Claudio,

Here is a place where you are simply wrong.

TBC functions based upon probabilities in ways that you are simply not comprehending. Not everything has to be kept in the consistency that you are thinking. Tom has explained this in detail. I don't claim to know the algorithms but I do know that it is possible to do what really needs to be done versus what you think needs to be done. Nothing has to be collapsed out of probability unless it is for the purpose of creating a data stream for a conscious participant in PMR. Wrap your mind around it and work through it because that is the way that both Tom and I say that it functions from essentially the same source. Otherwise you are coming up with something like a big holodeck that encompasses the whole of PMR reality as a point by point simulation of every sub atomic particle there ever was implied and that is simply not the way that it works and in no way like anything that Tom has stated and described. The basis of a VR is that the hardware and action is projected ahead by TBC on a probability basis. There is no 'out there', just the probabilities. Then the VR experience is collapsed out of this probability 'cloud' via the VRRE aspect of TBC and fed to the VR participants as they reside on the RWW as our IUOCs. Consistency is maintained because there is a past actualized data base which keeps track of what is important in a short hand form. You must simply accept that TBC functions in ways that you are not comprehending based upon your knowledge and experience of PMR computer capabilities.

Ted

If you cannot prove me wrong, I don't consider that I am wrong. I proved you wrong and gave you examples to prove why you were wrong.




Even though neither you, nor Tom nor me knows exactly how TBC calculates and uses probabilities, I can tell when some statements are wrong. IMO Tom did not explain it in detail. To explain it better it is good to have a simulation program in a computer that can prove your statements. I know that those statements are wrong, and I don't want to invest my time in proving it by writing a program right now. I have other plans, but it can be proven with computer simulation programs.



Yes, you need to sequence events. No matter how smart TBC can be it cannot defeat logic and interdependency of events. Probabilities can depend on previous probabilities and no matter how smart or what powers an information system may have, you cannot defeat that.



Don't prove me wrong with authority, prove me wrong with evidence and explanations. If you can't then you can't.



No, you don't need to come up with something exactly like a holodeck and that is not what I say. I don't say either that it has to be a point by point simulation. Don't invent what and how I think.



I agree that the probabilities are projected ahead and that is not the point which I consider you are wrong. Where you are wrong is that key events need to be kept chronologically for consistency, even without being observed. You cannot run a simulation without simulating (the more probabilities you keep the more problems you run into).



Like you just said, that there is a past actualized database, that database needs to create "events". It cannot just keep probabilities instead of events with or without observations.

I think that by mentioning the "past actualized data base" and working on it you can figure out where your errors are.

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <

Yes I am suggesting that a probability wave is "transformed" into a particle in the same experiment. This transformation happens whenever a measurement is made. You can only actually measure the particle, not the probability wave. But depending on when and where you take the measurement, and if you fire enough photons/electrons/whatever you can see an interference pattern that shows how the particles were constrained on where they could be. That interference pattern is due to probability waves interacting with one another.

Here is some information I took from Wikipedia that may help you make the connection:

"In the early 1900s it became apparent that classical mechanics had some major failings. Isaac Newton originally proposed the idea that light came in discrete packets which he called "corpuscles", but the wave-like behavior of many light phenomena quickly led scientists to favor a wave description of electromagnetism. It wasn't until the 1930s that the particle nature of light really began to be widely accepted in physics. The development of quantum mechanics — and its success at explaining confusing experimental results — was at the foundation of this acceptance.
One of the most important concepts in the formulation of quantum mechanics is the idea that light comes in discrete bundles called photons. The energy of light is a discrete function of frequency:
E = nhν
The energy is a positive integer, n, multiple of Planck's constant, h, and frequency, ν. This resolved a significant problem in classical physics, called the ultraviolet catastrophe.
The ideas of quantum mechanics continued to be developed throughout the 20th century. The picture that was developed was of a particulate world, with all phenomena and matter made of and interacting with discrete particles; however, these particles were described by a probability wave. The interactions, locations, and all of physics would be reduced to the calculations of these probability amplitude waves. The particle-like nature of the world was significantly confirmed by experiment, while the wave-like phenomena could be characterized as consequences of the wave packet nature of particles."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet

Linking this to MBT, the "transformation" of the probability wave to a particle happens inside TBC with the VRRE that then sends the information as a datastream to the consciousness making the observation. You and Ted are discussing a very similar topic but at a larger fractal scale.

_________________
Mike

Hello Mike:

Mike: Yes I am suggesting that a probability wave is "transformed" into a particle in the same experiment. This transformation happens whenever a measurement is made. You can only actually measure the particle, not the probability wave.

Claudio: You have to be careful not to confuse the term probability wave with for example light behaving as a wave. I was talking as behaving as a wave not about a probability wave, even though there is some relationship between the two. You can measure the probability wave. The interference pattern shown in the back screen of a double slit experiment without detectors is a measurement of that probability wave. The same probability wave serves as the most probable outcome when you fire a lot of photons one by one and do the statistics.

Mike: But depending on when and where you take the measurement, and if you fire enough photons/electrons/whatever you can see an interference pattern that shows how the particles were constrained on where they could be. That interference pattern is due to probability waves interacting with one another.

Claudio: I would say that the probability wave happens to coincide with the result of two waves interfering with each other (like two ripples can interfere in water). By adding the two waves (with certain requirements) you get the resultant superposed wave that is also the probability wave followed by photons.

Requirements for interference:

• Two (or more) waves • Same Frequency • Coherent (waves must have definite phase relation)

http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/superposition/superposition.html

Mike: Linking this to MBT, the "transformation" of the probability wave to a particle happens inside TBC with the VRRE that then sends the information as a datastream to the consciousness making the observation.

Claudio: I don't know if "transformation" is the best word. It was a probability information field and became information. It was, is and will be information.

As new experiments, evidence and analysis build up we went from collapsing to decoherence, and after reading the "uncollapsing" paper I think that decoherence does not bring the complete picture either. We keep changing the best metaphors to adapt to the virtual reality rule-set behavior. Interesting reality we are experiencing, isn't it?

Clau

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

> http://soprano.com <

I disagree with this. I don't think you can directly measure the probability wave. The interference pattern is actually the measurement of many particles. You can model the interaction of the particles before they were measured as probability waves - and the math happens to work out and agree with observation.

Light behaving as a wave is used in EM theory, so yes it is easy to confuse the two.



Yes I agree with this.



That's why I put transformation in quotes. I agree it's not the best word but I was using language that we had been using previously to make the connection.



Yes it is pretty crazy. :)

_________________
Mike

There is ONLY the probability that it is a wave or a particle, right?

Collapsing or making a measurement or observing a VR wave/article thing, probably, doesn't have anything to do with saving probable future, past actualized, and past not actualized since that is just data, right? When this QM stuff is being played with it's just VR stuff with it's illusion of physical properties light it has per the rules in this VR. The data in the databases is just data.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

I'm not quite sure what you mean.



I think you're right that the data in the databases is just data. But I wouldn't say this VR wave/particle stuff doesn't have anything to do with the databases. I would think that all those double slit experiments people do get saved in the databases too - as data.

_________________
Mike

Yes, I agree. The illusions the data allows to be "perceived" when accessing the database (like we are now, the NOW data that was probable future, is NOW, and will be actualized past with all the other threads of non-actualized past is important. Each collapse of a probability wave isn't so much, to me.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Mike? First you said it can't be measured and at the end it says that the math agrees with observation. Like you said you can calculate it, predict the results, run experiments and see how experimental results match the analytical results. Why do you keep saying it can't be measured?

Clau

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

> http://soprano.com <

Mike is right that the VR stuff is related to the data stored in the databases but not all is stored according to Tom. Only significant data for evolution and historical consistency is stored, unless stored in digital form, and only till it is no longer possibly being used by some consciousness in the future.
Also take into account that everything is data. Bette, do you see a difference between just data and another type of data that is not "just"? The data that composes your being can be said that it is also "just" data. It's all information in a weird media that we call Consciousness.

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <

Sorry, I forgot a comma so one sentence came out a little unclear. Perhaps a better way of saying it is "You can model the the particles as probability waves before they are measured as particles".

I keep saying you can't measure probability waves directly because the act of measurement causes "it" to "collapse" into a particle.

_________________
Mike

OK. I see. Well, it depends on the experiment setup. If you cover one slit in the double slit or you put at least one detector then there is no point in modeling the particles as probabilities since you can predict the probabilities (100% for the case of one slit closed to go through the other one and 50%/50% (most likely) for the one with at least one detector).



Oh. I see. Yes, this is called "the measurement problem". It's true when you want to measure close to the slits to try to see what happens at the slits but if you measure after they pass the slits and interference happened, then you can measure the result of the probability distribution (wave shape), like you can see for example in the back screen or if you register it in a plotter or video tape it (very common in experiments).

The following explains well the measurement problem:

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <

*phew* yes Claudio I think we finally understand eachother. :)

_________________
Mike

Mike:

Yo tambien hablo español ;) I like your attitude of trying to learn, I try too. Also, take into account that I like to explain or exchange ideas not just for you but for whoever is interested.

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <

It's just data.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.