Return Home
It is currently Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:55 am

All times are UTC-06:00


Forum rules


Do not make an initial post to start a new thread on this forum once you advance beyond the beginner level of posts. This forum is an experiment with the purpose of encouraging the participation of those who have so far only hung out in the background and looked over the bulletin board. It is intended to be a place where things are orderly for beginners without the free interaction of the main board. Post only with care for the recognition that we are welcoming a new member and not arguing with a fellow old timer. Your cooperation is appreciated.



Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:04 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:38 am
Posts: 6
I bet you didn't know there have been less than 10^18 of our tiny little seconds that have tick-tocked away since the Big Bang formed our universe. In case you were wondering, those 10^18 seconds would consume only about 10^62 PMR DELTA-t time-quanta (recall that one DELTA-t = 10^-44 s). [...]
Is it surprising that a ten n-n-n-n-ns long DELTA-t time increment (about 10^-44 s) could be small enough to make our gigantic PMR nanoseconds seem absolutely continuous and that the number of them that has ticked away (for much longer than our universe has been forming) remains a relatively tiny number compared to infinity?

(My Big T.O.E.; T. Campbell; Book 1, Section 2, Chapter 33, Pages 280-281)


Hi everyone!

I'm slightly confused about what the part in bold in the above excerpt should mean exactly.

All action (natural environmental dynamics and the choices representing the free will choices of the players) takes place in the present moment (one increment of PMR simulation time – DELTA-t).
(http://wiki.my-big-toe.com/An_Orientati ... _Realities)

From this one it follows, I would assume, that DELTA-t is one increment of PMR simulation time, hence, in my book, they could only have started tick-tocking away right when the Bing Bang banged, as it were. But 'for much longer than our universe has been forming' seems to suggest something different.

Would you be so kind as to explain it to me?

Thanks.

(My apologies if I'm posting it in the wrong place.)


Top
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:53 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
You are posting in exactly the right place. I'm not entirely clear on what you are asking, but I will try to give you an overview that might cover what you want to get clear about.

As a Virtual Reality, PMR is simulated within the LCS or Larger Consciousness System. The simulation is created by The Big Computer or TBC which is made up by the IUOCs that make up Our System, OS, as one of the fractal subdivided Systems into which the LCS is divided. These IUOCs are each in effect a digital computer that does a share of all of the work that must be done within the LCS. They are like the neurons in the brain of AUM, interconnected by the RWW which takes the place of the axons and dendrites that interconnect the neurons of PMR brains in the VR. They also function as the digital minds of each of us as avatars within PMR. They do what our brains and nervous systems are thought to do by PMR science and medicine.

So the LCS and TBC function on a time frame minimal delta t which is the same and within which time frame our PMR VR is simulated. Within the VR simulation there is another minimum delta t which makes up the shortest time increment within PMR. Divide this by the size of the delta t for the LCS and you get the average number of LCS time increments needed to calculate one PMR delta t and produce the VR simulation. Our IUOCs are the 'building blocks' which do all of the work within the LCS. They do this by time sharing, jumping between one task and another, from being a part of AUM to being a part of TBC to being an avatar within NPMR to being an avatar (you here and now) within PMR.

Is this more clear now, or am I not understanding your question? I did not find that question to be really clear.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:49 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:38 am
Posts: 6
Thank you Ted for your time and effort!

I have to admit that I am not fully conversant with all the concepts and intricacies of MBT, so please forgive my inadvertently and ostensibly careless use of some terminology and conceptions I might not be as familiar with as I'd like to be.

Let's see if we're on the same page regarding how we interpret this sentence in question:

Is it surprising that a ten n-n-n-n-ns long DELTA-t time increment (about 10^-44 s) could be small enough to make our gigantic PMR nanoseconds seem absolutely continuous and that the number of them that has ticked away (for much longer than our universe has been forming) remains a relatively tiny number compared to infinity?


