Return Home
It is currently Fri Aug 07, 2020 6:51 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous 13 4 5 6 7 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:07 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 2088
Quote:
Lena: You made me think. May be convince is not the best word. Let's say try to explain, instead of trying to convince. I will agree explain is better than convince. For the ones that reject them for no reason, we can try to make it more robust so that they can take it more seriously.

You convinced me to use a better word: "explain".

You see we can learn from anybody.

Clau
Claudio,

If I may I would go with 'talk' and 'tell' about MBT, or share my feelings and view on a concept of MBT. 'Explain' (for me) would mean that I have some knowledge and quite big awareness of subject, which I have not.

Definitely we can learn from each other, if it is our free will to do so. Let me guess, it was not very difficult for me to 'convince' you, wasn't it? ;) You were ready for a better word, better rendering of your thoughts, and I just happened to be here and have shared my experience and thoughts with you.

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:56 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
Location: Miami, FL
Lena: Totally agree with you. What happens is that MBT requires time to be comprehended, so usually requires explaining.

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:11 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Neil: I don't see any reason for PMR to require quantum mechanics in order to be a profitable VR trainer

Tom: QM is a result, a logical consequence of a virtual reality consciousness trainer, not a fundamental enabler. Such a trainer requires the ability to assess probable consequences. In the MBT model of reality, the mechanics by which that happens - a probable future database progressing to actualized and unactualized history databases by the application of free will intent operating in the present moment - defines the process that leads to PMR time and causality. QM simply expresses how the VR works; it is not in any way responsible for making it work that way.

Neil: It looks like book 1 chapter 31 covers relativity, book 2 chapter 31 covers how to derive PMR physics and book 2 chapter 37 covers quantum mechanics. Is that where this is covered?

Tom: MBT (the books) were written to share the significance that MBT (the theory) has to the everyday existence of the players engaged in this consciousness evolution VR trainer. You will be disappointed in MBT if you are looking for a dissertation on relativity and QM. You will find the fundamental concepts that lead to a derivation of both QM and relativity in MBT, but they will not be spelled out as such with a drum roll to attract attention. I dealt a little more explicitly with these issues in the just completed Toronto workshop (since some physicists were in attendance) and occasionally they come up for discussion in the forum. MBT is focused more as "news you can use" than "science breakthrough" because this reaches, and is more pertinent and valuable to more people. The Toronto workshop will be available on DVD in a few months. The next edition of the books will have a few paragraphs added to make the logical necessity of "c" (the speed of light) being invariant clearer - just as there are a few paragraphs scattered about now pointing to the logical necessity of particles as probability distributions. There is no one or two places where all the "science information" is discussed. For example, it is not until half way through Book 3 that the core concept of the future probable reality data base is examined.

The above accurately state the facts, however, to help you understand more fully why it is as it is, there is a bit of history that needs to be explained. Because my focus was on sharing the results of my research on the nature of the larger reality, I did not fully realize that I could logically derive QM and relativity theory from the same logical model that described consciousness until after the books were published. It was all there in MBT, just as obvious and clear as it could be (c was stated to be a constant in book 1 and existence was stated to be constructed as probability distributions before being brought into PMR experience by free will intent expressed in the present moment in books 2 and 3). However, not until Ted wrote his treatise on the VRRE did it occur to me that I had actually already derived QM. A year later, It came to me that the one fact that launched relativity was c being constant -- a fact that I had already derived years earlier from the nature of virtual reality - Bingo! the same logical model that derived consciousness, QM, and the nature of reality also clearly derived relativity as well. All along, I was well aware that an accurate description of the larger reality would necessarily lead to a more fundamental understanding of PMR but I failed to notice that the logical consequences of my model fully derived QM and relativity and laid them at my feet without me even noticing until Ted inadvertently gave me a nudge (I use the word "derived" as described in my last post). In the second printing, I added a short paragraph pointing out the QM derivation and in the next printing (sometime in the future) I will add another paragraph that describes (in a little more detail than is already there) why c must be invariant within my VR model.

Neil: It's not how well it supports current scientific beliefs but rather how well it supports current scientific results. The easiest path to that is to base your work on current scientific belief.
To do otherwise requires a huge amount of work. More than one person can do, in my opinion.

