Return Home
It is currently Mon Jun 24, 2024 1:26 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:42 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
In this just published paper Brian summarizes previous papers and answers readers comments. Brian's work and MBT are completely compatible and come to the same big picture conclusions regarding the nature of our local reality. Brian approaches the PMR VR from how the big Computer (TBC) models PMR while MBT approaches reality from the top down: describing the fundamental source as consciousness, then deriving the logical necessity of IUOCs and TBC, as well as deriving the logical consequences of both and defining our personal relationship to the whole. It is good to have Brian doing bottoms up digital processing analysis that produces a PMR which closely matches MBTs top down logical derivation.

http://brianwhitworth.com/VRConjecture.pdf

Tom


Top
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:27 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:32 pm
Posts: 1599
Location: Lincoln, NE
From the paper:
11 In physicalism, an object like a rock is not conscious. In this model it is the opposite, as everything has consciousness in it, including a rock. What distinguishes us from a rock is self-awareness, not consciousness.
This is in contradiction to MBT, as I understand MBT. Is my understanding incorrect ?


Top
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:39 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
I am presently reading the paper. I do not remember seeing that quotation. Can you reference it to the page? For the moment and lacking more complete information, I suspect that this refers to the origin of the computations that generate the VR being within CS as opposed to the nature of our individual consciousness. Everything within MBT arises from Consciousness as CS including our existence as IUOCs.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:21 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:30 pm
Posts: 1058
Location: New York City
I have not finished reading the essay (Ive only just begun) but I have always felt that since everything is composed of consciousness, and everything exists within consciousness "space" Then everything must BE consciousness. Everything is information (just data) The difference is decision space (and self awareness)

It (consciousness) is either everywhere or nowhere. Everything or no thing. In a reality composed OF consciousness, by consciousness, within consciousness, and FOR consciousness. There will be nothing BUT consciousness.
After all there is very little difference (chemically) between our "physical bodies" and a handfull of dirt (and rocks) from the backyard.
“Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson (head of the Hayden Planetarium)
The true nature of this reality has been correctly (but never completely) described by Newton and then Einstein . Physics works very differently at the "quantum" level (almost "mystically"). But you must remember that Einstein presented relativity nearly 100 years ago and he was still very much part of the old paradigm, and "small picture thinking".

At the Event Horizon of a black hole we see the contradictions (or the collision) between relativity and quantum mechanics. The world of the very large and powerful meets the world of the very small (and powerfull) where Relativity breaks down as does Newtonian physics. But that is when Quantum mechanics take over.

When you realize that our reality is more accurately described by, and more closely follows the patterns of, Quantum mechanics, there is a kind of "mystical experience". Where everything is just a probability distribution, and anything that exists (without measurement) is in a state of "superposition" being everything, everywhere, at all times. Where we are truly "the observer and the observed", and we are "the dreamer AND the dream"

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick


Top
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:25 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:32 pm
Posts: 1599
Location: Lincoln, NE
Ted Vollers wrote:I am presently reading the paper. I do not remember seeing that quotation. Can you reference it to the page? For the moment and lacking more complete information, I suspect that this refers to the origin of the computations that generate the VR being within CS as opposed to the nature of our individual consciousness. Everything within MBT arises from Consciousness as CS including our existence as IUOCs.

Ted
It's footnote 11 as indicated in my excerpt, which is from the 'Notes' on .pdf page 28, Journal page 1431. If I understand the .pdf's notation, is referring to this text, pg4 of the .pdf, page 1407 of the Journal's page number:
contain the player, who exists outside of it. This allows for an observer substrate10 as the ultimate existential context, i.e. consciousness could be what allows observation to occur. However this theory doesn't speculate on that, on what is behind the pixels. That a processing system can simulate itself to itself is subtle11 but not impossible. From our point of view, it is that there is indeed a real world around us - it just isn't the physical world we see.
Emphasis added.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:34 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Tom mentioned this is from a different direction and from how I took it not to get all niggling about it matching the direction Tom came at it unless that is just my wrong interpretation.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:49 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:32 pm
Posts: 1599
Location: Lincoln, NE
Brian also characterizes in the paper as a 'surprise that it holds up', as I roughly recall.

It was just a pattern matching discrepancy for me. As you note, Tom's comment pointing out Brian's work is from the ground up. I would expect some 'rough edges' on Brian's work compared to MBT, as a result.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:57 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:54 am
Posts: 421
It is surely exactly compatible with MBT - which maintains a distinction between conscious and self-aware entities. There are numerous discussions in threads here about this.

It is also consistent with the notion of any particle interaction collapsing the wave function, which some in the physicalist camp may have used in argument against the fundamentalism of consciousness.

I have been waiting for BW's next paper, and although this is a summary of previous ones, it is always good to read his stuff.

