What I wrote above is consistent with the Model on the Wiki, in my opinion. As you say, read and think. What Tom says in a lecture or seminar cannot be at as deep a level and with as much detail as is written on the Wiki.

Ted

Ted,

Not to split hairs, but my question was in reference to the period BEFORE the pre-Cambrian.
According to the MBT model that time period would not have been rendered?
In which case, if it is not yet part of the actualized data base, then it must exist as a probability, and only rendered as necessary to IUOC's as we/they become aware of it?
Which leads to the paradoxical conclusion that the past is not the past in this case, but the future?

Dave

_________________
The secret of dreams is that subject and object are the same, but you had to give names to everything, and make logos for bad ideas, and because of that you will have to learn to touch what you make.

Sorry Ted, but you go out on a limb here. It's basically true but on QUANTUM level. Quantum particles exists only as probabilities until measured / observed, then wave-function collapses and particle is "created" (reality snapshot taken / database actualized). Please everybody, don't think that trees really don't make sound when there is no observer, it's just a metaphor, and not a very good one. There is certainly a sound, vibrations transmitted by air molecules, but these molecules (well, particles that make these molecules) do exists, travel and interact with other particles only as wave-functions until measured / observed. I have big goosebumps whenever I see such deliberate use of exists / do not exists in attempts to explain quantum physics. That something exists as probability function doesn't mean it doesn't really (at all) exists. It only means that exact value (position, velocity, spin etc) is not determined until measured / observed. If I should dare to make a layman metaphor, it would be for example that when you are approached by bus that will eventually hit you and nobody including you is watching it, then it doesn't mean you'll not get hit by bus or that bus doesn't really exists until you're hit / someone sees it. It means that exact form of bus (snapshot at particle level) hitting you is taken / determined at the moment it hits you (measurement is performed). It's more precise but still would cause goosebumps.

What MBT is saying is that all PMR exists as wave-functions (probability distributions), and that exact experience is determined only at the moment of experience (conscious observer takes a measurement). Tom never said that things do not exists, but that how we perceive them is determined only at the moment when we perceive them. That experience is created for us at the moment it really happens, util then all exists only as probability distributions, and don't have "stable" form on its own, independent to conscious observer.

I am amazed at the answers all of you have given regarding time !

What a bunch of intelligent people !

All the answers are extremely useful, whether they are right or wrong.

On my side I would say that without consciousness nothing exists

In our so called physical reality the fact that one act follows another proves that time

exists. In consciousness all is simultaneous. If one event would follow another, then time

would also exist in consciousness.

A particle is a wave function when we don´t measure, we don´t observe, we don´t get the information

We don´t get the information? PMR doesn´t exist
We get the information? PMR is created.

Do events in a PMR necessarily require a PMR-incarnated IUOC to be "rendered?" If PMR is a subset of NPMR, and NPMR consists of entities invested in the development of a viable PMR, then it stands to reason that the formation of the universe could well have been rendered to NPMR IUOCs. So records about what happened therefore "exist" as more than just probability, if the LCS is interested in maintaining consistency between NPMR and PMR IUOCs. If not, then the question is moot.

And perhaps a PMR of our sort--which enables the evolution of consciousness via the "inhabitation" of biological critters by IUOCs--is the result of a "long" scientific process from NPMR, that is then likely replicated in other PMRs. In other words, perhaps there is a "boilerplate" evolution of stable PMR universes, which has evolved over an unfathomably long and complex period of experimentation, and serves as a non-physical reference for PMR scientists discovering the origins of their universes. So the evolution of a "universe" would most likely be the same across PMR VRs and across NPMRs outside of OS.

Then, the question is, does this same boilerplate exist for the evolution of planets? Probably, but with some local variation based on the process of evolution within the PMR in question.

Ted's fossil example raises a question. Which would be more economical for the LCS:

1. To keep records of all actual events, saved and preserved as a set of bits in a database. In this case, a discovered fossil was a living creature, and the PMR discoverer has merely accessed those bits
2. To maintain the whole history of PMR as a probably events to be rendered on the fly. In this case, there was a living creature(s) that had the body of the discovered fossil, and it is merely an instance of one of those creatures

_________________
Everything is simpler than we can imagine, at the same time more complex and intertwined than can be comprehended--Goethe, Maxims & Reflections

I wonder why Tom doesn´t participate in this forum, being he the author of the theory.
Many many of the questions asked here remain without answers.

Please do NOT put an equation between existence and determination, it's NOT the same thing. Fact that unobserved rock exists as wave-function doesn't mean it doesn't exists at all. Just the use of phrase "exists as" should tell you that. Also it's NOT created, it just means that its properties are determined for the observer at the moment of observation, i.e. how you exactly see PMR is personalized.

In layman words, when you take a photograph (take measurement) of a house, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exists and is magically created at the moment you make a photo. It means that how it exactly looks like is determined at that moment for that exact photograph only (it's personalized). Other photographer that will take the same picture of house independently will get his own independent version of picture that may be different but is consistent with older ones according to rule set of PMR. For example, if rule set would forbid the variation in shape but allow variation of colors, then your and mine photographs of the same house would show exactly the same house structure, but our houses could have different colors.

MBT says that PMR rule set could be violated from higher level of reality in accordance with Psi Uncertainty Principle. In context of house photograph example it means that you and me can take photographs that will show different house structure although rule set forbids that if someone would manipulate the data stream from higher level, but that amount of energy needed to perform such manipulation is proportional to uncertainty level for observers that this violation ever happened. I.e. the energy cost is lower if you'll not see my photograph first (so you would find out the violation) than when you see it. The reason is to keep consistency of PMR appearance (experience) for particular observer(s). In political words, it's violation of rules governed by plausible denialability of such action. The more observers of your violation is there, then harder is to do it and get away with it.

MaxQ,

I like your persepective regarding the wave/particle question, but in the Calgary lecture series I believe Tom is on record as stating that the "probability wave" does not mean a particle is out there somewhere and we just don't know where it is.
If memory serves, he flat out says there is no particle.
FWIW....

And regarding the tree metaphor I have to disagree - it seems evident to me that the sound we hear is a phenomenon created by our ears translating wave signals to our brain which we then experience as sound. I fail to see how the actual waves created by the falling tree qualify as sound.

Dave

_________________
The secret of dreams is that subject and object are the same, but you had to give names to everything, and make logos for bad ideas, and because of that you will have to learn to touch what you make.

Well, it's nice example that language matters a lot when you're trying to comprehend mind bending concepts :-) "no particle" and "no particle" could be different "no particles" :-)

Try this approach to grasp what means "there is no particle": If you'll picture particles as marbles that have independent objective existence as marbles because whenever you see particle you see a marble, then true reality is that there are in fact no marbles that have independent objective existence as marbles. Instead particles are conceptual constructs, something like "signposts" with big letters saying "here is a particle that will look like marble whenever you'll look at me" behaving in a way that (surprise surprise) whenever you will look at this signpost, you'll not see a signpost but marble :-) So there are no marbles / particles, just carriers of experience of marbles (so to speak), but these carriers (conceptual constructs) have independent objective existence. Additional thing is that these carriers are probabilistic - i.e. they deliver experience of various marbles within range of specified parameters (formulated by system rule set), and exact value of these parameters is determined only when experience (measurement) actually happens, and these values are consistent (in rule set boundaries) with previous measurements (see quantum entanglement for example). So it's NOT true that particle is created when you look at it, it just means that his properties are determined at that moment. If you must, then think about that process as computation rather than creation.
Well, you just muddied the waters :-) Sound is a word we use for two things: in subjective sense - experience / sensation we have when waves hit our acoustic sensory input and get translated (phrase "I hear sound") or in objective sense to refer to these waves out there that if would hit our acoustic sensory input would be perceived as sound (phrase "sound travels faster in water than in air").

MaxQ,

*IF* I understand you correctly, we are the creators (or co-creators?) of the conceptual constructs (or thought forms) that you say are the "carriers of experience", and these carriers of experience are probabilistic in terms of their particle nature, and simultaneously have independent, objective existence in terms of their marble nature?

Am I the only one getting a headache here? [:~)

Dave

_________________
The secret of dreams is that subject and object are the same, but you had to give names to everything, and make logos for bad ideas, and because of that you will have to learn to touch what you make.

My computer access time is limited now so I am not going to attempt to respond to every one of the comments after my last post.

Tom does look at the board and occasionally posts as he sees it desirable. In addition, I flag some things to Tom for his attention and suggest that he might wish to comment. Sometimes he does so. Tom basically put me in charge of the Bulletin Board and the Wiki to answer the questions and do the writing that he otherwise would, allowing him to do all of the other things which he is involved in. He did this after some substantial period of training me for the job and following my work more closely previously.

Quantum Mechanics is gradually working up the scale from sub atomic particles on up to still very small particles like a 'Bucky Ball' made of carbon atoms, demonstrating that they are probability functions until 'observed' when they display what science describes as particles, based upon observations of interactions. Tom in his MBT theory takes this further in describing all of reality as such a probability function, actually many probability waves describing multiple 'fractal' levels of PMR reality. In order to generate the data stream which provides the experience of being 'in' a VR to a given IUOC, those particular fractal levels of PMR of which a given IUOC can be aware of and to the degree to which they can be aware of are individually and selectively combined to create the data stream to each given participating IUOC. If a given fractal level is not within the capabilities of perception of a given IUOC under the PMR rule set, it is not included within the mix used to create their PMR experience. Tom has long posts available describing the nature of VRs. They are here on the board and converted into lectures which are on the Wiki. Tom originally created them by combining posts direct from the board. I then converted them more 'smoothly' into lectures by depersonalizing them in the final form in which they are posted on the Wiki. All have been reviewed by Tom.

The model is not that PMR is hosted from NPMR. It is rather that any given PMR is 'associated' with one or more NPMRs which involve the same IUOCs within each class of VRs. There are very many of each class and they are grouped into 'systems' with Tom referring to this one where we 'live' as Our System or OS. Any PMR or NPMR is theoretically possible to be 'accessed' or experienced by any given IUOC. There are practical limitations to this however resulting from 'data transmission paths' which keep the IUOCs that create a given system as they form together an instance of The Big Computer matching the group of IUOCs which participate within those VRs.

So NPMR does not create PMR but rather NPMR and PMR are created from the LCS as groups of IUOCs first compute the probability distributions, delta t by delta t and then compute the data stream to send to each participating IUOC within the VR. Those in NPMR are the guides, when functional and responsible enough, for those in PMR but they do not control PMR from NPMR. The same IUOCs that create the VRs then experience those VRs, with no memory between these functions. This is not a rigid structure as all of these relationships are just IUOCs sending and receiving messages, interacting, over the RWW. That is all that AUM is: All IUOCs interacting in Union over the RWW and by that interaction they become AUM. Tom does not attempt to go into all of this in his videos and appearances but he is fully aware of this description and has no problem or disagreement with it.

Ted

dave,
Here is a bigger picture to explain it in wider context:

1) PMR was evolved. If you would take the Big Bang as starting point, then at the beginning there was a rule set and initial parameters (energy or information seed if you like). This initial information seed / parameters interacted and evolved under given rule set constraints as probabilities. You know, rule set allows certain variations in interaction outcomes, so instead picking one from possible outcomes at each delta t and rolling forward from chosen state, probabilities were combined to create more complex probability functions. That's roughly a mechanism how you can evolve your way up from probable particles to probable stars and probable solar systems etc. (models of those with some uncertainty level in exact values of their parameters at all levels). So far all real and stable in concept but "fuzzy" in exact details. It's possible but not necessary that this evolution experiment was tampered with, i.e. when too much uncertainty built in the systems, there was some narrowing down steps (choosing the best possible state and continue from it). I don't know.

You may picture the PMR VR as field of mutually influencing probability functions formed from information (consciousness) fractal. Or if you're familiar with software, picture it as formed from Lisp code (in this programming language data and code are the same thing) so you compute on code (mathematic formulas) that will produce result when fed with data (past records from actualized reality database) send then to rendering streams. This code forms a fractal structure, so you can slice it at any level of detail you need for computation (that way you can merge / interact higher level structures without computing all lower level details in the process and not loosing the low details at the same time in case you'd need it later).

2) When things evolved to enough complexity to allow first consciousness to join PMR (support them), each such consciousness at the moment it joins PMR gets it's own data stream that renders the PMR "fuzzy" model into exact coherent experience of PMR (values for properties of perceived parts of PMR reality are determined as they are rendered). This rendering require measurement at level of detail determined by constrained observer's awareness - for example we don't see electromagnetic fields, so these properties are not determined when we see things unless you use some device that would translate that for your senses. This value determination constraints the level of uncertainty (fuzziness) for future measurements. So next rendering measurement could be different from previous one only within limits that rule set allows to develop. For example picture next analogy: if you look at the house and it has red roof, and you would look at it again minute later it would have most likely still red roof because under working rule set only small level of uncertainty was added over that time (decay, rain and other fuzzy things that may influenced it), but if you'd look at it after a year, it may or may not have roof of different color as red pigments could be washed off by rain and sun rays for example. It may develop uncertainty in these values (get some fuzziness again) that would be narrowed down by next measurement and everything starts again.

3) We all have our own personal PMR rendering streams, so our personal experiences of PMR (exact values computed from probability functions) may differ, even greatly at times but always within limits given by PMR rule set. Our personal rendering data stream may influence each other (narrow uncertainty to other) if they share some aspects. For example if I see the house and you see the house at the same time and we will talk about it (share experience), our experiences must be coherent (for example if rule set allows noticeable difference when each of us will get values from opposite sides of probability curve, it would create disturbing discrepancy to our experience when shared) or plausibly deniable (see Psi Uncertainty Principle and system cheating). But when our experiences doesn't overlap in any way, system doesn't care whether they are consistent to each other, they must be each consistent only to PMR rule set.

MaxQ,

The Cellular Automaton is a better model for the LCS than the Lisp programming language. It matches the concept of reality cells, not just the concept of process code and data being the same that you use based upon Lisp. I have had a slight interest in Lisp in the past but have never used it. The LCS and our IUOCs within them do amount to self modifying code as you describe for Lisp.

Ted

MaxQ

"Fact that unobserved rock exists as wave-function doesn't mean it doesn't exists at all. "

What I meant was that if we don´t get the information, PMR doesn´t exist
but the wave function does exist in NPMR