Tom: You are absolutely right on all four counts. Some comments:
1) It is often very difficult for scientists to differentiate scientific results from scientific beliefs. Beliefs, whether religious or scientific, appear to be beyond question.
2) A big TOE must not only support objective scientific results but also explain subjective experience, point and purpose, meaning and significance, from a bigger perspective that resonates true with individual experience and the gathered wisdom from the lessons of life.
3) Indeed it is the easy and only safe career path to rummage about in the corners of the status quo of scientific belief - anything else is a career killer within academia. But also note that breakthrough belongs to the young who have not yet been captured by the status quo and those on the fringe (e.g., Schrodinger, who proposed probability waves, was a graduate student and Einstein wasn't much older). The center provides little other than infrastructure and resistance (thus stability) to the process of breakthrough.
4) No doubt, to change cultural/scientific beliefs is very difficult and takes a very long time. Darwin published his theory in 1850 and 150 years later it is still a very controversial idea. True believers are a tough group to change no matter what the particular beliefs are that they cling to.
5) Yes, More than one person can do. However, every year there are more scientists realizing that an assumption of virtual reality explains scientific results better than an assumption of objective reality. Brian Whitworth's two papers demonstrating this fact (the link to the latest referenced above) is just the most recent (look at the length of his bibliography). There are many people pulling on this oar and the numbers are steadily growing because facts are more convincing than dogma - especially to the young.

Neil: I think the best approach is to publish in a reputable scientific journal. That way, you can raise the interest of the scientific community and get more people to help you. I also think you'll be more successful at reaching the populace. Once MBT becomes established science it'll be all over the news.

Tom: I am not an academic physicist - I am an applied physicist generating what is called "physics models" of complex systems in order to assess potential risk to NASA missions and to the lives of astronauts. I am perfectly happy letting Fredkin, Whitworth, and others bang their heads against that particular wall. They are making progress from inside the physics and applied math academic establishment - much more effectively than I could do as an outsider. My Big TOE theory is much more general and describes a much bigger picture than they can describe within the confines of their academic culture. My Big TOE is immediately useful to thousands of people - life changing in very positive ways to many. It is my goal to be useful to others - I have no interest in proving anything - I prefer to let the facts of experience speak for themselves.

Tom C


Top
PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:30 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Goodness gracious thank you Tom, whewwww. What a weight off...
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:28 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:44 am
Posts: 155
Location: Bolton UK
Hi all,
post holiday in a very hot VR called France having managed to finish MBT. Best holiday reading ever!!
I was going to post a few points similar to Neil but was pleased to see Tom answered all the questions I had so well in his reply
As Bette says pheeww well done Tom and Ted and all those who helped put it together.

_________________
Andy Wright


Top
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:00 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:16 pm
Posts: 392
Tom said:
Quote:
I will add another paragraph that describes (in a little more detail than is already there) why c must be invariant within my VR model.
Andrew Thomas in replies to questions on his site ("Are We Living in the Matrix") http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_big_brother.asp says that in a simulated universe, the speed of light does not need to be constant because the computer can cause the brain and local clocks to slow down to allow rendering. The experiencer wouldn't realise that the slow down has occurred.

Does this make sense, Tom?


Top
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:26 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
vzam,

Pending Tom getting time to answer your question, my thought is that Andrew Thomas is looking at and stating this situation backwards. The experiencer of the VR would not notice a problem because there would be no problem within the VR simulation. The VR is designed with a fundamental or quantum delta t that is defined in the rule set to be fixed and therefore it is fixed. The speed of light within the VR and the minimal increment of time and space as in the quantum delta t and delta x are fixed for the reasons that Tom must explain. What Andrew Thomas is saying, or should be saying, is that if more basic reality frame cycles in Consciousness Space are required for some more complex VR rendering at certain times, this would be provided and effectively never show up or be apparent within the VR. The number of cycles of the basic reality cell substrate that is the basis for Consciousness Space does not have a fixed relationship to an individual delta t cycle time in the VR. The larger reality frame that generates the VR takes what ever time in terms of fundamental reality state cycles is required to generate the complexity of the VR. But the apparent time rate and space dimension, the minimal quantum increments, of the VR are constants as defined by the rule set of the VR so the speed of light is not manipulated. This is what is experienced within the VR, a constancy, while what is experienced in the greater reality containing and generating the VR is what varies. This is a simple and straightforward process while manipulating the fundamental delta t and delta x of the VR gets very messy when you don't want it to show up in the VR. Besides which, this is unnecessary.