Arthur

_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."


Top
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:09 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:05 pm
Posts: 1243
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
RBM wrote:From the paper:
11 In physicalism, an object like a rock is not conscious. In this model it is the opposite, as everything has consciousness in it, including a rock. What distinguishes us from a rock is self-awareness, not consciousness.
This is in contradiction to MBT, as I understand MBT. Is my understanding incorrect ?
Not really a contradiction, just not very precise use of words. In MBT everything is consciousness but not has consciousness. This chapter talks about constructs of consciousness and the difference between that and "made of" consciousness. http://books.google.com/books?id=6To090 ... &q&f=false A rock is a construct of consciousness, but it is not sentient, self-aware or has free will. Do you see how it fits together now?

Haven't read the paper yet, I look forward to it :)


Top
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:23 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 2:02 pm
Posts: 6
Great paper, but a few things that bother me:
Nor is this solipsism, that the physical world is just a dream, which Dr Johnson is said to have refuted by stubbing his toe on a stone, saying "I disprove it thus."
Solipsism is not that easily refuted. I've kicked rocks in dreams. Wittgenstein laid out a more convincing case, but it still wasn't airtight. It may be impossible to refute. On a related note, assuming a VR model, how do you know this particular simulation is not a single-player game instead of multi-player? That would not necessarily be solipsism, since there may be conscious entities in a larger reality. It would more like a dream, or a personal training reality. Perhaps you are like a child being trained spiritually to prepare you for a greater reality. Maybe telepathy is the norm there, and ugly, chaotic thoughts would be a disruption to everyone.
In this model, consciousness is the ability to observe, to be an information destination (sink) or origin (source).
I find this inadequate, unless perhaps he refines his definition of "observe". There are many information destinations and origins in a computer, but I would not call any of them conscious. Consciousness is not something that can be observed objectivity, so where is the information going? It must something outside the observable universe, and therefore not physical as we know it.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:19 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:32 pm
Posts: 1599
Location: Lincoln, NE
S_S wrote:Not really a contradiction, just not very precise use of words. In MBT everything is consciousness but not has consciousness.
This was the distinction that interested me.

Thanks for the help to clarify, S_S.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:29 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
This seems like a reasonably good place to post this. After the results from CERN came out about the possible observation of neutrinos moving faster than light, I wrote to Brian Whitworth and asked if he might have any thoughts on how this could occur as he has done the most analysis in detail of how the PMR VR might be calculated that I am aware of. He was kind enough to consider making a reply and the following are his comments by e-mail. Our thanks to Brian for his consideration towards this group, the MBT bulletin board.

Hi Ted,

The finding is subject to replication, but one can speculate on what it means if proven.

In the VR conjecture, light moves at the grid refresh rate, of one node per local cycle, so as Einstein said, nothing should go faster than it. Light's speed isn't constant, as it slows down in "media" like water or glass, but it is always supposed to be a maximum. In this model, light slows down in glass as the grid must also processes the glass matter, i.e. the "medium" of light, and everything else, is always the grid. How then can anything move faster than one grid node per local processing cycle, i.e. the speed of light?

Recap: in this model, every quantum entity (photon, electron, neutrino or quark) is an entity program. Grid nodes copy any program they run to their neighbors, as quantum wave instances. If instances overload a grid node, it reboots, which can instantly restart the program at that point. This program restart point is a photon "hitting" a screen say, i.e. physical reality is a program restart. Matter arises when extreme photons entangle in a program infinite loop, i.e. a "standing wave" that repeatedly overloads and restarts in a node. If this is unclear, see this outline: The Virtual Reality Conjecture

The chapters on mass and movement are still incomplete, but here are some thoughts on the issue:

1. Neutrinos move in and out of another dimension. That is not an option for this model. Its extra dimension allows quantum vibrations on the "surface" of space, so physical events are confined to 3D space as water waves are to a lake surface, i.e. a neutrino can no more wink in and out of space than a lake wave can suddenly appear at a new point. Matter as a wave, not an object, is confined to the surface it vibrates upon, in this case, our 3D space.

2. A neutrino has less mass than a photon. In this model, matter occurs when grid processing "hangs" in a node, with its mass the non-zero repeating program size. A node of pure space runs a null processing cycle, which we see as no mass. A photon shares the same Planck process over the nodes of its wavelength, so has no rest mass. For leptons, the channels on one collision axis repeatedly overload. Electrons overload positive values, with a negative leftover "charge", and for neutrinos, positive and negative cancel to give almost no mass. Yet as even a tiny mass slows the grid compared to empty space, low mass can't make a neutrino go faster than light.

3. A neutrino has less charge. Just as any mass reduces speed, so any charge only makes entities go slower, not faster. Charge can slow an entity down, but cannot make it go faster than light.

4. The grid is asynchronous. In this model, grid nodes process equally but act autonomously, so like the Internet, no central control keeps synchrony. Light permeates the universe to synchronize the grid (see Chapter 2), but the process is not perfect. So when extreme photons collide to give a neutrino, this asynchrony gives a slight mass. The asynchrony of space could explain dark energy, as a non-zero processing delay is essentially energy, but asynchrony can only delay transfers - it can't explain faster than light speeds.

Let me now outline a possible explanation for faster than light neutrinos: In this model, light and matter move differently. Matter is a static wave, so needs a force to start it moving, while light is a moving wave, so needs a force to stop it moving. If light moves as a node-to-node transfer, how does matter move? Here it is by teleporting, as in our world, electrons can instantly appear beyond a Gaussian field they could not exist within. Current physics sees teleportation as an exception, but in this model, it is how all matter moves. Matter, as an entity program of entangled extreme photons, can restart each cycle at any node instance. This quantum "Brownian motion" follows its quantum probability distribution (Figure 1a). If it is symmetric, it is stationary, but if it is skewed (Figure 1b) it "moves" over time.

[attachment=1]BrianWhitworthImageclip_image002.gif[/attachment]
Figure 1a. A symmetric probability distribution has no average movement

[attachment=0]BrianWhitworthImageclip_image004.gif[/attachment]
1b. Asymmetric quantum probability distribution has an average movement

In physics, matter moves if acted on by a force. In this model, a force is a processing transfer that skews the entity program probability distribution, so its average position alters as it restarts each cycle. Gravity as processing differential then moves matter in the same way - by altering its processing distribution. Matter moves slower than light because its entity program must run to overload before a restart teleport occurs. The program size, which is the entity's mass, affects the delay.

To complicate things, leptons (electrons and neutrinos) are "matter-like" in their collision dimension but "light-like" in the two other dimensions of space. So electrons and neutrinos, like light, are always on the move. They move slower than light as they occasionally teleport on a collision axis at right angles to their movement direction. So while electrons collide in 3D space they never collide in a 2D atomic shell, i.e. in the two dimensions of an atomic orbit they can act like light not matter.

A neutrino is a lepton with almost no mass, so its node cycle rate on its collision dimension can get close to light, but while light moves by node-to-node program transfer, a neutrino moves by program restart, i.e. by teleporting each cycle. It may restart in the same node, but can teleport several nodes away, i.e. "travel" faster than light for a cycle, as in the Hartman effect, a particle's time to tunnel through a barrier doesn't depend on its thickness. So for a highly skewed probability distribution, as when accelerated continuously, the average restart distance per cycle could exceed one node. Normally this is offset by the mass processing delay, but a neutrino's mass is tiny. So a neutrino of low mass with a highly skewed quantum distribution could travel faster than light. The gains of instant teleportation could outweigh the delays of matter processing. This isn't a prediction, as the calculations are not done, but it is an option to explain faster than light travel.

If neutrinos travel faster than light, why don't they arrive from distant stellar events years before light does? In the CERN case, the neutrinos were continuously accelerated. A stellar nova event might skew some neutrino's to exceed the speed of light initially, but any interaction on the million year journey to Earth would cancel that. Only light, with its zero rest mass can sustain its speed over such large distances, as can neutrino's on their non-matter axes. The CERN experiment's sustained acceleration doesn't occur in space.

If confirmed, the CERN result challenges current physics theory, even though it already knows of faster than light effects, like quantum collapse, teleportation and the big bang's inflation. They don't help, as it can't explain these effects either. Current physics is founded on relativity's speed of light, quantum mechanics wave equation and the standard model's fundamental particles. Each theory set "works well" but they contradict each other! How can quantum waves instantly collapse over any distance if nothing is faster than light? How can electron and positrons collide to give photons if they are "fundamental" particles? How can a photon be a wave in quantum mechanics but a particle in the standard model? How can space curve, as general relativity says it does, without a dimension to curve into? These and other contradictions imply that relativity, quantum mechanics and the standard model are incomplete, i.e. something more basic must underlie them. In this model, quantum grid processing outputs light and matter and defines space and time by its architecture and operation.

I hope the above makes sense, as it is hard to explain. Of course it is just a possibility, but one that is worth considering along with the rest.

kind regards, Brian Whitworth
ps. again, check this link http://brianwhitworth.com/VRConjecture.pdf if the model is unclear.


Note by Ted: The link that Brian provided is the same as the link that Tom first posted in this thread to Brian's new paper.


Attachments:
BrianWhitworthImageclip_image004.gif
BrianWhitworthImageclip_image004.gif [ 505 Bytes | Viewed 5153 times ]
BrianWhitworthImageclip_image002.gif
BrianWhitworthImageclip_image002.gif [ 542 Bytes | Viewed 5153 times ]
Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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

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