Metaphysics and Descartes.

These questions are extremely difficult to get to any real answer without a really well grounded framework.

Once you understand what you can and can't claim, then you know what you can build against that will stand up against questions. It's a lot like Postulates and Theorems in Geometry. All parts of the equation have to be valid for the answer to be valid.

I believe "This life matters, we need to gracefully dance our dance and fulfill our roles". If it doesn't help "in this life" then it doesn't actually matter.

The easiest way to think is.. is it possible every person is like you? If so, would this logic fail?

I find things that require "me" to be special are the furthest things from real.

Great questions, after trying to grasp answers, it will lead to more and more questions . It is a long road, but well worth it.. I'd start with Aristotle, Socrates and Descartes

Regarding pre-determinism it makes sense to me that all possible things or combination of things exist. I think that the choices you make in this life shape the particular universe that you are in. Sort of like infinite timelines with infinite will that is constantly dreaming up new realities and new ways of being. So in my view everything is predetermined but our will picks and chooses what timeline it lives in.

I knew you were gonna say that.

i love this... ive heard it called the simulaion theory and the more savy humans become with bionic body parts and work in AI the more plausible these theorys become. whos to say were not artificially intelligent sims lol. ive pondered this theory many times on psychedelics and let me tell ya... if nothing else.... itll make you wanna watch the matrix real bad lol...

As mentioned before, I think fundamental physics may have some clues as to the nature of our reality.

Over the past few decades, physcisits have been forced to accept some psychedlic-like ideas. One outstanding example is quantum entanglent, where particles are instantly linked across arbitrarily large distances. What does space really mean if this is possible? Serious physicists propose that it breaks down our concept of absolute space, and instead a higher reality exists where all of space is connected and where our reality is simulated.

Some physcisits from California in the 60/70s *ejem* loved this idea, and pointed out that such implications should be discussed by the professionals in the field, instead of just keeping their noses up formulas. There is a nice book called "How the hippies saved physics" on this topic. Another title for the book could be "How psychedlics saved physics"

There is also an interesting Nova episode that just came out on this topic. You'll get to see a physcisits draw a hyperspace sphere on an outdoor chalkboard and claim that reality is created through a projection from this hyperspace sphere, our 3D space being a projected illusion.

This is how I understand the harsh consequences of the experimental confirmation of quantum entanglement:

1) Our core understanding of space and time is shattered! We no longer have space and time separated throughout the cosmos and connected only through light and it's "snail-pace" cosmological speed.

2) If space and time are not spread out like we had assumed, how are they connected? There must be some kind of higher reality where things can be connected to each other independently of where we are observing/seeing them in our universe. This is what the physcisits drawing on the outdoor chalkboard is trying to explain. That also means that our reality is a simulated projection of this connected "higher plane of existence". Plato would approve.

The thing is that many physicsts quitely ignored these possible implications and focused on the formulas, numerical predictions, etc, or they raised obscure objections (e.g. filters are not truly random) to the experiment probing Bell's theorem. By recently using distant quasars to control the filters these objections havebl been shown to not have merit.

It was the psychedelic physcisits from the Esalen institute that were not affraid to speak up and challenge the status quo. They are heroes to me and indeed are the hippies that saved physics.

Finally, an analogy can me made for a simulation. Let's consider the game "SIMS". It has a physics engine. Let's make it realistic and in the SIMS simulation there is a speed of light and no SIM character can go over it. They would understand reality like we did at Einstein's peak. However, what if a smart SIM found out that their large world is being generated in a higher existence plane (a computer chip). He could do experiments where the nature of the computer chip is revealed and two arbitrarily separate events in the world of the SIMS are actually next to each-other in the computer chip. By manipulating the bits in the chip, he could show experimentally that two separate places in the world of the SIMS are actually right next to each other in the higher reality (the chip). That is what we may be doing with quantum entanglent experiments. Make sense? Am I missing something?

Do you think this stuff could somehow connect to Robert Lanzas theory of biocentrism. He’s proven using the double slit experiment that observation is a key role in shaping reality... if I’m not mistaken quantum entanglement somewhat confirmed this as well by showing that Particle parallels react before the other is tampered with just by the scientists making the conscious choice to tamper with the first particle... any thoughts on this stuff? I love trying to connect different theories.

I think they are related. I'm not familiar with Robert Lanzas work, but way I understand it, the double slit experiment leaves room for several interpretations of what is going on (including the Copenhagen or De Broglie–Bohm interpretations). Quantum entanglement has a more restrictive interpretation not reality. I think quantum entanglement is able to rule out the De Broglie–Bohm interpretation, which the double-slit cannot do.

Yes, i would say that is the innevitable conclusion. But even the fact that the speed of light is always the same for each observer is an indication.

But what is the nature of that higher plane?

A novel alternative/adaptation of string theory proposed by the theoretical physicist erik verlinde, states that basically everything we know, is information. But it is not exactly clear to me how "information" is being defined in this theory.

His theory is praised as well as criticized. It could be the new string theory.

That makes sense... if data or information are forms of energy and energy is forever then information is forever to... plus I’m pretty sure they’ve either theorized or have discovered that invisible data fields exist. Idk all the ins and outs of it but I do remember reading that somewhere.

Information theory is very interesting, but I never studied it. I can't say much about the subject other than I want to learn.

It is my opinion that these kinds of discussions would require all participants to understand the "formulas and numerical predictions" as you put it, to a tee. High physics and high mathematics are a discipline that cannot be losslessly transformed down to hunter-gatherer ape think. Those formulas you deride are physics. Talking about physics in hunter-gatherer terms (aka natural language) is like trying to explain what tripping is like to someone who never tripped.

Anyway, information theory is quite central to the implications (or lack thereof) of quantum entanglement. As far as I know, information cannot be transmitted through an entanglement, which means one side of the entanglement cannot causally alter the other side, the speed limit on causality is still in place. Now what this means, or how it is even possible, is beyond me. I have understood some higher theories to understand the difference between getting the maths and not getting it, and quantum mechanics is beyond my current understanding.

As for the double-slit experiment, there is a very clean response to that. People will say silly things like 'subatomic particles are both particle and wave', or they are 'either particle or wave, fixed in one state by observation', and similar. A much cleaner explanation would be that they are neither. They are something that has no clean analogue in the experiential realm of hunter gatherer apes. They aren't like stones, and they aren't like waves on the lake. They aren't like anything we've ever seen or felt. They are like what the mathematical equations describe. Which is beyond our understanding without the work of building a foreign model in our minds by learning the maths.

So don't discount the maths.

He makes a good point bout the hunter gatherer apes lol I love physics but when I look at like formulas and stuff that shit looks like alien language 👽

Gonna weigh in and regurgitate the things that I've gathered from studying quantum mechanics from an academic setting:


Yes, the double slit is quite the interesting phenomenon. We discussed it in school, you probably know the details; so i'm skipping to the good part.


When the whole "observation" context was used, many different speculations were made by many different scientists. There are those think observation implies human observation. And then there are those who refer to "observations" as their means of detecting the photons.

In most modern techniques, observation requires light. Instruments monitoring this phenomenon use light to "observe." So, the speculation: was it ever a particle/wave? Yes and no - was their response - meaning they don't know.

The proposition: does the light used in the means of "observing" the photon interfere with the wave? We know about constructive and destructive interference... so. By using light to "observe," is it the light that interacts with itself that crashes the wave?

That's where my understanding ends.

Take care!
ACY

Here is an interesting thought experiment based on that principle: Wigner's friend

And some extra mind-pulling stuff: Quantum foam


Kind regards,

The Traveler

Here is using the work "The Cosmic Game", 1998, Stanislav Grof.



Stanislav Grof uses the notion "interdisciplinary reference system" for this, before mentioning the works of Ken Wilber: "Sex, Ecology and Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution" (1995), "A Brief History of Everything" (1996), "The Eye of Spirit: An Integral Vision for a World Gone Slightly Mad" (1997). In Grof's work, the compatibility between science, materialism, religion, spirituality is suggested.



This idea is found as well, citing "The blind watch maker." (1986), by Richard Dawkins.



If you mean something like the non-dream experience, or waking life, is a result of gravitating around the sleep experience, and determined or scripted by the sleep experience, then it might help to see Grof's notion and experiences related to the 'Void', 'Absolute Consciousness', the relationship between them, and mythology relating to this, or words from other spiritual systems that he compiled in his work, such as Śūnyatā.



The physical being an act of creative expression of the metaphysical is approached with terms such as holotropic and hylotropic, in "The Cosmic Game". The roots of these words are greek: ὅλος (hólos, “whole”), τροπή (tropḗ, “movement towards something”). Bibliographical notes of works about mythology (Greek and otherwise) and their relevance to this topic include: "Myths to live by", Joseph Campbell, 1972.



Albert Einstein is mentioned along C. J. Jung, suggesting a connection between the domain of physics and psychology.

Overall, I recommend using this and looking into. Hope it helps.

What I find amusing about this thread is how it has veered off into an intellectual-mathematical discussion, which whilst being very interesting and thought provoking isn't all that far from where we started with the OPs original proposition.. which has been critically derided.. and replaced with equally outlandish propositions in my opinion.

There is an over reliance on mathematics in our current scientific paradigm, most easily seen with our cosmological model, astrophysics, and with the theories already mentioned so far. It is a language and unfortunately as humans we seem predisposed to tell stories with it, to project all sorts of fantasies on to it and with it, instead of using it to actually explain what we see.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality" - Nikola Tesla

If we spent more time actually observing what is right in front of us and not getting lost in mathematical abstractions and jerking off to the 'superior' mathematical minds (Hawkings etc) I would posit we would advance much quicker as a society from the point where we are at currently. More over, if we actually bothered to question what is doing the seeing inside of ourselves instead of looking to the outside for answers we'd make the quantum leap we all deep down hope for.

Forget the maths and lets pay attention to ourselves and each other. /rant

Thank you for the links Trav! I am taking a look at them now.


ACY

Edit: Very insightful video and wiki link. I love learning about quantum mechanics. At the university it is presented in a very reduced version. We explored many of the equations that were discussed in Wigner's friend, however it was never discussed as "Wigner's friend," they simply just explained the different states, the equations, and which states apply to which specific setting, transition, etc etc.

I always like seeing the creative ways that folks use to relay ideas and concepts - such as the Quantum Foam. It places an imagery in one's mind that can be used to related the concept behind the theory.

During that video, it shows a magnified version of matter being created out of "nothing" and then being destroyed into "nothing." That is very interesting! I wonder if there is a way to probe even further and see what is occurring within the "moments" of existence before returning to nothing? Is there a limit at some point? Or is it going to be continuously repeating the same behavior "all the way down?" Is it limitless?

Hello!

Because I believe reality is computer generated, this means that the laws of our "universe", such as all physics, are completely created by God, and may change at any time. science is also a creation of God, and its laws can change at any time.

a simple example of this would be the acceleration of gravity. when we measure the acceleration of gravity on earth, it is 9.8 m/s^2. but there is no reason that it has to remain 9.8 m/s^2. it could change at any time, like changing a computer file on a computer.

i also believe things such as DMT and quantum physics, are creations of god as well. they are creations made by god for us to experience. they are NOT made to be fully understood. they are there to amaze us and make us wonder. and they are open to interpretation.

and again, reality is an image(eyesight) + signals(feelings) + information(thoughts).
so any evidence one may find about our reality, could be simulated results, or just a change in the image(eyesight) + signals(feelings) + information(thoughts). so anything and everything is possible!

but again, i also believe reality is a scripted computer simulation for the soul, so everything i wrote here was pre-determined.

thanks for reading. any and all input is appreciated!