In my past history long ago of modeling physical reality in a computerized model as a research project, it would take varying numbers of calculation cycles to have the model resolve to a sufficiently small incremental error. Depending upon the dynamics of the model, at times it would only take a single direct calculation to create a sufficiently precise description of the next state of the model at the next time increment of the VR. At other times as the dynamics became more extreme, it would require an iterative process and much more computer time to generate the next VR delta t to a sufficiently accurate state. But this did not change the delta t of the model, just the actual time within the larger system containing and calculating the model which in this case was the university's main frame computer running the simulation. We had 'real world' limitations that we had to meet such as available computer run time for running a simulation so I investigated possible alternative computational procedures such as decreasing the delta t of the model and changing the parameters of the model when iteration requirements got high, resulting in an optimum approach. In the case of the generation of VRs in TBC of Consciousness Space, the fundamental delta t of the VRs is so small that this is a relatively trivial problem but if it arises, then the way described seems to be the way to do the job. The system has the resources to do the job.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:01 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:16 pm
Posts: 392
Ted said:
Quote:
manipulating the fundamental delta t and delta x of the VR gets very messy when you don't want it to show up in the VR. Besides which, this is unnecessary.
Thank you, Ted for the work you put in on this. Intuitively, I agree with you. But I find it hard to get my head round it!


Top
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:56 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
vzam,

Sorry that I can't figure out an easy way to make it more understandable. I spent years, literally, figuring out these aspects of modeling a physical process described with partial differential equations and converting it to a discrete point model that could be efficiently calculated on a computer. Fortunately that gave me some insight on how it must be done for a VR by analogy.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:35 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Vzam,

There is clock time in the computer room where the computer resides that hosts the VR; and there is VR time within the VR --the VR advancing one time step every time the data is refreshed with another iteration of the time loop. To the characters in the VR, it makes no difference how much computer room clock time (CRCt) goes by for each Increment of VR time (VRt). One can have a million VRt time increments go by in one second of CRCt, or one can have a million CRCt seconds go by just to calculate one increment of VRt in the simulation. The characters in the VR wouldn't notice any difference -- they simply advance one time step each cycle and have no sense of the passage of CRCt. Each cycle through the time loop would seem to be identical to every other. For the VR inhabitants, time does not exist between VRt increments. Thus, though VRt increments (cycles) may be non uniform in duration from the perspective of CRCt, they appear as constant time increments in units of "number of cycles" from the perspective of VRt. Each pass through the time loop, or data refresh time, defines one unit of VRt called a quantum of VRt, which, from the perspective of the VR, is a constant increment of time.

To make it simpler, let's say this VR is a two dimensional world on a monitor screen (like most computer games). In this VR, the fastest that a one pixel dot can move across the screen with continuous (no hopping about is allowed) motion is 1 pixel every VRt increment. That is true no matter how much or how little CRCt goes by between each VRt increment. Thus in VR land, the maximum speed that information can travel is 1 pixel per VRt increment and that is always a constant in VR land however erratic the VRt increments seem to be from the perspective of CRCt. (This is perfectly analogous to how the speed of light must move at one quanta of PMR volume per PMR DELTA-t in a uniform, isotropic space-time so that we have an apparently continuous, functionally consistent space to have our PMR experience in.)

Now, imagine that the people in the computer room have certain tasks to perform to get the VR ready to implement each increment of VRt. They would need to have shorter time increments creating the passage of their CRCt (a smaller quantum of computer room time) than the VRt increment (VR quantum of time) so that they would have available CRCt cycles to get things done to get ready for the next VRt increment.

Do you now see why the speed of light, from a perspective within PMR, must be a constant? It matters not how time varies in CRCt or how the size of consecutive VRt increments may vary from the perspective of CRCt . Also the quanta of volume in the VR must be a constant or space would be inconsistent -- i.e., non - homogeneous and non-isotropic -- a violation of our rule set.

Then c = the speed of light = the cubed root of the constant PMR VR volume quantum divided by the PMR VR constant time quantum (each time the data gets refreshed (recalculated) counts as exactly one unit or quanta of VR time. C is a constant from the perspective of PMR because it is computed by dividing two quantities that are also constants from the perspective of PMR. C is a constant equal to the max information transfer rate of one volume quanta per calculation cycle.

Is this clear now?

Tom C


Top
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:49 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:16 pm
Posts: 392
Thank you for the full explanation, Tom. It's the perspective thing that confused me - as you show, from within PMR c seems constant. Andrew Thomas was talking from the CRCt perspective.

He suggested "jumping around" rendering on the screen might be allowed, and I thought he meant that we wouldn't necessarily notice the jumping around (cheating on the normal rules?) if the jumping could be veiled from us -the clocks could perhaps all be moved on and we'd never know we lost an hour. Not sure what the point would be though, except to bypass something unwanted. (This also brings to mind UFO alien abduction stories where time is lost; or people claiming that somehow they avoided an inevitable accident and found themselves still alive on the other side of the road or further down the highway a few moments later.)


