I don't know why...
Aug. 14th, 2007 04:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7What do you think about this E-mail conversation?
I was looking at Wil Wheaton's Blog, and he was talking about things that blew his mind, and I am trying to be understanding about it, and it got me thinking about that conversation, again. The fact that there is a direct scientific basis for reading A) scientific investigation as a perception-based enterprise, at least to some degree, and B) The ability to, with the right Kind of knowledge-- that is access the right parts of our knowledge, at the right times-- we can change the types of interaction we have, with the world, moving between a quantum state, seemingly instantaneous, "weird" interaction, such as entanglement or "quantum tunneling," and a classical, clear explication of cause and effect.
In fact, if you note clearly, you will see that each instance in the causal chain, though connected in terms of perception, memory, and the construct we call "time," in order that we may cope with our mostly-linear progression through the fourth dimension, is actually discrete and unconnected. It arises, like all such instances (Universes, decissions, lives, lightning), from the perception of nothing on nothing, andthe desire that there be something. Different from nothing. With each subsequent creation, however, it becomes easier and easier, as we retain the persistence of memory, and the ability to exercise that primal will upon it. However, with each subsequent choice, each creation, we are further and further bounded within a certain type of structure, by those same factors. We remember what yesterday was like, and untold days, before, and we cannot conceive of another Kind of day, and so we make the next day roughly like the last.
Injecting realistic disagreement of facts (quantum uncertainty, probabilisitic confirmation, wave/particle duality) insures that there will be some room for decissions to continue to arise, ex nihilo. From nothing it rises, and becomes everything it can or ever will become, fractal extrapolating out from a centre that will then coalesce and have been that way, from the beginning, Alpha and Omega, forever and ever, Amen. But yoou can remember, can't you? Back before it was all solidified? You remember what it was like to be able to push and mold and shape it however you needed to. You remember what it was like to observe the parts of a thing that needed to be observed, at that moment and to take your observational post, Your point of view, and shift it.
Change your perception, and the perception of enough program components, and it all changes, doesn't it.
What do you think?
I was looking at Wil Wheaton's Blog, and he was talking about things that blew his mind, and I am trying to be understanding about it, and it got me thinking about that conversation, again. The fact that there is a direct scientific basis for reading A) scientific investigation as a perception-based enterprise, at least to some degree, and B) The ability to, with the right Kind of knowledge-- that is access the right parts of our knowledge, at the right times-- we can change the types of interaction we have, with the world, moving between a quantum state, seemingly instantaneous, "weird" interaction, such as entanglement or "quantum tunneling," and a classical, clear explication of cause and effect.
In fact, if you note clearly, you will see that each instance in the causal chain, though connected in terms of perception, memory, and the construct we call "time," in order that we may cope with our mostly-linear progression through the fourth dimension, is actually discrete and unconnected. It arises, like all such instances (Universes, decissions, lives, lightning), from the perception of nothing on nothing, andthe desire that there be something. Different from nothing. With each subsequent creation, however, it becomes easier and easier, as we retain the persistence of memory, and the ability to exercise that primal will upon it. However, with each subsequent choice, each creation, we are further and further bounded within a certain type of structure, by those same factors. We remember what yesterday was like, and untold days, before, and we cannot conceive of another Kind of day, and so we make the next day roughly like the last.
Injecting realistic disagreement of facts (quantum uncertainty, probabilisitic confirmation, wave/particle duality) insures that there will be some room for decissions to continue to arise, ex nihilo. From nothing it rises, and becomes everything it can or ever will become, fractal extrapolating out from a centre that will then coalesce and have been that way, from the beginning, Alpha and Omega, forever and ever, Amen. But yoou can remember, can't you? Back before it was all solidified? You remember what it was like to be able to push and mold and shape it however you needed to. You remember what it was like to observe the parts of a thing that needed to be observed, at that moment and to take your observational post, Your point of view, and shift it.
Change your perception, and the perception of enough program components, and it all changes, doesn't it.
What do you think?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-08-14 10:10 pm (UTC)Just thought I would mention that yours is one of the few people on teh LJ that I actually take the time to read and try to pay attention to.
Anyway, if you arn't aware of it already, I thought I would point you
to one of my favorite blogs. http://www.3quarksdaily.com/
It always has massive amounts of new content content and I almost always find something interesting.
--
Reguarding your post.
Here is my take.
Observation is limited by comprehension and Belief.
Belief effects what the random number generator that is the universe presents to you as options, that is to say, the more you believe in
a potential, the more likely that potential has of becoming real for you.
Reality exists in localized pockets, so what is true here in this house, may be different by a tiny degree (because Donna's and my beliefs are more in control here than yours our)than reality out on the street, and that reality is slightly different than the reality in California, all of which live in a little bubble around our planet...
It would not suprise me if at some point its proven that different places in the universe operate by different rules based both on vantage point. Internal observation seeing something different than observing from the outside.
That being said I could totally have misread what you were talking about as I am not that bright.
While I am at it...this book
http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Ibooks-Science-Fiction-Classics/dp/1596871067/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6887564-9923923?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187129087&sr=8-1
Blood music, by Greg Bear is what started me on that idea. Its an amazing book.
I have no proof but I feel somewhere inside that there are a few ideas in it that are true.
Another idea it postulates is that you dream all the time. I have always believed that, because it feels right....I was recently reading an article about mysteries of the brain, and one of them was more or less, what is the base level activity of the brain. That is to say, when you are doing nothing, you brain is still active, doing things in addition to keeping your body going. One of which, they think is dream.
You arn't aware of it when you are awake, because there is too much mental noise going on around it.
Ya..so that ended up being way more than my recommendation to read 3 quarks....hummm...
no subject
Date: 2007-08-15 03:58 am (UTC)Second, thank you, again, because I love having new content to read.
Third, I think you read me right, and I think that You are right, in that the rules change, depending on the proximity of certain people to certain things. It's like a certain amount of flexibility, within wide-set parameters. Depending on who you are, and what you believe/know/understand about the world, it reacts differently to you.
You should pick up InterWorld (http://www.amazon.com/InterWorld-Neil-Gaiman/dp/0061238961/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5553859-5272665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187150222&sr=8-1)when you get a chance. It addresses this question, in terms of the multiverse, and magical vs. scientific realities, where in some places all it takes is your brute will to convince the universe that you aren't falling quickly, rather you're rising, gently. All you have to do is change your point of view. I think you'll like it.
totally OT
Date: 2007-08-15 06:37 am (UTC)Hope you had a blast at the beach. Beaches are gooood.
Re: totally OT
Date: 2007-08-15 12:58 pm (UTC)Re: totally OT
Date: 2007-08-15 10:07 pm (UTC)Re: totally OT
Date: 2007-08-15 11:25 pm (UTC)The card analogy
Date: 2007-08-16 01:54 pm (UTC)Shuffle a deck of cards. It now has a precise (albeit probably difficult-to-pattern) order, and is simultaneously chaotic. The top card... could be any card, or could be a specific card. Once you observe the top card, its probability collapses from 1/52 down to 1, and every other card in the deck shrinks from 1/52 to 1/51... or it stays in exactly the same order it was.
Drat. I forgot how I connected this to the idea of instantaneous vs. continuous time. Something about "what happens next". All the previous cards you've looked at are in an observable order in the discard pile...
(Headcrunch) THAT's why I was getting on about forgetting the past! Well, previously it wasn't forgetting so much as reinterpretting, but... if you draw the Ace of Spades, discard it, draw a few other cards, end up covering the Ace of Spades with the discards, and in every way forget everything in the discard pile below the top card... basically changing that part of the formula to "unobserved"... you can draw the Ace of Spades again.
Re: The card analogy
Date: 2007-08-16 02:01 pm (UTC)My particle-waves should do what I tell them to (but not Only when I tell them too. That would get painful).
Re(2): The card analogy
Date: 2007-08-16 04:07 pm (UTC)And how does that relate to what your particle waves do or do not?
How do you describe the difference between your particle waves and not-your particle waves?
Re: Re(2): The card analogy
Date: 2007-08-16 07:08 pm (UTC)My personal particle-wave resonance also "observes" (read: "Interacts") with the deck (reality, the past, the future), and so my control over my particle-waves would give mean a modulation of the way I interact with the past. I don't Lose the interaction, more than temporarily. It's like bending something out of shape, and letting it spring back.
That metaphor in mind, don't do it too often.
The ones that have a greater resonance/persistence of memory, with the others around me (caught up in the continual cohesion and wake of my passage) are mine. Some of your particle-waves are mine, and vice versa, but there is a core resonance that is Me, and i refresh that, as I go, and I track the changes, over my life.
Sounds about right.
Re(4): The card analogy
Date: 2007-08-16 07:28 pm (UTC)This is, of course, completely contrary to the deterministic model, in which things happen without observation, i.e. a shuffled deck still has a particular order.
Re: Re(4): The card analogy
Date: 2007-08-16 07:32 pm (UTC)