'The number of them' must be referring back to 'DELTA-t time increment (about 10^-44 s)', as far as I am concerned. If it is so and you happen to agree with it, then the number of them that has ticked away since the Big Bang formed our universe is about 10^62 PMR DELTA-t time-quanta.

Now, if 'DELTA-t time increment (about 10^-44 s)' refers, as you pointed out, to the shortest time increment within PMR, we can apparently only start calculating the number of these shortest time increments beginning from the Big Bang (and so we've got 10^62 PMR DELTA-t time-quanta).

"[...] that the number of them that has ticked away (for much longer than our universe has been forming)" -- this bit seems to imply that the the shortest time increments within PMR (i.e. DELTA-t time increment (about 10^-44 s) / PMR DELTA-t time-quanta) had been somehow tick-tocking even before, if 'before' is the right word, the Big Bang (or that we wouldn't use for some reason a time frame minimal DELTA-t to describe how the LCS functions, but would employ our PMR DELTA-t time-quanta for this puprose).

Where am I lacking in my understanding of what this particular sentence conveys?

Thanks.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 6:02 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
I really need to know where the quoted sentences come from to understand the context. I need more context to understand what Tom was trying to say. I don't know what Tom said versus what you are saying. I particularly don't know what you are trying to say with this:
Quote:
the number of them that has ticked away (for much longer than our universe has been forming)
Quote:
Is it surprising that a ten n-n-n-n-ns long DELTA-t time increment (about 10^-44 s) could be small enough to make our gigantic PMR nanoseconds seem absolutely continuous
You need context here. Just 60 frames per second makes movies and television seem continuous and the Europeans get by with on 50 frames per second as I understand. For other purposes, you need more frames per second and still more in some contexts.

This is not clear enough to me to answer other than as I did.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 6:18 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:38 am
Posts: 6
Quote:
I really need to know where the quoted sentences come from to understand the context.
Thank you Ted!

I did provide some links to the sources of the quoted sentences in my first post.

Thanks.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 11:53 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
My apologies for not noting and following out those links at first.

I'm afraid that after looking at the sources, I still must answer you in general. I don't think that there is meaning beyond the specific meaning of the words except in general as follows. One of the points that Tom makes frequently is that the use of infinity in religion and new age thinking is not realistic and does not describe real things. He points out that infinity is a concept from pure mathematics, not a property of Reality. Reading that chapter referred to follows in this vein specifically in several places and Tom talks about AUM and these VRs as being real and finite. There are many references in this vein within those links. He is not presenting specific new information here to be understood but referring to this concept of the LCS as finite and real, not infinite in either time or extent and unreal. This is my understanding and I think that you will see this as a reasonable interpretation if you reread that chapter with this approach in mind.

Many people in the past have had difficulty with concepts that Tom presents when they attempt to make specific sense or additional meaning out of particular phrases without putting them into the general context of the chapter or perhaps a smaller context within a chapter from which they come.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:28 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:38 am
Posts: 6
Thank you Ted!


Top
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:51 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:33 am
Posts: 191
Location: Denmark
Quote:
I really need to know where the quoted sentences come from to understand the context. I need more context to understand what Tom was trying to say. I don't know what Tom said versus what you are saying. I particularly don't know what you are trying to say with this:
Quote:
the number of them that has ticked away (for much longer than our universe has been forming)
Quote:
Is it surprising that a ten n-n-n-n-ns long DELTA-t time increment (about 10^-44 s) could be small enough to make our gigantic PMR nanoseconds seem absolutely continuous
You need context here. Just 60 frames per second makes movies and television seem continuous and the Europeans get by with on 50 frames per second as I understand. For other purposes, you need more frames per second and still more in some contexts.

This is not clear enough to me to answer other than as I did.

Ted
Films are captured at only 24 frames per second. A few in 48. US television uses 60i. (NTSC television) EU uses 50i (PAL). None of those standards are used in modern screens as far as I know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

The human eye can distinguish between screens as high as 120-140 frames per second.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhSHeYT2U70


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 8 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

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