Top
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:30 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Vzam,

The perception of space and time (the generation of our shared multiplayer PMR reality) provided by our rule-set is of a continuous, homogeneous, uniform isotropic time and space. This is required to produce consistency of experience so that action, interaction, and feedback are all tightly coupled and make rational sense within an apparent objective causality. To optimize learning potential requires consistency. Consistency allows choices and their results to be causally connected. Exceptions (e.g., jumping around) are permitted but they are individual and purposeful (not random) as allowed by the psi uncertainty principle. Exceptions do not represent random system hiccups -- they are specific to one or a small group IUOCs -- and have little to no affect on the whole (on IUOCs in general or on the shared perception of a consistent causality based reality).

Tom C


Top
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:38 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
Location: Miami, FL
Quote:
Now, imagine that the people in the computer room have certain tasks to perform to get the VR ready to implement each increment of VRt. They would need to have shorter time increments creating the passage of their CRCt (a smaller quantum of computer room time) than the VRt increment (VR quantum of time) so that they would have available CRCt cycles to get things done to get ready for the next VRt increment.

Do you now see why the speed of light, from a perspective within PMR, must be a constant? It matters not how time varies in CRCt or how the size of consecutive VRt increments may vary from the perspective of CRCt . Also the quanta of volume in the VR must be a constant or space would be inconsistent -- i.e., non - homogeneous and non-isotropic -- a violation of our rule set.

Then c = the speed of light = the cubed root of the constant PMR VR volume quantum divided by the PMR VR constant time quantum (each time the data gets refreshed (recalculated) counts as exactly one unit or quanta of VR time. C is a constant from the perspective of PMR because it is computed by dividing two quantities that are also constants from the perspective of PMR. C is a constant equal to the max information transfer rate of one volume quanta per calculation cycle.


Hi Tom:

It appears to be that TBC chose a certain value of c for our PMR VR. By having c in our PMR the speed of light value we know can the speed of the VR be changed by just lowering the PMR delta t (VRt)? If this is done, then is this a way to speed up evolution for PMR players?

If VRt is not manipulated, are there more efficient PMRs that have a higher value of c, so that it can speed up the evolution of the players?


Thanks,

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:14 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Claudio,

Yes, the value of c was specifically chosen by TBC. When setting up a virtual reality, the very first, most fundamental thing that needs to be decided is what is the resolution of the rendering going to be and how often must the data describing the VR be refreshed. The first determines the amount of data that is required to generate the VR (the memory requirement), the second, how often that data must be updated (the throughput or computer speed requirement). The resolution is determined by specifying the size of a PMR quantum of volume [a 3D version of defining the number of pixels per square inch on a display screen (2D), or the number of dots per inch on a printer (1D)]. The refresh rate is determined by specifying the size of a PMR quantum of time (like defining the number of seconds consumed per computational cycle -- one over the CPU operational frequency -- required to process a particular problem within a given amount of time). As stated above, the size of a quantum of PMR volume and a quantum of PMR time must both be constant in order to produce a consistent reality frame suitable for optimal consciousness evolution. As stated earlier in words, c= [(volume quantum)^1/3]/time quantum.

Thus c, the speed of light in PMR, is a constant that is specified in order to constrain the demands placed upon the virtual reality rendering engine (VRRE) to something that is easily supportable by the available computational resources within the larger consciousness system.

Changing the size of a VRt increment (a larger or smaller amount of CRCt) matters only to those in the computer room. The people in the VR measure time by the number of cycles that have passed -- each completed cycle is one unit of their time and every unit appears to be the exact same -- one cycle equal one unit, or one increment, of VRt -- define that unit as a second or a nano-nano second or whatever. Time in the VR is produced by counting cycles. The length of those cycles as measured in the computer room has nothing to do with time in the VR. The amount of CRCt that passes during one increment of VRt is important only to those in the computer room (how much CRCt do they need to accomplish what is required of them between VR cycles).


Tom C


Top
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:44 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
Location: Miami, FL
Thank you for your answer Tom. As always, brilliant.

Let me see if I understood then. No matter what increments they use or constants they use it won't affect the speed of evolution of a VR (average entropy reduction)?

Do the ones in the computer room have any technological trick to use to speed up the evolution besides being creative in the development of the rule-sets?

Also. Can I send my resume to work in that computer room? I have programming experience but I am willing to start by just sweeping the floors and taking the garbage out :)


Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous 13 4 5 6 7 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited