There is no slit there is no particle this is a Virtual Reality frame one of many, savvy?
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

I don't get the point. QM happens. Irrelevant of it taking place in a VR or in a "RR" (real reality :D )... Referring to it as being very hard to compute doesn't change any part of its reality. And hence does not answer the question of why and how these things take place. The VR-model simply provides a framework in which it makes sense. (And assumig, as we are, that the "root" of all reality is indeed a large consciousness system there is no need to project our computational limits onto this system - which basically sounds like a British scientist from the 19th century saying: "You can't ride on a train. If you move with greater speed than 50 km/h you'll DIE!!!")

What is the ontological framework you embedd QM in?

_________________
"Beyond the gate of experience flows the Way,
Which is ever greater and more subtle than the world."

- Dao de jing, 1.

Nemo,

You must be dragging that quote up from deep in this old thread. I don't understand your point. Could you please explain or restate?

Ted

Ted,

sorry. :)


It begins with Chris writing this:



...and continues with this reply:



Chris replied:



And then I say... ;)



BTW:

I wonder what Fredkin would say to this discussion... ;)

_________________
"Beyond the gate of experience flows the Way,
Which is ever greater and more subtle than the world."

- Dao de jing, 1.

Nemo,

I think that the answer to your question is specifically PMR concepts of reality. These discussions seem to me to have been part of a progression by which the viewpoints lectured about by Tom were arrived at. As I see it, there has been a progression of thinking involved. I have not found the specific reference, but Tom seemed to have the intuitive thought that his MBT concepts provided an explanation of QM but did not have the thought sequence worked out fully and clearly. Then I provided a starting point for that understanding as follows.

I thought that I would write my own book and wrote the chapter linked from here as one of my starts toward that book. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2453 My chapter describing the Virtual Reality Rendering Engine as an expansion of the concept that 'The Big Computer' does it had the idea that you can read within it, in line with the so called Copenhagen point of view on QM. That a conscious observation collapsed the probability field into an observation if and only if a suitable apparatus were used to exhibit the QM level of reality. That it was a matter of observation by a consciousness that created the QM results which otherwise appeared to be anomalous.

Tom eventually took this initial idea further in these discussions on the board, both of this and of other concepts regarding how things work in a VR. That was to recognize that it is not just observation of a situation suitable for observing QM levels of our PMR reality, which are not normally bothered about by TBC. TBC does not just render the information for our observation via the VRRE aspect of its functioning, it also preserves a continuity of information available which also enters into the situation. That is, if information enters into PMR, in terms of being observed by an IUOC, then it is maintained for future observations as appropriate. If it then is destroyed as information as in becoming unavailable, then things drop back into representations suitable for a probability based observation again. This results in the complications of the QM level when more complex double slit experiments with added bells and whistles are carried out.

As I understand Tom's latest formulations of these ideas, and if I in fact do understand them, the question of what information is actually available here in PMR can explain these added complications. It is not just that a consciousness observes and collapses the wave field into a specific observation. You must follow the information available as TBC keeps track of it in order to work out the precise explanation of these more complicated forms of the double slit experiment as information becomes available or not and as it is made use of, observed, or destroyed and taken out of PMR. While I took Tom's model forward by pointing out the effects of fractal levels in terms of QM and the effects of the VRRE, this was not the whole picture. You must remember also that TBC keeps track of information available within PMR in order to maintain consistence of observations of various IUOCs. These observations are still subject to subjective interpretation, but at least the same information is consistently available for those observations.

What Chris was stating (in my understanding) was based upon an incomplete understanding of Tom's description of the process and focusing on the difficulty of calculating everything in this VR from a bottom up basis in terms of keeping track of all of the probabilities of every sub atomic particle. The concept however is that this is not done. Rather only the fractal levels are kept track of that represent normal VR humans and critters levels of observations and both the larger fractal levels and the smaller fractal levels that can not be observed without instrumentation are simply not calculated to render the PMR data stream coming to an IUOC. Those fractal levels are only calculated as required in those very few instances where these other fractal levels can and are being observed.

Hopefully this answers your question.

Ted

Ted if I understood Nemo's question this is related to computation being made "inside" a computer that must be "finite" although obviously very big in processing capabilities. This is an assumption from Tom's part so that his model works as you described - giving you only the information that is required so that it uses in an efficient manner.

But if you take away this assumption that it is finite then the whole model collapses. And you have a different theory. If this isn't what Nemo wanted to know then I ask him to clarify it. Still I think it is a good question from my part.

9, as far as finite goes that is of a specific size, the computing capabilities and what data the system has available is ever changing as in evolving. That continues from now on with the possibilities in consciousness being endless. This is really my description of infinite, just some of my views. Sabby

As Tom repeatedly says, anything real is finite. Tom makes no claims regarding anything with relation to the LCS being infinite and certainly not any of the VRs as sub sets of the LCS. The LCS is real and finite but unbounded. There is no basis for deciding upon a limit to its size but it is not infinite. There is actually no concept of size to it as in the PMR concept of physical size. That, infinity, is simply a mathematical concept, not anything real while the LCS is real. Thus I do not see what the question is regarding a computer. TBC is a subset of the LCS, and thus also finite, and a relatively small part at that with as many different VRs and associated TBCs as there must be to compute them. There are many BCs and not just one. There might even be one for every PMR and associated NPMR(s). There is much parallelism, part of AUM as a successor to AUO. Tom also stated that 'computational parsimony' was something that he observed, not something that he postulated to justify his model one way or the other. So if I did not get the answer right, covering it in that general statement above, someone must explain the question more clearly.

Ted

That's why I don't tell my kids I love them an infinite amount, because my love for them is real. :)
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

But Ted the whole model is based on parts and Tom reiterated that our breaking it into parts is because of our way of making sense of the information but in actuality there is no delimitation, limitation so in essence there is no LCS, AUM,AUO. It is just one whole block and we understand it through Tom's model and that's why we are using LCS,AUM,AUO.

Just because we cannot grasp the notion of infinity into something tangible doesn't mean it's not real :).

This metaphor of infinite to me at least means something that never ends. This system or systems we are apart of never stops evolving or it ceases to exist. and that very well could happen who knows, but if this real alive system goes on doing its thing endlessly there really would be no end. Call it wishful thinking if you like, but i prefer to use the metaphor infinite as to mean no end in sight. Sabby

Sabby actually there are multiple uses of infinity. Maybe I wasn't clearly on the spot. What I was talking about was what Ted wrote "The LCS is real and finite but unbounded." I'm talking maybe of the idea of Copenhagen interpretation correlated with Many Worlds Interpretation. A good example would be that for each choice - let's say that you arrive at a crossroads - you decide to marry the girl you love or not marry.

In my interpretation what happens based on your choice the other choice is also fulfilled. So if you choose that you should marry and take that choice the universe splits and in the other you have made the different decision. Now imagine and spread it out for the decisions in your life and you generate a great amount of universes.

According to Tom's model the others are not "as real as you and me". They are maintained only to be accessed through actualized past history database and if you want to view what it would have happened if you did the other choice, that history was viewed as probable past history and not actualized history. My vision differs from him. Obviously it's my TOE and not Tom's :)

9, i see what you are saying, and i think like Tom does on that one, it just would not be that efficient as opposed to what Tom is saying, a waste of cycles. I think like you do in the respect that things will be added to Toms model in the future. Who knows maybe even what you are saying. Sabby

Ingerule,

Try instead:
They (what you actually did) are maintained only to be accessed through actualized past history database and if you want to view what it would have happened if you did the other choice, that history was viewed as unactualized past history and not actualized history. Is this not what you meant to say? This fits with an actualized (what was done) and an unactualized (what might have been instead which can have many branches) past history data base and a probable future data base as Tom describes them, if I remember correctly.

Ted

Ted you are right. That was what I meant. Now going further I state the unactualized past history is only from your own point of view. From the other who took the other choice, for him is actualized past history and my version is unactualized.