Session 23 April 2022

Bluegazer

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
@christx11
@MJF
The 'added spatial reference' that "allows one to visualize outwardly and inwardly simultaneously." is the simultaneous sets of finitely factored and infinitely factored numbers.

A: No, yes it is not. There is a flaw in these theories, relating to prism. What does this tell you?

Q: (A) To prism?! Visual spectrum? I don't know what it tells me. I never came across any relation to prism. But, what is this 4th dimension? Is it an extra dimension beyond the three space dimensions, or is it a time dimension?

Reflection of light is also bouncing.


A team of Chinese researchers is developing technology that makes it possible to “see” objects hidden around corners even over long distances of as much as 1km. The technology uses laser beams that bounce off walls to map items around the corner of an obstacle. Source: Researchers at the University of Science and Technology of China


Another article:


The two methods are complementary: Time-of-flight gets you the room, the guy standing in that room, and maybe a hint of a badge. Speckle analysis reads the badge. Doing all that would require separate systems operating *two lasers at different wavelengths, to avoid interference.

*A: Visual spectrum.
 

MJF

Dagobah Resident
That’s a fascinating article thanks for sharing! I commented on it with a version of what I replied earlier here:

I’ve often wondered what it implies if we substitute consciousness for light in Einstein’s famous formula too. Consciousness involves what we want to attend to. Much like light, it’s directional. The source is our intention that then directs the act of observing this apple. It’s the same for light. If our apple was in a dark room, we could direct a torch light to illuminate it, see it and get more information about it.

So consciousness directs attention towards an object (matter) that abides in time and space. Time, space and matter together function like a medium for interactions to occur directed by consciousness. It provides us a way to exchange and generate information. As more information generates, it compounds, or increases in “mass”. So mass might be akin to the concentration of information held in this medium for consciousness to “play” within.

Consciousness would likely have a “bias” for richer information. That is, where and when there’s more quality and quantity of it. Well that’s what us humans seem to have a bias toward! That “bias” might be also be akin to gravity. In that - the strength of gravity is like the concentration and richness of information.

So if we substitute consciousness for light and the medium for consciousness as mass, what does it tell us? In other words, what’s the substitution for energy?

In our human terms, having a rewarding exchange of information is a good experience. When we have a good experience, we feel good. So our emotions are like an experience gauge. We feel good (positive) or bad (negative) depending on what we experience.

Emotions also provide us additional information moment to moment. We use that information to help us move away from bad experiences and towards better ones. The term e-motion indicates this too - energy in motion towards a direction. Emotions then are also like the energy that results from information generation and exchanges.

So the substitutes go like this: experience is a product of consciousness and the medium within which it plays within. I figured too that could inform a few survey questions to better gauge what people experience is with organisations for example or really anything.
I was rather struck by your ideas, particularly the section I have bolded above. One aspect of human consciousness is our imagination, which can inspire our works, both physical and artistic. I have been reading a lot of material on the Holy Grail in recent times and this includes the alchemists concept of the Philosopher's Stone. I found the following extract, see below, recently on the Philosopher's Stone, which is quite interesting in light of what you have said above - I have highlighted in bold those parts which I think resonate with what you have said about consciousness:​

Sometimes the alchemical philosopher’s stone is said to have fallen from the sky or is seen as a cube. In Hebrew Kabbalistic texts the Sephira Yesod is sometimes referred to as a cubic stone. Alchemists begin looking for the Stone of the Wise by finding the prima materia and transform it into the lapis philosophorum. Alchemists try to find the single root substance from which the entire universe is made. The prima materia is, in fact, imagination. The world is composed of living imaginations like the living nature of the grail.

Some philosophical alchemists believe that the holy stone is a metaphor for the process of enlightenment. When we obtain the Philosopher’s Stone, we achieve the tools of spiritual enlightenment and find what was lost when we fell from our original state of being. We regain who and what we truly are. Sometimes this state is symbolized by a stone, or crystal, pure water, blood, fire, or spiritual light. Restore the emerald to its crown and you restore humankind’s ability to see wisdom, love and beauty. Our fall from paradise was a darkening of our inherent imagination and the stone reopens our capacity for living imagination – living thoughts.

Imagination is omnipresent thought – a realm of imagistic mental images that is beyond time and space. Oscar Wilde describes it in these words: “…the imagination is itself the world of light. The world is made by it, and yet the world cannot understand it. That is because the imagination is a manifestation of love, and it is love and the capacity for it that distinguishes one human being from another.”

The prima materia is the same thing as the philosopher’s stone, but through the results of the expulsion from paradise we have lost the ability to see the innate substance of that “stone.” Polish the stone and restore it to its original, pristine condition and miraculously you can see the thoughts and imaginations that hold the world together.
 

Sol Logos

Dagobah Resident
I was rather struck by your ideas, particularly the section I have bolded above. One aspect of human consciousness is our imagination, which can inspire our works, both physical and artistic. I have been reading a lot of material on the Holy Grail in recent times and this includes the alchemists concept of the Philosopher's Stone. I found the following extract, see below, recently on the Philosopher's Stone, which is quite interesting in light of what you have said above - I have highlighted in bold those parts which I think resonate with what you have said about consciousness:​

Sometimes the alchemical philosopher’s stone is said to have fallen from the sky or is seen as a cube. In Hebrew Kabbalistic texts the Sephira Yesod is sometimes referred to as a cubic stone. Alchemists begin looking for the Stone of the Wise by finding the prima materia and transform it into the lapis philosophorum. Alchemists try to find the single root substance from which the entire universe is made. The prima materia is, in fact, imagination. The world is composed of living imaginations like the living nature of the grail.

Some philosophical alchemists believe that the holy stone is a metaphor for the process of enlightenment. When we obtain the Philosopher’s Stone, we achieve the tools of spiritual enlightenment and find what was lost when we fell from our original state of being. We regain who and what we truly are. Sometimes this state is symbolized by a stone, or crystal, pure water, blood, fire, or spiritual light. Restore the emerald to its crown and you restore humankind’s ability to see wisdom, love and beauty. Our fall from paradise was a darkening of our inherent imagination and the stone reopens our capacity for living imagination – living thoughts.

Imagination is omnipresent thought – a realm of imagistic mental images that is beyond time and space. Oscar Wilde describes it in these words: “…the imagination is itself the world of light. The world is made by it, and yet the world cannot understand it. That is because the imagination is a manifestation of love, and it is love and the capacity for it that distinguishes one human being from another.”

The prima materia is the same thing as the philosopher’s stone, but through the results of the expulsion from paradise we have lost the ability to see the innate substance of that “stone.” Polish the stone and restore it to its original, pristine condition and miraculously you can see the thoughts and imaginations that hold the world together.

What kind of life can imagine and dream? As far as I know a rock can’t, if we can say rocks are part of life even. Its closest to the higher complexity of biological life that can. If the analogy of life being like a computer simulation is close, then a lot of computational energy would need to be dedicated to making and maintaining a character in the simulation that can imagine or dream for themselves. Likely much more than a rock, perhaps even more than massive rocks that float around in in this simulated space, or stars even?

So might this be the same as saying life that can imagine and dream requires a higher concentration of consciousness? And if so, would such a quality of consciousness attract consciousness to it? For example the Cs from distant time and space? So perhaps the quality of consciousness that can imagine and dream has a stronger “gravity” and so attracts likewise.

I don’t know for sure but if light and consciousness share this quality, it could explain some of what you’ve described above.
 

dennis

Jedi Master
I've taken the para from above and added bold typed questions to comment on the discussion.

So consciousness directs attention towards an object (matter) that abides in time and space. Time, space and matter together function like a medium (perhaps a matrix?) for interactions to occur directed by consciousness (like a focal or lens, function in math?). It provides us a way to exchange and generate information(or to algebraically process, associate compare or discern an unknown from the juxtaposition of knowns?). As more information generates, it compounds, or increases in “mass”(logarithmically perhaps?). So mass might be akin to the concentration of information held in this medium for consciousness to “play” within.

Perhaps the parable of the virgins and their lamps applies but with the character of the imagination being a discerning factor.
 

lordbucket

A Disturbance in the Force
Suppose there's an infinite omniverse that is the set of all possible realities.

Suppose that stating that it "exists" is sort of missing the point. What is "reality?" Reality is "that which is observed." The "infinite omniverse" is that set of all possible realities. But reality is that which is observed. Is everything being observed, by "God" at least? Maybe, who knows? But if you observe something, that is by definition reality, to you.

What is mass? I don't know. Probably neither do you. It's a fundamental. We can describe it, we can understand its behavior well enough to predict its interactions with other things that we also don't know what they are, but describing a thing is not defining it. When we say that there "is" a set of all possible realities...the distinction between a "possible" reality and an observed reality is...that one is being observed. Maybe "other" realities are being observed by other observers, but if so that observation is not part of your observation, and not part of reality to you. By definition. This is a fundamental. Describing it in terms of something else is unlikely to be productive, just like trying to define mass is unlikely to be productive.

It is the thing.

So...from the set of all possible realities, there are elements of consciousness that are observing some of those possibilities. A possibility being observed, is by definition what reality is.

A "dimension" is an arbitrary designation. If we have a three dimensional space, we can say that "that way" is up-down and "that way" is left-right and "that other way" is forward-back. But these are merely labels. They may be convenient, but they're not usefully describing anything fundamental about the space. There's no "fundamental" frame of reference except an observer. How convenient that you are at the center of your observed experience, able to serve as a frame of reference for yourself.

An infinite omniverse can be described as possessing infinitely many dimensions, along any arbitrary axis we care to talk about. Suppose there's one "universe" that is like the one you see around you. Suppose there's another universe based on your favorite novel. Suppose you were a window faller, and fell into that other universe. And suppose that in that other universe...they spoke English. Would you find it odd that an entirely different universe that maybe didn't even have humans in it would have creatures that spoke English? Why would you find that odd?

In this case, "English exists" is simply an axis that we can arbitrarily decide upon and talk about within the set of all possible realities. One could describe an "axis" from this infinite set, along which English is spoken. We can do that. There's nothing fundamental about it. It's as arbitrary as describing "that way" as up and down. But we can do it, and maybe it's an occasionally useful axis, whether it's an axis line, axis plane, or axis n-dimensional hypercube.

Let us now speak of observers. Are you an observer? Do you observe three dimensions of space? Why is that so? Is there any particular reason? Maybe not, but it is so, and that's ok. But since dimensions are a thing that we're arbitrarily assigning onto the set of all possibilities, there's not particularly any reason to limit ourselves to three. For example, this universe you perceive where English is spoken, and that other universe from your favorite novel where English is also spoken, why do you not observe both of those universes simultaneously? You're able to observe left-right and up-down at the same time. Those axes are arbitrary. The universes-where-English-is-spoken axis is also arbitrary. Why do you look along the arbitrary left-right axis, but not along the arbitrary universes-where-English-is-spoken axis?

If you do...that's ok, but why, if these axes are arbitrary, and not very usefully descriptive of the nature of the set of infinite possibility?

"Time does not exist."

Ok, that's fine. The "set of all possibile realities" includes a universe state that you might describe as how things were one unit of Planck time ago, and it includes a universe state that you might describe as how things "will be" one unit of Planck time from now. And if you want (and are able) you can observe those universe states along an axis. Label that axis "time" if you want, or label it "Bob," giving it a name doesn't usefully describe it or give it any fundamental significance. Again, all dimensional axes are arbitrary, just like left-right and up-down. Time is a reasonable way of decribing this if that's what you want to do. But there's not only one possible state from (the set of all possibilies) that a human observer would likely interpret as "reasonably" correlated with this one. If one second from now, your phone rings, or if one second from now your phone does not ring, either of those possibilities would likely be perceived by you as reasonable future outcomes, but that "reasonableness" doesn't make one possibility or the other more neccesary that it be perceived as part of an axis that you arbitrarily made up for yourself.

Does the structure of the set of all possibilities care very much about what you consider to be reasonable? Draw a line across a piece of paper to create an axis upon which to divide the paper. Does the paper care where that line is drawn? Does the set of all possible realities apply the same expectation of continuity between states that you do? If instead of your phone ringing or not ringing in one second, rather, the entire room around you should be replaced by rubber duckies...why would observing those state pairs on an arbitrary axis make any more or less sense than your phone ringing in the next second? Apart from the fact that it is your expectation that rooms don't usually spontaneously turn into rubber duckies. Ok. That's fine. But does the set of infinite possibilities have the same expectation? Does it care very much which axes you arbitrarily choose to perceive from among its set?

What are "you?" Suppose that "you" are experiencing qualia. Suppose that you are having "a subjective experience." Ok.

Think of kitchen floor tiles. There's only one floor, and it's composed of a set of tiles. You can look at it, and choose to perceive "this" tile as being separate and distinct from "that" tile. You can look at four tiles together and percieve them as forming a square that is separate and distinct from the rest of the set. Like looking at the drawn outline of a cube. Which side is up? It's a matter of how you choose to perceive it. Or the "spinning dancer gif." You can choose to perceive it as spinning in either direction, and with practice you can probably choose to switch the direction in which you perceive it as spinning.

You perceive whatever reality you perceive. Imagine the physical body of another human within your perceived reality. Suppose that other body also has an observer "using it as a window" to perceive...what exactly? The same reality that you're observing? Probably not. If you are and I both sitting on a couch, looking through human eyeballs at the very same room, the information being fed to us through our respective eyeballs will be a little bit different. Because of viewing angle. Because of different light sensitivies between our eyes. Because different brains filter and prioritize the information differently. Because of these and probably other factors, we're not having precisely the same subjective experience. And since reality is by defintion that which is experienced, we are therefore not experiencing the same reality.

But, they're similar. They correlate. If you observe what appears to be a cat walking into your field of view, because of our closeness it's likely that I will also observe what appears to be a cat walking into my field of view.

Our "mutually shared experience" is like our two consciousnesses being "in sync." But the degree of "in sync-ness" might vary. If you leave the room, suddenly your eyeballs are delivering a less similar set of information to you than mine are from where I sit, still in the room with the cat. If you leave the planet, the information you perceive will likely be even more dissimilar.

If you fall through a window, then the information you perceive will likely be even more dissimilar still.

What is the difference between "self" and "other?"

If, from (the set of all possibilities) you are experiencing (the experience of you sitting on the couch looking at a cat) and if from that same set I am experiencing (the experience of me sitting on the couch looking at a cat) ...is there any particular reason why a single observer might not experience both these things together? Left-right and up-down both fit in your field of view without issue.

What's to stop an observer from observing the information being experienced by all human beings on the planet, "at the same time?"

...does that hypothetical observer...exist, regardless of the fact that what you perceive as "you" is only perceiving what you perceive as "your" reality in the "right now?" Why would these things be mutually exclusive?

After all, if reality is simply information from the set of all possibilities, being observed...what could possibly stop some "other" observer from also observing the same information that you do? You and I can share a couch and watch the same movie at the same time. Thousands of people can look at the same web page at the same time. What's to stop an observer from observing everything that you do along with everything that every other human does? Instead of viewing from a single reference point, can you observe multiple reference points? Can you observe from a reference plane, or a reference cube? Can you observe everything being observed by every human in your collective, relatively-synchronized-set-of-realities, along together at the same time with everything being observed by every oberver in some other similarly-shared set of realities?

When looking at the kitchen floor, you might choose to pay attention to only a single tile and perceive it as distinct from the others, but that doesn't diminish the existence of a single "floor" composed of all of them. Those other tiles you're not paying attention to are probably still there, even if you aren't observing them...but reality is by definition that which is observed. A tile that is unobserved by you isn't "real" but nevertheless it remains a possibillity from the set of all possibilties. It is probably observing itself. How could it not?

If I perceive everything that you do, and you perceive everything that I do...how different are we? (1 equals 1) and (X = X) but me having one apple and you having one apple aren't mutually exclusive. If you drop a water balloon into a bucket of water, the distinction between the water in the balloon and the water not in the balloon is very obvious. If you pop the balloon, suddenly the difference becomes much less clear, but the individuality of a single water molecule is not diminished.

Suppose that half a dozen of us are sitting on the couch. Reality is by definition, that which is observed. Suppose that we all observe a cat. If we want to call that "objective" reality because all of us balloons-full-of-water-in-the-bucket agree that we perceive a cat, ok. That's fine. We can call it that. We can describe it as "objective." But now suppose that one of us sitting on the couch doesn't see the cat. Maybe their eyes are closed. Maybe they're blind. Maybe they're simply not paying attention. When they tell you they don't see the cat, they're not lying. But their degree of "in sync-ness" with the others on the couch is less than those who all perceive the same cat. Somebody who falls through a window becomes very out of sync. Saying that the cat is "objectively" there, what does that mean, when all it takes for the cat to not be part of your observed reality is for you to leave the room?


What is density? "Amount of stuff in a given volume." It doesn't really matter what the "stuff" is. Could be anything. For example:

Code:
____________________
|    .   .   .   .  |
____________________

There are four dots in the box. The box is twenty characters wide. The dot density is four in 20.

Code:
____________________
|. . . . .   .   . .|
____________________

This box has 8 dots in it. It is also twenty characters wide. The dot density is 8 in 20. The second box has greater dot density than the first. Let's now consider sound.

UaGI1X5.jpg


Here we have 3 wave peaks in five sets of big boxes. The wave peak density is 3 in 5.

fP8RyRN.jpg


Here we have 4 wave peaks in five sets of big boxes. The wave peak density is 4 in 5.

"Frequency" is how many times a thing happens in a given amount of time.

"Density" is the amount of stuff in a given amount of volume.

The peak of a sinewave could be considered "a thing." It's "stuff."


Let's go back to us sitting on the couch. Suppose that I observe a single three-dimensional-space. And let's suppose that you observe a single three-dimensional-space. Our observances are similar. We both see the cat. But they're also different, because of angle and light sensivity and brain filtering and so forth. "A three-dimensional-space" is stuff. If we, as observers, observe one such unit of this stuff, our density is one unit of three dimensional space being observed, per observer.

Suppose now that there is an observer who observes both the room as you see it, and also the room as I see it. The density of their experience is two three-dimensional-spaces per observer. Thier density of observation is greater than ours.

The "set of all possibilities" could be described as "the set of all possible observances."


So, if a water balloon in a bucket of water is popped, is that an ascension to higher density? Well...sort of. But also not. It's an imperfect analogy. Density is the amount of stuff in a given volume. When you pop the balloon, maybe it becomes difficult to distinguish this water from that water. "The quantity of water" has become larger in a sense because it is no longer divided, which in this metaphor correlates with it having greater awareness. But if you go from being the water in the ballon to being the water in the bucket, the volume of space under consideration is now larger, which changes the denominator in our (amount of stuff per volume) equation.

Think of all humans as being like the kitchen floor tiles. Imagine that, like one balloon being popped, one floor tile grows to perceive the entire floor as a single thing, but that all the other tiles continue to perceive themselves as individuals. This is a very different condition than all of the floor tiles perceiving the floor as a single thing. Density is the amount of stuff in a given volume. If the one floor tile perceives the entire floor as a single entity, let's call the "single-floor-perception density" as one single-floor-perception per floor. But now suppose a second tile also perceives the floor as a single thing. That then becomes two single-floor-perceptions per floor. But we're still talking about the same volume of floor. That is an increase of density, and there may be thresholds that correlate with significant state change. If you increase the temperature of a measure of water from 25 to 26 degrees celsius, that's an increase of 1 degree, but the water is still water. If you change it from 99 to 100 degrees, it's still only one degree of change, but the significance of that change is much greater. Welcome to fourth density.

"Realm border" is descriptive, not merely a label. Your bedroom is a realm. Your living room is a realm. The door between them is a realm border. If you draw a squiggly moose on a chalkboard, the chalk line is a realm border between the inside and the outside of the moose. There's a realm border between your observance and my observance. There's a realm border between (the collective observances of every tile in the kitchen floor) and (the collective observances of everything from within the set of all possible realities that is not the kitchen floor.) Yes, there's "a realm border" between third and four densities, but so too is there "a realm border" between any two things you care to differentiate. You might ask how to cross the realm border between third and fourth densities, but how do you cross the realm border that is the variance between your subjective experience while sitting on the couch and my subjective experience while sitting on the same couch?

When all the tiles in the kitchen floor perceive themselves as a single floor, that floor is a realm. Now suppose that all the tiles in the kitchen floor in your neighbor's house also perceive themselves as a single floor. At this point we've simply scaled up the same issue, like a fractal. Where before we were discussing the perception density of floor tiles perceiving themselves as a single floor, now we can discuss the density of (floors composed of tiles that perceive themselves as a single floor) from within the volume that is the set of all floors. Humans may unify with each other, but at some scale there are entire universe unifying with each other, humans and universes each like concentric circles within one other. What is an angel but a perception hypercube?

Algebra is symbolic representation. No need to overthink it.
 

John G

The Living Force
Suppose there's an infinite omniverse that is the set of all possible realities... Maybe "other" realities are being observed by other observers, but if so that observation is not part of your observation, and not part of reality to you.
It's not part of reality to you but it is still a reality for others so this omniverse could be an eternally existing reality overall not just possibilities.

What is mass? I don't know. Probably neither do you. It's a fundamental. We can describe it, we can understand its behavior well enough to predict its interactions with other things that we also don't know what they are, but describing a thing is not defining it... The "set of all possibile realities" includes a universe state that you might describe as how things were one unit of Planck time ago, and it includes a universe state that you might describe as how things "will be" one unit of Planck time from now... What is density? "Amount of stuff in a given volume." It doesn't really matter what the "stuff" is... "Frequency" is how many times a thing happens in a given amount of time.

Mass = Amplitude to Change Direction.

Models can have a precise definition for mass even if it's not overly intuitive. For this model massless things don't change direction for mass reasons and maybe a Planck mass in a Planck volume (Planck density) changes direction every Planck time (Planck frequency). Changing direction is a way of slowing down.


A "dimension" is an arbitrary designation. If we have a three dimensional space, we can say that "that way" is up-down and "that way" is left-right and "that other way" is forward-back. But these are merely labels. They may be convenient, but they're not usefully describing anything fundamental about the space. There's no "fundamental" frame of reference except an observer. How convenient that you are at the center of your observed experience, able to serve as a frame of reference for yourself.
Well if you get down to the Planck scale then you, even the conscious part of you, has many frames of reference. Perhaps though the conscious parts are entangled so that they go to the next state together in the next Planck time. There's probably some deep number theory reason (like quaternions from this session) why we see three space dimensions.

An infinite omniverse can be described as possessing infinitely many dimensions, along any arbitrary axis we care to talk about. Suppose there's one "universe" that is like the one you see around you. Suppose there's another universe based on your favorite novel. Suppose you were a window faller, and fell into that other universe. And suppose that in that other universe...they spoke English. Would you find it odd that an entirely different universe that maybe didn't even have humans in it would have creatures that spoke English? Why would you find that odd?
From this session, the infinite dimensions (in the space sense) come from many iterations (perhaps an infinite number of Planck lattice states usable for your current frame of reference). With an infinite number of states, some would certainly share things with you especially if you have an uncountable infinity of states via an infinite number of lattices each with an infinite number of vertex states for your frame of reference.

And if you want (and are able) you can observe those universe states along an axis. Label that axis "time" if you want...
or you could label it as your worldline even though it could zigzag through a lattice so it's not really an axis or a line

Imagine the physical body of another human within your perceived reality. Suppose that other body also has an observer "using it as a window" to perceive...what exactly? The same reality that you're observing? Probably not. If you are and I both sitting on a couch, looking through human eyeballs at the very same room, the information being fed to us through our respective eyeballs will be a little bit different. Because of viewing angle. Because of different light sensitivities between our eyes. Because different brains filter and prioritize the information differently. Because of these and probably other factors, we're not having precisely the same subjective experience. And since reality is by definition that which is experienced, we are therefore not experiencing the same reality.

But, they're similar. They correlate. If you observe what appears to be a cat walking into your field of view, because of our closeness it's likely that I will also observe what appears to be a cat walking into my field of view.
And correlate relates to probabilities. You can even think of another exact you that stays with you through new Planck times until it branches off to make a worldline different than yours. A conscious being with more knowledge might make decisions that are less restricted to the randomness of probabilities. A single particle even if it has a very tiny amount of consciousness is very dumb thus it is restricted by the randomness of probabilities.

After all, if reality is simply information from the set of all possibilities, being observed...what could possibly stop some "other" observer from also observing the same information that you do? You and I can share a couch and watch the same movie at the same time. Thousands of people can look at the same web page at the same time. What's to stop an observer from observing everything that you do along with everything that every other human does? Instead of viewing from a single reference point, can you observe multiple reference points? Can you observe from a reference plane, or a reference cube? Can you observe everything being observed by every human in your collective, relatively-synchronized-set-of-realities, along together at the same time with everything being observed by every observer in some other similarly-shared set of realities?
If you are entangled then your reference plane/cube/polytope might share reality via going together to the next Planck time state. The entangled you though would have it's own self-decoherence though the self-decoherence could be a cascade of sorts with the self-decoherence of the entangled others. Until self-decoherence, you might hang out in multiple possible realities which you don't remember.


Think of all humans as being like the kitchen floor tiles. Imagine that, like one balloon being popped, one floor tile grows to perceive the entire floor as a single thing, but that all the other tiles continue to perceive themselves as individuals. This is a very different condition than all of the floor tiles perceiving the floor as a single thing. Density is the amount of stuff in a given volume. If the one floor tile perceives the entire floor as a single entity, let's call the "single-floor-perception density" as one single-floor-perception per floor. But now suppose a second tile also perceives the floor as a single thing. That then becomes two single-floor-perceptions per floor. But we're still talking about the same volume of floor. That is an increase of density, and there may be thresholds that correlate with significant state change. If you increase the temperature of a measure of water from 25 to 26 degrees celsius, that's an increase of 1 degree, but the water is still water. If you change it from 99 to 100 degrees, it's still only one degree of change, but the significance of that change is much greater. Welcome to fourth density.
You have an analogy for having more knowledge and being less restricted to random probabilities and yes more knowledge certainly relates to getting to 4th density. All of the floor tiles (brain particles) getting together (entangled) to get more conscious knowledge could also be an analogy for gaining knowledge to get from 1st/lower 2nd density to higher 2nd/3rd density.

"Realm border" is descriptive, not merely a label... What is an angel but a perception hypercube?
Yeah more knowledge for an entangled hypercube/polytope.

Algebra is symbolic representation. No need to overthink it.
But adding algebra makes it more fun for your entangled hypercube/polytope to overthink with.
 

Sol Logos

Dagobah Resident
Suppose there's an infinite omniverse that is the set of all possible realities.
Could there be other suppositions? With infinite possibilities, suggests there has to be. And is this set of all possible realities and all possibilities, as you describe, still a single set? Or is it one set of multiple or even infinite sets? How is a description of all being an infinite sets of infinities helpful?

If our foundational assumption is that anything is possible in at least one of the infinite realities, how is one description of any reality or all realities better than any other description?

It’s a bit like moral relativism too. With the foundational assumption that any morals are simply an arbitrary set of human interpretations of what’s “good” or “right”, then how is anything we do “bad” or “wrong”? This ends up being a convenient worldview for sociopaths.

Perhaps this foundational assumption is bent in the first place?

Algebra is symbolic representation. No need to overthink it.
That’s kind of the definition. Who is overthinking it?
 

MusicMan

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
What is Reality?
Take a single Diamond.
Any observer who is observing that Diamond will have a differing perspective to any other observer.
there can be an infinite number of observational viewpoints, and an infinite number of facets.
Each observer has their own view of Reality.
In the same way, there can be an infinite number of Dimensions.
 

Ruslan_S

A Disturbance in the Force
The basis of everything is density. There is no time, space, or matter. There is only density.


The unit of density is an electric charge. An electric charge is a ball (spherical object). All that we feel with our senses is the interaction of electric charges. Wilhelm Reich's experiments were devoted to this. Einstein, after correspondence with Reich, made correct inferences regarding field theory (but had to keep quiet about it).

There are 8 densities in the universe. The eighth density is zero, there is no density in it. Its density is zero. The eighth density potential is also zero. Let us recall the ladder of the universe by George Gurdjieff in Ouspensky's book "In Search of the Miraculous".
The farther away from the center of the Earth, the less dense (sparse) the density ("matter") becomes. And, conversely, the closer to the center of the Earth, the denser the density ("matter") becomes. Such dense chemical elements as Uranium, Plutonium, etc. are "aliens" from the very depths of our planet. The densest chemical elements are at the center of the earth.

When the enlightened ones were asked how the consciousness of a being is formed, they answered – by compaction of attention (consciousness). And enlightenment is achieved by the reverse process – decompression (rarefaction).

After death, a person passes into the fifth density. In the fifth density, people are planets (satellites, gas giants, stars), i.e. objects that we observe in the night sky right now.
We are walking through the body of a fifth density being right now. On the body of a fifth density being (Earth) we exist right now. But in our density, this being is represented by a solid (dense) object.
After death, the "man" (soul) sees planets and stars not as solid objects, but as balls of light. Depending on the degree of development, we see "man" (the soul) as either a satellite, a planet, or a "star.


Russian scientist and inventor Yuri Stepanovich Rybnikov, conducting his experiments, connected electromagnetism and density. He modified the periodic table of elements and expanded it in accordance with the densities of these elements. Юрий Степанович Рыбников (1944-2021).



Thank you for all your transcripts.
 

Sol Logos

Dagobah Resident
What is Reality?
Take a single Diamond.
Any observer who is observing that Diamond will have a differing perspective to any other observer.
there can be an infinite number of observational viewpoints, and an infinite number of facets.
Each observer has their own view of Reality.
In the same way, there can be an infinite number of Dimensions.

Would it also depend on the limit of those that can observe? So perhaps there’s only so many observers that could observe it simultaneously at one time. And moment to moment, that diamond changes anyway, so arguably it’s not the same diamond to observe once a moment has passed.

And would it then depend on the internal limits of the observers themselves? Some may see it only partially due to their own physical and conceptual limitations. Some may also add all kinds of interpretations and distortions over what they observe. Others may see it more thoroughly and clearly. Those get a far more accurate and/or objective view of this diamond - as it really is. In other words to see what exists in reality.

So while there’s potential to have infinite viewpoints about this diamond, those viewpoints narrow down as they become more closer version to what exists reality. It’s arguable that all types of distorted views of reality are different dimensions or whether that’s a helpful analogy to describe dimensions - at least from my view ;)
 
The basis of everything is density. There is no time, space, or matter. There is only density.


The unit of density is an electric charge. An electric charge is a ball (spherical object). All that we feel with our senses is the interaction of electric charges. Wilhelm Reich's experiments were devoted to this. Einstein, after correspondence with Reich, made correct inferences regarding field theory (but had to keep quiet about it).

There are 8 densities in the universe. The eighth density is zero, there is no density in it. Its density is zero. The eighth density potential is also zero. Let us recall the ladder of the universe by George Gurdjieff in Ouspensky's book "In Search of the Miraculous".
The farther away from the center of the Earth, the less dense (sparse) the density ("matter") becomes. And, conversely, the closer to the center of the Earth, the denser the density ("matter") becomes. Such dense chemical elements as Uranium, Plutonium, etc. are "aliens" from the very depths of our planet. The densest chemical elements are at the center of the earth.


When the enlightened ones were asked how the consciousness of a being is formed, they answered – by compaction of attention (consciousness). And enlightenment is achieved by the reverse process – decompression (rarefaction).

After death, a person passes into the fifth density. In the fifth density, people are planets (satellites, gas giants, stars), i.e. objects that we observe in the night sky right now.
We are walking through the body of a fifth density being right now. On the body of a fifth density being (Earth) we exist right now. But in our density, this being is represented by a solid (dense) object.
After death, the "man" (soul) sees planets and stars not as solid objects, but as balls of light. Depending on the degree of development, we see "man" (the soul) as either a satellite, a planet, or a "star.



Russian scientist and inventor Yuri Stepanovich Rybnikov, conducting his experiments, connected electromagnetism and density. He modified the periodic table of elements and expanded it in accordance with the densities of these elements. Юрий Степанович Рыбников (1944-2021).



Thank you for all your transcripts.
Hi Ruslan_S, and welcome to the forum :-) , I see it's your first post, it is customary to post a little intro in the newbie section of the forum.

Here's a link to a brief bio of Rybnikov. (Forum search bring nothing about him...) A lot to dig :lkj:
 

Claus

Jedi Master
The basis of everything is density. There is no time, space, or matter. There is only density.


The unit of density is an electric charge. An electric charge is a ball (spherical object). All that we feel with our senses is the interaction of electric charges. Wilhelm Reich's experiments were devoted to this. Einstein, after correspondence with Reich, made correct inferences regarding field theory (but had to keep quiet about it).

There are 8 densities in the universe. The eighth density is zero, there is no density in it. Its density is zero. The eighth density potential is also zero. Let us recall the ladder of the universe by George Gurdjieff in Ouspensky's book "In Search of the Miraculous".
The farther away from the center of the Earth, the less dense (sparse) the density ("matter") becomes. And, conversely, the closer to the center of the Earth, the denser the density ("matter") becomes. Such dense chemical elements as Uranium, Plutonium, etc. are "aliens" from the very depths of our planet. The densest chemical elements are at the center of the earth.


When the enlightened ones were asked how the consciousness of a being is formed, they answered – by compaction of attention (consciousness). And enlightenment is achieved by the reverse process – decompression (rarefaction).

After death, a person passes into the fifth density. In the fifth density, people are planets (satellites, gas giants, stars), i.e. objects that we observe in the night sky right now.
We are walking through the body of a fifth density being right now. On the body of a fifth density being (Earth) we exist right now. But in our density, this being is represented by a solid (dense) object.
After death, the "man" (soul) sees planets and stars not as solid objects, but as balls of light. Depending on the degree of development, we see "man" (the soul) as either a satellite, a planet, or a "star.



Russian scientist and inventor Yuri Stepanovich Rybnikov, conducting his experiments, connected electromagnetism and density. He modified the periodic table of elements and expanded it in accordance with the densities of these elements. Юрий Степанович Рыбников (1944-2021).



Thank you for all your transcripts.
Hi @Ruslan_S, I can see that this was your first post.
Please make a introduction in the Newbies & Important Notices to All Members area, so we can welcome you to the forum.
Thank you!
 

MJF

Dagobah Resident
I was rather struck by your ideas, particularly the section I have bolded above. One aspect of human consciousness is our imagination, which can inspire our works, both physical and artistic. I have been reading a lot of material on the Holy Grail in recent times and this includes the alchemists concept of the Philosopher's Stone. I found the following extract, see below, recently on the Philosopher's Stone, which is quite interesting in light of what you have said above - I have highlighted in bold those parts which I think resonate with what you have said about consciousness:​

Sometimes the alchemical philosopher’s stone is said to have fallen from the sky or is seen as a cube. In Hebrew Kabbalistic texts the Sephira Yesod is sometimes referred to as a cubic stone. Alchemists begin looking for the Stone of the Wise by finding the prima materia and transform it into the lapis philosophorum. Alchemists try to find the single root substance from which the entire universe is made. The prima materia is, in fact, imagination. The world is composed of living imaginations like the living nature of the grail.

Some philosophical alchemists believe that the holy stone is a metaphor for the process of enlightenment. When we obtain the Philosopher’s Stone, we achieve the tools of spiritual enlightenment and find what was lost when we fell from our original state of being. We regain who and what we truly are. Sometimes this state is symbolized by a stone, or crystal, pure water, blood, fire, or spiritual light. Restore the emerald to its crown and you restore humankind’s ability to see wisdom, love and beauty. Our fall from paradise was a darkening of our inherent imagination and the stone reopens our capacity for living imagination – living thoughts.

Imagination is omnipresent thought – a realm of imagistic mental images that is beyond time and space. Oscar Wilde describes it in these words: “…the imagination is itself the world of light. The world is made by it, and yet the world cannot understand it. That is because the imagination is a manifestation of love, and it is love and the capacity for it that distinguishes one human being from another.”

The prima materia is the same thing as the philosopher’s stone, but through the results of the expulsion from paradise we have lost the ability to see the innate substance of that “stone.” Polish the stone and restore it to its original, pristine condition and miraculously you can see the thoughts and imaginations that hold the world together.
How do you factor imagination into the UFT? I recall posting the article I am setting out below before, but now it probably makes more sense to include it here, alongside what we have been discussing as regards algebra, geometry, quaternions (complex numbers) and octonions. Do imaginary numbers necessarily feature in the UFT?

Imaginary Numbers May Be Essential for Describing Reality

A new thought experiment indicates that quantum mechanics doesn’t work without strange numbers that turn negative when squared.

Mathematicians were disturbed, centuries ago, to find that calculating the properties of certain curves demanded the seemingly impossible: numbers that, when multiplied by themselves, turn negative.

All the numbers on the number line, when squared, yield a positive number; 22 = 4, and (-2)2 = 4. Mathematicians started calling those familiar numbers “real” and the apparently impossible breed of numbers “imaginary.”

Imaginary numbers, labelled with units of i (where, for instance, (2i)2 = -4), gradually became fixtures in the abstract realm of mathematics. For physicists, however, real numbers sufficed to quantify reality. Sometimes, so-called complex numbers, with both real and imaginary parts, such as 2 + 3i, have streamlined calculations, but in apparently optional ways. No instrument has ever returned a reading with an i.

Yet physicists may have just shown for the first time that imaginary numbers are, in a sense, real.

A group of quantum theorists designed an experiment whose outcome depends on whether nature has an imaginary side. Provided that quantum mechanics is correct — an assumption few would quibble with — the team’s argument essentially guarantees that complex numbers are an unavoidable part of our description of the physical universe.

These complex numbers, usually they’re just a convenient tool, but here it turns out that they really have some physical meaning,” said Tamás Vértesi, a physicist at the Institute for Nuclear Research at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences who, years ago, argued the opposite. “The world is such that it really requires these complex numbers", he said.

In quantum mechanics, the behaviour of a particle or group of particles is encapsulated by a wavelike entity known as the wave function, or ψ. The wave function forecasts possible outcomes of measurements, such as an electron’s possible position or momentum. The so-called Schrödinger equation describes how the wave function changes in time — and this equation features an i.

Abstractions navigates promising ideas in science and mathematics. Journey with us and join the conversation.

Physicists have never been entirely sure what to make of this. When Erwin Schrödinger derived the equation that now bears his name, he hoped to scrub the i out. “What is unpleasant here, and indeed directly to be objected to, is the use of complex numbers,” he wrote to Hendrik Lorentz in 1926. “ψ is surely a fundamentally real function.”

Schrödinger’s desire was certainly plausible from a mathematical perspective: Any property of complex numbers can be captured by combinations of real numbers plus new rules to keep them in line, opening up the mathematical possibility of an all-real version of quantum mechanics.

Indeed, the translation proved simple enough that Schrödinger almost immediately discovered what he believed to be the “true wave equation,” one that eschewed i. “Another heavy stone has been rolled away from my heart,” he wrote to Max Planck less than a week after his letter to Lorentz. “It all came out exactly as one would have it.”

But using real numbers to simulate complex quantum mechanics is a clunky and abstract exercise, and Schrödinger recognized that his all-real equation was too cumbersome for daily use. Within a year he was describing wave functions as complex, just as physicists think of them today.

“Anybody wanting to get work done uses the complex description,” said Matthew McKague, a quantum computer scientist at the Queensland University of Technology in Australia.

Yet the real formulation of quantum mechanics has lingered as evidence that the complex version is merely optional. Teams including Vértesi and McKague, for instance, showed in 2008 and 2009 that — without an i in sight — they could perfectly predict the outcome of a famous quantum physics experiment known as the Bell test.

The new research, which was posted on the scientific preprint server arxiv.org in January, finds that those earlier Bell test proposals just didn’t go far enough to break the real-number version of quantum physics. It proposes a more intricate Bell experiment that seems to demand complex numbers.

The earlier research led people to conclude that “in quantum theory complex numbers are only convenient, but not necessary,” wrote the authors, who include Marc-Olivier Renou of the Institute of Photonic Sciences in Spain and Nicolas Gisin of the University of Geneva. “Here we prove this conclusion wrong.”

The group declined to discuss their paper publicly because it is still under peer review.

“The paper in fact establishes that there are genuine, complex quantum systems.”

Valter Moretti

The Bell test demonstrates that pairs of far-apart particles can share information in a single “entangled” state. If a quarter in Maine could become entangled with one in Oregon, for instance, repeated tosses would show that whenever one coin landed on heads, its distant partner would, bizarrely, show tails. Similarly, in the standard Bell test experiment, entangled particles are sent to two physicists, nicknamed Alice and Bob. They measure the particles and, upon comparing measurements, find that the results are correlated in a way that can’t be explained unless information is shared between the particles.

The upgraded experiment adds a second source of particle pairs. One pair goes to Alice and Bob. The second pair, originating from a different place, goes to Bob and a third party, Charlie. In quantum mechanics with complex numbers, the particles Alice and Charlie receive don’t need to be entangled with each other.

No real-number description, however, can replicate the pattern of correlations that the three physicists will measure. The new paper shows that treating the system as real requires introducing extra information that usually resides in the imaginary part of the wave function. Alice’s, Bob’s, and Charlie’s particles must all share this information in order to reproduce the same correlations as standard quantum mechanics. And the only way to accommodate this sharing is for all of their particles to be entangled with one another.

In the previous incarnations of the Bell test, Alice and Bob’s electrons came from a single source, so the extra information they had to carry in the real-number description wasn’t a problem. But in the two-source Bell test where Alice’s and Charlie’s particles come from independent sources, the fictitious three-party entanglement doesn’t make physical sense.

Even without recruiting an Alice, a Bob and a Charlie to actually perform the experiment that the new paper imagines, most researchers feel extremely confident that standard quantum mechanics is correct and that the experiment would therefore find the expected correlations. If so, then real numbers alone cannot fully describe nature.

Related:


  1. An Infinite Universe of Number Systems
  2. The (Imaginary) Numbers at the Edge of Reality
  3. Does Time Really Flow? New Clues Come From a Century-Old Approach to Math.
“The paper in fact establishes that there are genuine, complex quantum systems,” said Valter Moretti, a mathematical physicist at the University of Trento in Italy. “This result is quite unexpected to me.”

Nevertheless, odds are that the experiment will happen someday. It wouldn’t be simple, but no technical obstacles exist. And a deeper understanding of the behaviour of more complicated quantum networks will grow only more relevant as researchers continue to link numerous Alices, Bobs and Charlies over emerging quantum internets.

“We therefore trust that a disproof of real quantum physics will arrive in a near future,” the authors wrote.

This article was reprinted on Wired.com.


I am no mathematician but these diagrams I found when looking at the entry for Octonions on Wikipedia really struck me in light of what we have been discussing about tetrahedrons and hypercubes:

1654183837221.png

Fano plane mnemonic​

A triangular multiplication diagram

1654183939682.png


Octonions also seems to link with SO(8) - the special orthogonal group acting on eight-dimensional Euclidean space. It could be either a real or complex simple Lie group of rank 4 and dimension 28.

Could this mathematics link with the special geometry of the Octagon that we have been discussing on this thread. I shall leave the physicists and mathematicians to comment on this I think.

See: SO(8) - Wikipedia


 

MJF

Dagobah Resident
What is Reality?
Take a single Diamond.
Any observer who is observing that Diamond will have a differing perspective to any other observer.
there can be an infinite number of observational viewpoints, and an infinite number of facets.
Each observer has their own view of Reality.
In the same way, there can be an infinite number of Dimensions.
Which makes me think of fractals. A fractal is a never-ending pattern. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc. Abstract fractals – such as the Mandelbrot Set – can be generated by a computer calculating a simple equation over and over.

Are we ourselves living, dynamic fractals?

1654186248521.png

Vitruvian Man
 

Natus Videre

Jedi Master
Which makes me think of fractals. A fractal is a never-ending pattern. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc. Abstract fractals – such as the Mandelbrot Set – can be generated by a computer calculating a simple equation over and over.

Are we ourselves living, dynamic fractals?
I think fractals are a great model for "all is one and one is all," especially when the pattern is geometrically contained within itself. Each copy has the same shape and properties as the whole.
Q: (A) Well, it was a big bang, certainly, but it was in OUR universe and not some other universe...

A: But what was the origin? And from where? All is one and one is all.
Q: (L) Well, I am just trying to get a grip on some ideas here...

A: Then change the thought pattern. Gravity is the "stuff" of all existence, therefore it has an unchanging property of quantity.

Q: (L) So, gravity is not being "used," per se?

A: Close.

Q: (L) You said that light was an energy expression of gravity. Then you said...

A: You can utilize gravity, but you cannot "use" it. You cannot increase or decrease that which is in perfectly balanced static state.
Q: (L) Learning is fun! Right!

A: The entire sum total of all existence exists within each of you, and vice versa.

1654188551902.png
 
Top Bottom