating having to be simulated with everything kept track of, sub atomic particle by sub atomic particle, this is all just an accumulating probability wave that does not have to account for all of the details with every grain of sand, much less sub atomic particle. When the probability wave is collapsed for an observer, all of those events that 'probably' occurred are accounted for but only at the fractal levels that can be observed. So a vast accumulation of details is kept track of in a relatively simple short hand as that is good enough for the purpose. The first native observer coming upon a crater lake hidden in surrounding woods will see what is perfectly good enough as he has no need to nor will he notice every grain of sand on the margin of the crater. None of that has to be accounted for for all of the intervening years that probably occurred after the originating event 'probably' occurred. A vast saving of calculations.

Ted

And how would you notice the difference? You can only tell what's happening when you make a measurement. Are you suggesting that a wave is transformed into a particle in the same experiment?

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

The "observation" from the person didn't collapse the possibility of the branch killing him, right? The cause of the event was the branch hitting the person, not the person observing the branch. What is important in question is not how many Delta-t's go into the senses of the person, but what causes what, is it the person observing the branch or the branch observing the person while he dies?



An event does not need to be rendered by observers if there were none? Surely, :), if there are no observers to what observers is it going to be rendered? By definition an event is something that happened, not a probability (at least the definition that I apply in this thread). If I say an event happened, that means its probability is 100%, because it did happen. You cannot always collapse probabilities of how or if an event is going to happen at the end. Events can alter future events that can alter future events. When you run a simulation you have to keep track of the chronology of events as their dependency can affect other events at certain times. Didn't you see those movies where they change something in the past and that alters the future? If you have a world where non-conscious machines are very common, there might be a few or no observers but multiple dependent events that can alter outcomes of the simulation. Put bombs to those machines and some human victims and observe how little the events of that world depend on the few human observations.

Another example, if you have a championship tournament by elimination (from 8 players, to 4, to 2, to 1 winner), you cannot certainly know the winner if you first don't know the two finalists, and so on as the previous events till the beginning of the tournament.

When you combine probabilities from the beginning, they tend to grow in complexity and final outcomes get more difficult to predict as the final time increases (Tom mentions this in the book, it is easier to predict what may happen tomorrow than what may happen in 100 years).



You cannot keep historical consistency if you collapse probabilities always at the end. The Earth was formed apparently by the collision of two planets that ended up with the Earth and the moon. The historical consistency needs that the chronological information of the simulation produced events that depended on previous events and so on. Try to write a program for a simulation with your logic and you may see the problems you can start getting into.

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

You both make good points.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Claudio,

Something came up on the board recently that brought the Myers-Briggs personality types to mind again. I spent some time looking in more depth than ever into the three types represented by you as an INTJ as self stated, myself as an INFJ and Tom as an INTP as he stated for himself. I looked at perhaps a half dozen sites instead of just one or two, looking extensively at the various and slightly differing descriptions given as characteristic for these types. I gained a lot more respect for the concepts and the codes because I could more clearly see myself in this INFJ characterization with more extensive description as I have been throughout my life. I could also see Tom as he acts and functions within the INTP characteristics. For you, what I saw of greatest significance here is that we as INFJ and INTJ were referred to as 'cousin' types in that no other two types were so strong in our judgements of being right in a sense. However INTJs were referred to as never having any uncertainties or doubts while INFJs were referred to as never having this absolute rejection of the possibility of not being right, always having some uncertainty. This I believe is the origin of much of our disagreement.

Going on from there, you said:

The collapsing of the probability field into an actualization is the functioning of TBC as it creates the input data stream representing the PMR VR experience of the subject. We speak of the observation causing the collapse, but really in terms of causality, it is TBC that causes the collapse for the purpose of creating the data stream via the VRRE aspect in order to create the input data as required for the conscious entities experience: in order for that entity to make that observation. The branch is an inanimate object that caused nothing in the sense of having volition. The entity did not choose to have the branch fall and kill them but rather that is a chance event as described. The actual causality in terms of the collapse of the probability into an actualization lies with TBC and its purpose of creating the VR experience.

You said:

I am afraid that I already have extensive experience writing just such a simulation for my dissertation and I have considered it much since becoming involved with MBT. That is how I was able to come up with the concept of the VRRE aspect of TBC which Tom has very much made a part of his model now. What you are not understanding is that TBC can in fact and in effect, sum probabilities over time to maintain all of the historical sequence that is required and most of the time, historical consistency is not an absolute requirement. Tom has discussed this in terms of actually describing how things known and maintained consistently for a time can in fact be returned to the probability 'cloud' again if circumstances allow. In essence, the 'facts' are forgotten and the consistency is allowed to become a matter of probability again as exact consistency no longer is required by the circumstances.

I see no need to argue about this. You have stated your understanding and I have stated mine with explanations. Why not just leave it there?

Ted

Good morning Ted. I thought you were my uncle, like Tom, but cousin is not bad either ;) It's not that I cannot have doubts, but I don't like to keep them, so I usually don't keep them. That's why I either solve the doubt myself, research or ask questions. You saw me asking Tom and you lots of questions. I don't mind being wrong, but I don't just say I am wrong because somebody else says something different. I like to be proven wrong. Tell me why I am wrong and if you do a good job and I see why I was wrong I can admit that (the you here refers to anybody, not just you).



I was being funny and sarcastic giving more credit to the branch :) I want to make people think. I want people to distinguish right from wrong by themselves. I think we then agree that TBC by itself can collapse probabilities without observation. It has to in order to keep historical consistency and being able to differentiate what happened versus what could have happened (other databases).



I agree that TBC can sum probabilities over time. Tom said that TBC also keeps consistency, and I add to you and Tom that it is impossible for TBC to keep historical consistency if it does not collapse probabilities to events and keep the events in chronological order so that it can calculate combined probabilities and interdependencies among events.



The facts may be forgotten but in order to keep consistency you have to keep certain key events in order. I also agree that where there is more room for uncertainty without breaking up consistency then there is more room to allow changes in probabilities. I do agree with Tom's PUP in action.



There are differences between you and me. I enjoy learning and exchanging opinions. I would like other people to participate. It's almost always just you and me. I like that Mike participated with his opinions about QM. I like to see participation and thinking from people, not just trusting what a few say. It is also likely that MBT ideas will be tested in the future and some errors may be found and some adjustments done. I am now trying to push MBT forward by doing more testing and computer simulations to learn more about it. We can speculate but it would be great to encourage people to write computer simulations and test MBT ideas in those simulations, for example.

I am happy and thank you for being able to exchange posts without going into personal attacks. The more one respects the other the more the other is going to get respected, I predict.

Later, uncle or cuz. Big hug and hope your health keeps improving.

Clau

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <