I will try to keep this as high level as possible.

If we consider the model of the big bang in relation to mathematics some problems arise.

If you consider a purely physical reality without the integration of a model like Tom's then a infinite universe is not possible.

If the totality of matter was once concentrated in a singularity such as proposed in the big bang theory then you must say that there is a finite amount of potential energy or matter.

Following Einsteins conservation, energy cannot be created therefor, energy cannot be infinite.

I might go into more low level explanations at some other time, but I would like to get some high level stuff out first.

There are so many problems that are better explained using Tom's model that it is hard to know where to start. Non local quantum gravity, Virtual Particles, the list goes on and on.

Another obvious problem is what created the Big Bang?

_________________
Mike

Only a problem for the EGO.

As Tom points out in most all workshops I've viewed, there are limits to knowledge.;-)

It's the Big Digital Bang as Tom said.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Tom's model of reality really says nothing about the rule set of PMR physics beyond it being generated based upon probability fields at the base level in TBC and then that it is fractal in nature as it is rendered for our observation, the experience of being here in PMR as provided as a digital data stream over the RWW. It is the purpose of physics to figure it out over time. What Tom's model can do is to provide a better understanding of how PMR comes about which can then be used to create a better understanding of the rule set. Personally, it seems as if there was not necessarily a consistent set of rules established. I work from the direction of Tom's model being very much like the reality. From there, It seems like things like the anomalies of QM result from the failure of QM to consider itself to be the interface between probability in a fractal reality based upon information and levels of the fractal reality of PMR that cannot be observed by the naked eye observer. For most of the time since the switch made contact initiating this reality frame, no one could observe beyond dirty water and lights in the sky. They, whoever set up this VR, did not have to figure that part out at first when setting up the rule set and for many millions of years and might have never had to detail those aspects of our reality. If we never got beyond medieval levels, what difference would it have made. Who would have noticed. Perhaps the start up sequence was halted, adjustments made to parameters and then the sequence continued. We are not in a position to know unless an artifact of that were left to be discovered if we became able to do so.

How the Big Bang worked in a digital simulation did not have to be consistent with other present aspects of science. How many or what percentage of PMRs out of all of them ever reach a point of developing science like the present and being able to contemplate such matters, I certainly do not know. Perhaps Tom might make a stab at it. But since the purpose for this reality in Tom's model is to reduce entropy by interaction of participants, it would work fine if PMR science never got beyond napping flint to make sharp implements and curing hides to bind them into weapons. We don't really know if the rule set was or is consistently set up. That may be why we now try to explain "invisible matter" and "invisible energy" in order to make our physics problems work out when we start contemplating the far reaches of our observed reality. Perhaps they were sloppy with the rule set at those fractal scales, expecting it to never matter.

Ted

Ted,

Do you think there are beings incarnated in our PMR on other planets?

If so, it would seem to me like more of the initial conditions for the Big Digital Bang would have to be pre-set if the intention was to have life/consciousness inhabit as much as possible in order to lower entropy wherever possible. Perhaps not pre-set at the smaller fractal scales, but at the larger ones (for potential interaction among planets in the future - because it might be expected).

In such a large universe such as our PMR (that we've measured so far), it would seem likely that the capacity to support conscious beings on other planets is highly probable and likely to occur.

Then, for example, one of those other "lights in the sky" could actually have been rendered by another species at a fair greater detail than humans have done so far.

Or do you think beings are only incarnated in one "local area" per PMR? That would mean their observations from that point on would only need to be figured out on the fly, as I think you're suggesting.

_________________
Mike

As a Virtual Reality, everywhere is right next door to TBC via the RWW. Those distances you mention are virtual only. The participants in the VR are aspects of IUOCs on the RWW, FWAUs as they have come to be called here. The VR only serves as a data base that is queried to obtain information about what data to render into the data stream to each participant. That data base has all the data about the physical aspects of the VR and where your VR body is located and how it is oriented. All by fractal levels and all by probability. Physics amounts to our guesses about how that computer is programmed, based upon no consideration of its existence nor of the virtual nature of the VR. All of this is just 1s and 0s as represented by perturbed and unperturbed reality cells that interact as a cellular automaton like 'structure' that functions as TBC. PMR mathematics has demonstrated that cellular automata can include structures that exhibit universal calculator capability or whatever the precise phrase is. All of the functionality of PMR digital computers. We don't know how it is really programmed and it is inaccessible to us as IUOCs. We just interact with a version of TBC to create our experience of the VR and our interactions with other IUOCs. It really does not matter whether another inhabited planet is represented within this PMR VR or not. The same set up applies to all PMRs. Some may be in the same instantiation of TBC or in another. I don't know the specific answer to your question. But the above should cover it. It really depends on the choices of AUM for computational efficiency as to whether two different PMR set ups are hosted in the one VR or in different VRs and whether two different planets are calculated for in one VR or two or whatever other choices might be made.

Ted

As our rule-set (physics) in this universe doesn't change according to location, it stands to reason that if life can occur just once, it can occur several times. The lowering of entropy as a principle and purpose is likely embedded or "hard coded" into this VR's rule-set at a fundamental level, if so, the emergence of life (consciousness) would happen whenever the conditions supports it. Just like consciousness develops when the computer supports it. One could say that the emergence of life is just another expression for the emergence of consciousness at another fractal level.

As Ted points out, computational efficiency should also determine they likelihood of the above. To me it's seems logical that a larger population in one (or not "many") PMR would be more efficient than the same population spread in "many" PMR's. The existence of a universe as information content exceeds the information content of a non-existing universe :)

Though I wonder how one would differentiate between visiting another world in another PMR or in the same, or whether it's another reality frame in actuality or not might be a bit difficult to distinguish.

I completely agree with both of your posts, SS and Ted.

But to be more specific:


Ted, could you please explain more about what you meant by consistent in that post? I could be misinterpreting it.

It's hard to put into words, but I'll try again:

Given multiple "world's" in PMR, it would seem that our rule-set would have to be more consistent than a PMR with only one world. Especially the initial conditions - yes space is just virtual but you still experience it within a rule set that is consistent.

So, the "lights in the sky" are much more constrained if you were to have sentient beings living on/by some of them. Compare this to a PMR with only one world, where the lights in the sky could truly just be lights with absolutely no other data about them in TBC until (perhaps) one day observed at a smaller fractal scale.

I personally think a multiple world's PMR is more likely, for reasons similar to what SS said. It would seem to be more computationally efficient to instantiate multiple world's per PMR than to have just one. Again, it would likely happen for similar reasons AI Guy could exist - the right conditions and environment is all that's needed. The slight difference would be that AI Guy would be born within TBC while we were born within AUM (I remember reading this in MBT somewhere, but I could be mistaken on the difference).

_________________
Mike

IF there were other sentient entities on distant planets in this particular VR so far that you couldn't get here from there you could do something else to let them know you were there and that we are all One with maybe putting some sort of symbol in someplace like fields of grain to communicate something of importance using focused Intent to do so.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Mike,

I mean consistent as in not having to throw in dark matter and energy to make our present equations work out. At present we don't know whether we have the wrong equations or we need multiple sets of equations or just what but this to me is an inconsistency. We are throwing in a 'fudge factor' to make the numbers come out to what we think that they should be. We observe locally and come up with a rule set that makes sense. But when we apply it to very far distances, it doesn't work out. The numbers are not right and observations don't make sense. Perhaps this happens because the programmer(s) of TBC didn't think it would matter as we would never go that far nor even be able to observe at that distance. As far as sending messages as Bette suggested, you can't see symbols created in grain fields even from local space. Did you see those pictures of New York City on 9/11. The smoke plumes were visible but the buildings were not.

If a livable planet exists elsewhere in our PMR universe as we see it, our rule set would not have to be more consistent. It would be consistent locally for each planet. Each could seem just fine locally. There is no 'out there' out there. It is in the far out there that our rule set seems to break down as presently understood. It doesn't really matter as the far out there does not exist other than as virtually.

If we have multiple planets in a PMR VR in a single TBC instance, we can accommodate more IUOCs than the carrying capacity of one planet can allow for. It all depends on the capacity of the TBC to handle the load. The most significant considerations are there in CS rather than here in PMR. Other than what the carrying capacity of the planets are which is a local PMR question.

Ted

Thanks Ted, that helps clarify your meaning.

"If a livable planet exists elsewhere in our PMR universe as we see it, our rule set would not have to be more consistent. It would be consistent locally for each planet. Each could seem just fine locally."

I still disagree with this. If they are part of the same VR then they both have to follow the same rule-set. They have to be consistent locally but also in whatever way they could interact (even if it's just a dot of light). TBC would have a little extra work making sure that the representation of that light is consistent with what is actually happening "out there". If there was no world out there being rendered by other beings, then TBC would have more "wiggle room" with what that dot of light actually represents (until we look at it in closer detail).

Please note that I am talking about the actual rule-set, not what we think it may be at present (including dark matter and dark energy).

"There is no 'out there' out there. It is in the far out there that our rule set seems to break down as presently understood. It doesn't really matter as the far out there does not exist other than as virtually."

I am talking about virtual distances, not consciousness-space. It may be virtual but it is still very real and relevant. Especially if there are other beings out there.

_________________
Mike

Mike,

There are reports fairly often now days that a planet has been discovered way out there, even if on a local scale. Those planets are being located based upon new and special technologies. They never had to be rendered at all previously. Since they have been discovered out of the probability field using equipment than can 'see' them, they will be for consistency be there the next time we look on an equal or equivalent basis. Perhaps some of those support life as is speculated. They still were never rendered in any way until the time came that the new technologies and equipment became available and were pointed in their direction. And they are rendered now only on the basis that they can be detected and some characteristics such as size, temperature range, mass and distance from their sun can be determined. If some particular world that is thus detected happens to have life, the fact that we can now detect it does not feed back in some way making that world be specially rendered. The rendering is for the observer. If no one ever looks again, it drops back into the probability field. All this time, if there were conscious inhabitants, that world has always been rendered fully for those conscious inhabitants, just like our immediate surroundings are rendered for us. The probability field is the reality. If it contains the probability of other realities than our own and the consciousness of other entities, then that is the way that it is. But the rendering is always local and based upon what can be locally observed and specifically observed by an individual observer. You live in another part of the country from me. You are in no way rendered in my observations other than as you appear on my computer screen. You could live next door, but if we never met 'in person', it would never make any difference in how you were rendered in my observations. If we both attend Tom's next speaking event, then we will each be rendered fully as there in each others observations. But unless we are in each others presence, you could be an alien of that other hypothetical planet and it would make no difference in how you are rendered in my observation nor I in yours.

It is our existence in the probability field of TBC or at least a Big Computer that makes us exist as an entity in that PMR. Actually, it is our existence as IUOCs that makes us exist. Our existence in a PMR is only determined by such a spot for a conscious entity 'opening up' and our IUOC being assigned to it that places us as a consciousness in that PMR. We existed before that assignment and we will exist afterwards when that assignment ends at death, the end of that probability spot within that PMR. When we so enter that PMR, we start receiving rendered data streams that place our consciousness there in that PMR. Those renderings are what place us locally within and experiencing that PMR. That is simply the way that it works. It matters not on which planet we might live, where our experience is rendered, within that PMR. Our rendering is local to where the probability field and under which circumstances we are placed. Our true existence is unchanging as an IUOC. Our rendering in a given PMR is only based upon our assignment to a given probability of an observer existing to which we become assigned. It makes no difference upon which planet probability within TBC places us. We will be rendered locally in the same manner according to that locality.

Ted

Ted,

Yes I have no problems with what you are saying, we are just talking about slightly different things. I am talking about the history having to be consistent among ALL players within this VR.

If we saw each other at Tom's next speaking event, then I would see you rendered fully as you exist according to the rule-set and your history. I wouldn't see you with green hair if you have been observed previously to have grey hair (unless you decide to dye it!). There are constraints on how you will appear to me when I look at you.

If we look at a planet for the first time that has life on it, there are constraints according to the history and rule-set for how that planet can look. Life on that planet will have collapsed the probability fields to make measurements about its environment. The history of the measurements for life on that planet will have to coincide with our measurements in order for the rule-set and history to stay consistent. Yes, our point of view of the planet will be different than the point of view of life on that planet - but if they have measured the planet to be roughly X m^3 in volume, then it will appear that way to us as well.

If we look at a planet that does not have life on it, and no being has ever looked at it, then there are fewer constraints (no history) as to what that planet can look like. It has no history to be consistent with.

I think (and hope) we are coming closer to a common understanding. It was my understanding that having a consistent history among all players within a VR is one of the defining features of a PMR. It's like the story Tom gives about taking a picture of how much beer you have in the refrigerator.

_________________
Mike

Mike,

Keep in mind that we are talking about planets which are so tenuous in our observations that we essentially put no constraints on how that planet looks locally to itself and local conscious entities. They are in a fractal dimension to us that is very difficult to view at a level that would even reveal a planet sized body. We would just see a light in the sky, perhaps, from their sun. And we are the same in reverse. No, they are unlikely to have a major difference in a primary characteristic such as mass but our measurement is likely to be much less precise than one that they might make, if the hypothetical they had the science to do so.

Ted