Ruleset for other PMRs

Post Reply
User avatar
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 6578
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: Ocala, FL

Ruleset for other PMRs

Post by Sainbury »

Here's a tidbit I picked out of Tom's interview with Time Monk Radio 6-22-12


Question: Tom, in your New York MBT master seminar YouTube video, you indicated that our Physical Matter Reality must be homogeneous and isotropic for our ruleset to work – physics, calculus, and etcetera. Have you, in your experiences, transitioned to other PMRs beyond the commonly experienced one, (that the vast majority of humans understand and know) where the rulesets are constrained differently?

Tom: Yes, I have explored dozens of different reality frames. All the realities are virtual realities including our physical reality is a virtual reality. And virtual realities typically have different outcomes. They’re not just the same as this, but that difference has more to do with evolution than it does with rulesets. And I’ll explain that. Rulesets don’t seem to vary very dramatically. And the reason for that is we have this virtual reality. You can think of a virtual reality as a computer simulation. To be stable, to have a stable outcome in this simulation requires a ruleset to be a certain way. And in physics what they talk about is that there is a dozen or so Constants that if any of them changed by even a half a percent, the world would become unstable. Things wouldn’t work. It wouldn’t end up in this stable universe. So that’s kind of the constraint on producing a virtual reality that has a tight enough ruleset to call it physical reality.

Your dreaming reality is also a virtual reality but it doesn’t have a tight ruleset. So we don’t call that a physical reality. And it has a much more open ruleset. So in your dreams you can fly. You can teleport. You can do all sorts of things in your dreams that you can’t do here. Because those are allowed in the dream reality ruleset, but not allowed in this physical reality ruleset. So those virtual realities that have more constrained rulesets we call them physical realities; although they’re really not any different fundamentally than any reality. All realities are virtual. Consciousness is the only thing that is fundamental. All other experiential realities, (that means a reality in which you can have experiences) are all virtual.
So, to get a virtual reality that makes sense, that doesn’t fly apart, that doesn’t eventually disintegrate, you have to have rules that converge to a stable situation, to a stable simulation, a stable game. Now it doesn’t have to be stable forever. But it has to be stable long enough that it makes a good classroom – a good learning lab. Like this universe we’re in isn’t going to be stable forever. Our ruleset says that if we wait long enough there won’t be anything in this universe except a homogeneous hydrogen gas. Because the second law of thermodynamics talks about how entropy in this virtual reality must in any event be equal to zero or increase. In other words the energy of the universe has to wind down just like a spring. It’s like friction eventually eats away the energy. It is the same reason we can’t have a machine that runs on the energy that it creates. That sort of thing is just not allowed. There’s always something that drains energy out of the system.

To get a reality that is stable long enough takes very precise set of rules that work together in a way to produce this thing, and they don’t vary a whole lot. So, I’ve been in a lot of different physical realities. Most of them have rulesets that are similar. Some are a little different. But I’d say they’re not dramatically different. They’re different in the details. But now look at the evolution. Evolution has a pretty good amount of randomness in it. The choices that one has in evolving are many. It could have evolved this way, or it could have evolved that way. That fish could have grown legs and walked out on land because there was more food on land. It could have done it this way, or it could have done it that way. We might have skipped whole sets of critters that we have now just because of random things. The way the ruleset created the environment, the heat, the atmosphere, all the stuff that has a lot of randomness in it, created what we’ve got here.

You take another system or even take this system if you could start it over. Let’s go back to five hundred million years ago or something to where we hadn’t crawled out of the sea yet. Then what would have evolved might be different if you just started that over and let it go again. Just the statistics of it might produce a different result. It wouldn’t have to be the same result we have. This thing happened because of the last thing that happened, which happened because of the last thing, and if any of that had changed the whole chain would have been different.

So yes, we have different kind of beings with different kinds of physical arrangements. But that is evolution which is sometimes dramatically different from place to place. The degree to which consciousness has evolved in these places can be dramatically different from place to place, but the fundamental ruleset is generally not that different.
Post Reply

Return to “Cosmology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest