Reference Theory and the Final Model

[Graviphoton]

Initial Thoughts on Spacetime Theories

 

Its seems that spacetime theories are quite a mainstream theory. I came up with the idea of treating the mind

as a dimension of spacetime, and I wasn’t aware of this. Its actually good, because then it cannot be so

crack pot. The idea, is that consciousness is related to geometrical features, and are therefore called

spacetime theories.

 

I believe it was Arthur Eddington who first came up with the name to the theory, and advanced by Dr. John

Smythies. It seems that the theory is based upon the proposal that the spacetime continuum we perceive in

the four dimensional phenomenon, neither exists in time nor space… But we do have points and places in

space and time as though our bubble of perception has these degrees of freedom.

 

The Relationship between Internal and External Spacetime (a.k.a Reference Theory)

 

‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a point in external space and time.

The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to be equal to the law, that the rule that

the absolute square of the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an

observed system.’’

 

The probability of a spacetime occurrence is proportional to the magnitude of the external time variable

with the internal time variable, which will be described as t and t’, so the probability equation is given

as

 

[math](P=|t|^{2}=(tt’)[/math]

 

*Where t’ is the conjugate of t.

 

This of course is identical discipline to Born’s Law, an empirical equation [math](P= \psi \psi*)[/math] describing the

probability of finding a system in one of its quantum states, given by the quantum state vector given as |Ø>.

An example, is the electron, with a position, momentum and energy is totally described by the state vector, given as |Ø>. Although, the rule of complimentarity ruled itself by the uncertainty principle forbids us ever knowing everything about the mathematics behind |Ø>. Though, potentially, anything you want to know is behind that variable. The state/wave vector spreads out over spacetime. It can potentially and theoretically calculate the wave vector of entire galaxies and even the universe itself!

 

But here is the really interesting [part]. If we want a unification of physics, we need a model of the mind that corresponds to it having its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, even if we have to integrate them as real points in time, and that would also include space, according to special relativity.

 

If my law that states:

 

‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a point in external space and time.

The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to be equal to the rule that

the absolute square of the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an

observed system.’’

 

.. is true, then we do have a few things to consider, that seem totally logical. It would mean that for consciousness to operate, a collapse in the wave function between an observer and the observed must occur, so that the observations we make, can be used as a reference to what is observed: The internal and external realities, in this specific case of reasoning.

 

These are the only times when real time models can be used, and is really, according to one line of mainstream physics, the only real time anything is real. When things are not observed, is when we can use imaginary time.

 

This law is empirical to the following work, and if it fails, all else does as well.

 

An Arrow of Time for the Model

 

…Is interesting, because my model cannot suggest a unique arrow, because of some discrepancies with the instantaneous frames of existence that seem to be posited from the above conclusions. I have quantized consciousness, so that only whenever we make an observation, can there be a correlation in space and time. In fact, time may be the very conduit that relates the internal world and the external world together.

 

So only a point in conscious spacetime, which has collapsed the state vector of external reality, does either variable exist… in other words, there is no reality without the perception of reality, and this would conclude that consciousness and the perception of consciousness are invariant to each other.

 

In fact, this is where the next premise derives:

 

‘’You cannot have a real point in conscious spacetime, without a corresponding point in external spacetime.’’

 

If what we observe is not a current projection of external spacetime, then what we are witnessing cannot be

real in the sense of what we define as a reality. There needs to be a simultaneous squaring of our world and

the external world, for both to define a real existence.

 

We actually require this rule, if we are going to integrate the mind as a dimension of spacetime, because in

spacetime, we, find that matter and energy cannot exist without a vacuum, and vice versa. We need a

relationship like the one proposed, so that there is an answer to how there can be a similar premise for the

time vector of the mind and its relationship with matter.

 

Its explanation, is that matter is popped into existence whenever we observe it, exciting the two dimensions

[math](P=|t|^{2}=(tt’)[/math]. The notion that, ‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a

point in external space and time. The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to

be equal to the absolute square of the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an

observed system (1),’’ not only unites the points of internal spacetime and external spacetime as playing

exactly the same roles, it also plays the same role as the observer effect.

 

(1) - Or the dimension of the observer and the dimension of the observed system.

 

In fact, the very idea that a system will collapse on the ‘’transaction’’ of * (using Cramer

terminology), may play exactly the same roles in uniting the variables t and t’ together. I also

came to these conclusions obviously from mathematical idea’s, and we will cover that soon.

 

The relationship between the external and the internal dimension(s), can be expressed as:

 

[math]<t(a,1)|(b,2)t’>[/math]

 

… as an expression detailing their ‘’meeting’’. We must assume for this expression to be correct,

there must be the ability to describe both t and t’ as having values that can be expressed as a set of events

which describe their evolutionary steps to reach their final State Value.

 

1) [math]P_{12}=|t_{1} (a_{2},b_{2})|^{2}=|(\Delta S)t’>,|(\Delta S_{f})t’>[/math]

And for the conjugate

2) [math]P_{12}=|t_{2} (a_{2},b_{2})|^{2}= |(\Delta S)t >,|(\Delta S_{f})t >[/math]

 

Where:

 

P ~ Probability

[math]t_{1}[/math] ~ The time variable (just a mathematical duration)

t ~ The time dimension

t’~ The Second Imaginary Time Dimension

a ~ Event One

b ~ Event Two

[math]S[/math] ~ Initial State

[math]S_{f}[/math] ~ Final State

 

 

The reason why I have exhausted this part, is because the upper equations do describe some kind of

time passing using a time variable... (But this is ok). The process can be instantaneous, but be careful,

we may not actually be talking about speeds, as in faster than light.

 

Of course, superluminal speeds would be hard to distinguish in the theory, because there is no obvious

evidence that anything moves at all. It may just be a case of two myriad imaginal sheets that square

together. I obviously attend for the latter.

 

So how do we picture all of this?

 

Well, I’ve made it clear that anything we perceive, are like flashes of momentary existence that has an

unbounded attachment to the outside world. From time to time, consciousness and external spacetime lock,

and create a point/moment in real time. This is the true arrow of time. There is just discontinuous fleeting

flashes of existence, and any flow, is just an illusion.

 

For some reason though, consciousness does not experience a discontinuous set of frames in time.

Instead we experience a smooth chain of events that seem uninterrupted.

 

This is called the ‘’Binding Paradox.’’

 

After the consideration of mind and matter: Even those physicists who will inexorably and insidiously

evaluate that such discussions are of philosophical debate, because consciousness is an ‘’abstract theory’’(1),

that we are informed in physics, namely the Copenhagen Interpretation, that a particle is not real until a

a collapse in the wave function occurs, (in this sense, we shall not include atomic observers). The thing that

makes a collapse of the wave function unique when an observer is involved, is that we have memory of the

action.

 

(1) Consciousness cannot be an abstract theory. There are too many details which quantum mechanics

cannot allow to be dismissed, such as the question to not having determined whether a model of the

brain does not require a non-classical model of quantum physics, or not. If it does require a non-classical

model, then we have the question to how [math]10^27[/math] particles come together and give rise the phenomenon

of consciousness. I argue, that if the mind was not present, then spacetime ‘’out there’’ would become

an abstract theory, because there is no mind there to define it.

 

An atom, being modeled as an observer, does not have this kind of memory (1). This is why there is an

importance with the conscious collapse model. This is not pseudoscience. It is the core of Copenhagen,

and the importance of the titles of many famous books ever written.

 

(1) (and i'll let you in on some recent developments... for a while now, i have been proposing that memory does not retain to the matter in our heads, but recent views and a model yet to be shown to the general public, describes memory as being stored in the vacuum).

 

On Non-Classical Models

 

 

space-matter-time-energy-mind

 

It is said in relativity, that spacetime is in fact one thing with energy as space-matter-time-energy. Now with the new physics, no longer are they four, but mind is added to the one force:

 

space-matter-time-energy-mind

 

Actually, I am not the first to posit this. Dr. Wolf also makes the relation in his book, ‘’Mind into Matter.’’

 

The reality we see, smell and touch are built up on senses. Thus, the optical bubble of perception isn't the real physical outside world. The world we see is actually a mental projection > one that is created through a series of complicated processes. Somehow, the eye captures a two-dimensional image and casts it into the three-dimensional phenomenon of perception, and how it does this, is still a mystery to neuroscientists.

 

More physical processes are involved, at the microscopic level. When a photon (a particle of light) hits off the retina, changes occur inside of the cells. A molecule called the Cis-Retinal changes into a Trans-Retinal; it isn't a chemical change, but rather a change in the spatial structure of the molecule. This changes a protein that is already present in the cells of the retina, and this protein attaches itself to another protein, because of a chemical change in the original protein. More happens.

 

Molecules are cut in half, which in turn causes electrical channels to become closed off; and this series of events causes an electrical imbalance, which is then transported through electrolyte and nerve activity to the brain. This is all quite amazing. To think a picture from the outside world has to go through so many changes to reach the brain. Something which is even more amazing is that the process needs to be reversed! The reason for this is because if it didn't, a cell in the retina could only ever be used once. This regeneration allows our eyes to use a cell over and over again. Some of these cells will be used for color perception. Other's black and white. But how the brain processes this mixed information is still one of the biggest mysteries concerning this area of science.

 

What is even more interesting is the ''binding problem'' of quantum physics. How does the mind not only make sense of this information, but bind it together into a smooth continuous perception, rather than discontinuous flashes of awareness? The brain really is quite complex when one considers these things.

 

Nevertheless, one cannot escape the beauty of consciousness' ability to 'recreate' space and time in its own projection of the external world. In fact, more and more physicists are attempting to treat the mind with its own spacetime continuum. However, there are not many models or mathematical basis for consciousness around. It is still an on-going, difficult problem. One just doesn't know how to; and for those who do, tread this yellow brick road with careful coordinated steps to the wizard of quantum.

 

And I hope, from my following conclusions of whether the mind requires a non-classical model, that the academia will consider its implications seriously:

 

‘’It is absolutely, and ridiculously useless to consider a non-classical frame for the mind, when in the end, the ultimatum is that non-classical actions determine any result of consciousness, in the state of that single photon, a two dimensional object of information transverses into the three dimensional phenom of the neural networks. So in any model of consciousness, it needs to take into account of these quantum actions, upon arrival at the retina, and therefore leaves the conclusion of a classical model of the brain retarded.’’

 

(Before we continue, my original notation did not have t and t’. Instead, they used Td and td.)

 

"If consciousness is in fact defined (and different) at every moment of time, it should also be

related to points in space: the truly subjective observer system should be related to space-time

points." from "Quantum Theory and Time Asymmetry", Zeh (1979).

 

We certainly do experience a time dimension, and that time dimension must be inextricably linked

to the external time dimension… I’ll provide more reasons into this soon; and there is overwhelming

evidence to suggest they are indeed separate entities, and not the same.

 

We also experience spatial dimensions, and it has been proposed by well-known spacetime theories

to advocate dimensions for the mind as well, since we know very well we see three dimensions… but

what we see isn’t of real space, so what we are observing are naturally created dimensions inside

the mind.

 

I applied the following mathematical conclusions from Pythagorean geometry:

 

Td – Internal Time Experience

td – External Time Experience

a, b and c are the spatial coordinates

 

[math]a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+tdi^{2}-Tdi^{2}[/math]

 

I settle with the former discipline. I prefer the idea that the asymptotic time we all experience, and

cosmic time are two different sides to the same coin.

 

[math]|a^{2}|=(\sqrt(a^{2}_{1}+a^{2}_{2}+a^{3}_{2}))^{2}= \sqrt a'^{2}_{1}+a'^{2}_{2}+a'^{3}_{2}[/math]

 

Where the left hand side of the equation, in this case, can represent the spatial dimensions we

observe, given by the slash at the end. To solve

 

[math]a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+tdi^{2}-Tdi^{2}[/math]

 

I solved the real part of the equation by allowing [math]i^{2}=i^{2}*k^{2}[/math] so that the result is

 

[math]a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}-i^{2}*k^{2}[/math]

a^2+b^2+c^2-k^2^2=0

 

Solving for the real part in vectors is useless for me, unless I can find some acceptable mathematical

set of equations that describe the relationship between Tdi=tdi. With,

 

Alone, [math]a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+tdi^{2}-Tdi^{2}[/math]

 

knowing that Tdi=tdi, then we see the upper expression as having new meaning, by uniting the fabric of spacetime with consciousness.

 

But space and time on the relativistic map, is invariant, so that they play the same roles.

For instance, a change in time Δt must also indicate a change in space. If time is a human

aspect, and there is a change in our vector, then this would instantly determine a change in all

the other variables:

 

 

Δa^2+Δb^2+Δc^2+Δtdi- ΔTdi

 

 

So instantly can we assume that this model is flawed, because in no way have we ever had any

experience that a change in how we perceive time, alters the external world of clocks.

This immediately renders the equation tdi=Tdi flawed one might think.

 

But, with some careful thought and deduction, relativity does say that a conscious observer will

experience time change in for instance, time dilation. This experience alone can excite Tdi=tdi again.

 

So I like to talk about the world we see and the time we feel specifically, as a dimension(s). This

time dimension we feel and sense flow past us, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom which can

be described as a second imaginary dimension of spacetime. The mathematical relationship between

is by treating both individually as conjugates of each other.

 

In physics, we often square numbers to evaluate the final answer. A perfect example is Born's Probability

Law, the rule that the absolute square of the wave function gives the probability (P=|ψ|^2= (ψψ*)) of

finding the system in the state described by the wave function, where psi ψ is an acting conjugate of psi

star ψ*.

 

Let Tdi be (a) and tdi as b, and use the following algebraic function:

 

[math](a+bi)(a-bi)=a^{2}-b^{2}+2abi=a^{2}+b^{2}[/math]

 

where

 

The Second process just yields yet another conjugate, but has the same final value [math]a^{2}+b^{2}[/math]. This shows the

final answer, produced by the original conguates being squared. It also displays the unique relationship

between tdi and Tdi… the acting variables of the conjugates. Tdi or (b), is a single answer with (a),

as [math]a^{2}+b^{2}[/math]. I think the relationship between human experience, and the observed system square together, and

locks in the relationship of the mind as a vector of spacetime.

 

Final Thoughts

 

Well, I am personally convinced that there could be success in describing the dimensions we see and feel into a type of subspace dimensional math [math]|a|=( \sqrt(a^{1}_{2}+a^{2}_{2} + a^{3}_{2} ))^{2}= \sqrt -a^{1}_{2}+-a^{2}_{2} + -a{3}_{2}[/math]. The vector analysis of consciousness may prove very useful, or the alternative, very useless. The math can never be concrete with a highly metaphysical condition such as consciousness. Its hard to define at all, never define the terms in mathematical text.

 

Many physicists often believe that the term ‘’subdimension,’’ or ‘’hyperdimension’’ are just science pop expressions, and nothing of it really truly exists. This may not be so much the truth from further thought though. In physics, we do deal with virtual seas of negative spinning particles, in the Dirac Sea model of quantum physics. This is an ethereal background of infinite negative energy… isn’t this a type of subspace? The notion of hidden things should not be of surprise. The scope of knowledge we have concerning this universe, is a maya of mystery and fog, which is hidden below the threshold of perception.

 

Such realms have allowed psychophysicists to explore the probable realms of the imaginary. Supposed to be well-excepted, there is some kind of imaginal realm, where waves square and create something. We use conjugate values all the time in physics, and in the transactional interpretation, an Echo Wave and an Offer Wave oscillate throughout the imaginary dimension of space, and they multiply in the present, and the ‘’thing’’ is created.

 

I think the relationship between mind and the vacuum in much the same sense might treat the relationship between the time experienced by the mind, and the time existing natural outside the mind, are in much the same ways conjugates of each other. Their squared result gives the minds value as being an added vector onto spacetime.

 

If it is the predictability of this theory being integrated into a mainstream science difficult to comprehend, then there is in fact really strong evidence we can integrate it into special relativity. Special relativity, as you might know, is an observer-dependant theory of physics.

 

If the concept of treating the mind as something similar to a dimension is difficult to accept, just consider these words by Dr. Andre Linde:

 

‘’ The general theory of relativity brought with it a decisive change in this point of view [the 3D world]. Space-time and matter were found to be interdependent, and there was no longer any question which one of the two is more fundamental. Space-time was also found to have its own inherent degrees of freedom, associated with perturbations of the metric-gravitational waves…

 

Is it possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete?’’

 

My theory does in fact have a snag, with general view. Dr. Alex Greene postulated that the imaginary time units where a product of the observer. Real time is a property of something being measured, while imaginary time is what happens when something is not, and he see’s consciousness as the unobserved, and the imaginary time dimension. The difference with my theory, is that it involves adding an extra imaginary dimension. But my own work is extraordinarily simple, next to Elizabeth Rauscher in 2001 who developed a detailed theory of an eight-dimensional complex Minkowski space.

 

Some of the equations did not show up... so i will rewrite them

 

I just saw some tumbleweed pass me by...

Edited June 2, 2008 by Graviphoton
multiple post merged

[Graviphoton]

On Probability Curves

 

Probability curves, a mathematical discipline in physics, is used to cite the probability of an event. It is a growing theory in physics, that there is a subspacetime realm, where a possibility-wave squares with its conjugate possibility-wave. This is in fact the very same process we use in information physics, to create a single answer. We multiply two numbers all of the time to find single answers, such as:

 

1. Force = mass x acceleration

2. Velocity = frequency x wavelength

3. Volume = area of base x height

4. Area = half the length of base x perpendicular height

 

Fred Wolf has been most influential in this model, because it was he who speculated originally a relationship between undulating probability-waves meeting undergoing a sqquring mechanism, so that objective realities are created ''out there'' by the undulating probability-waves ''in here''. This relationship, i concluded was perfect to answer for the reference between the observer and the observed, and more importantly, to this model, the relationship between the dimensions we experience, and the dimensions that are objective.

 

Getting Comfy With Subspacetime Realms

 

In this section, i studied the form of three new principles for consciousness. I will rewrite them for the sake of this investigation... If you have read the work, and already understood what it all meant, then i advise you just skip it...

 

[Qoute]

 

The Three Principles of Consciousness

 

(Recently, my model of consciousness has evolved. I figure that the following results are required for a model of the brain and cognitivity.)

 

As much as it might seem at times that the mind is totally ''free'' of the boundaries of time, it really isn't. In fact, it's just that we have a phenomenally-complex outlook on existence, that existence itself seems so ''defied;'' and this illusion is brought on by three principles of mind.

 

1. The Principle of Expectancy

2. The Principle of Uncertainty

3. The Principle of Certainty

 

Time, as we have covered so many times, is consistent of three boundaries (created by the mind). These are the guises of past, present and future. It turns out, that time would not be 'time' without these three boundaries. In fact, without mind, time could not take on these attributes - and without them, we cannot even be sure if we could call time, as ''time'' - it would essentially be meaningless.

 

For this reason, time requires the human [certainty] that we have a past. It also requires the [expectation] that time will always be one more than now - but as you might have surmised, we can never be [certain] that it will - this is based on two factors; one being that the universe could end one day - and the more obvious fact that we can [expect] to die one day. And then there is the perception that we are 'moving up' with time, always in the present moment. The present seems to be a record of everything that was past.

 

The past can take on in particular, two of the principles set above. We can be either [certain] or [uncertain] about a past event - we cannot [expect] anything in the past, because we do not exist in the past. In the present, all three principles can take hold of us at any time. We can [expect] an outcome.

 

We can be [uncertain] about a present outcome. And we can be [certain] about either our existences, or again another outcome made in the present. The future can take on either two of the principles. We can [expect] the future, naturally, and we can be [uncertain] about the future - but i feel, we can never be [certain] about the future, because everything is unfixed - if we could be [certain] about the future, we would know for [certain] any outcome.

 

Using these thoughts, we can see that psyche plays a particular dance in knowledge, especially when concerning the past, present and future. This pattern emerged ever since the very low entropy in the beginning of spacetime. In fact, one can see the invaluable nature of entropy, when considering knowledge; because, as far as we know, our gaining of information would not occur, unless it was in this very formation. Thus:

 

1. Past = (Certain and Uncertain factors) – [math][A,(1,0)][/math]

2. Present = (Expectant, Uncertain and Certain factors) – [math][b,(2,0,1)][/math]

3. Future = (Expectant and Uncertain factors) – [math][C,(2,0)][/math]

 

The one principle that seems to play an unwashed effect is the [uncertainty] inherent in life, in past, present and future - and this not necessarily be Heisenberg’s principle of Uncertainty, since the world of subatomic particles don't really concern the average Joe - rather, i am speaking about subjective factors here.

 

What is vivid in the set-up, are two main configurations. Those being the apparent swap of [certain] and [expectant] factors inherent in the past and the future. This swap means everything, when it comes to present knowledge. The second pointer, is that the 'liveliness' of the present time is represented clearly through the ability to have (all three) principles at work.

 

Though all the three principles are quite psychological, the undeniable thing at play here is that these psychological factors of knowledge play an intrical part in distinguishing the differential barriers in time. The mystery of the mind can be mapped out so; but nevertheless, it makes one wonder just how the mind does it all.

 

It seems to me that time can wire together in this fashionable, consistent way through very means of participation; on the behalf of the human. For instance, it is said that the psychological arrow of time is due to low entropy in the past. But this does not answer the configuration of:

 

[math]A = past = [A,(1,0)][/math]

[math]B=present = [b,(2,0,1)][/math] and

[math]C=future = [C,(2,0)][/math]

 

This simple, zero, one two combo related expression with coordinates A, B and C, in this configuration, displays a fundamental rule of the psychological arrangement and pathology of time. [\Qoute]

 

...........................................................................

 

 

Other Postulations

 

It may be possible, to use these functions as references to actual events in spacetime!!

 

Amazing? Perhaps… In a real quantum picture, these principles are not actual principles of nature externally, because we do have some place in the past, as I was warned by Dr Wolf. Even thought we may never exist in the past, I wanted to reassure him, I meant this strictly in the sense that we only ever exist in the present…

 

And since we do only ever exist in the present time frame, these principles of consciousness may indeed have some applications in physics. For instance, not only do I believe they can be used in a model describing our objective outlook on the subliminal linear nature of time, and ultimately the arrangement of how knowledge is perceived, it may be also useful in the sub-spacetime realm theory of mine.

 

Roger Penrose takes them very seriously, saying they are akin to Plato’s world of idea’s… Since we have looked into some of the finer points of speculating on a subspacetime realm, there are a few rules, which I must keep.

 

1) The mind has unbroken relationships and continual interactions with the subspacetime

 

Just like how we go through life, and forget that nearly or just over 80% of all the functions in the brain are working subliminally to keep our hearts going, among other functions, is almost analogous to the manner in which the mind subliminally operates in the subspacetime realm without us ever being personally concerned with it.

 

Dr Wolf has a very good way of explaining the notion. Consider the following abstraction,

 

___.___.___.___.___.___.___

 

The ‘’almost’’ line there, is what he calls the temporal order of consciousness, which is linear by definition, even though time really isn’t linear. From time to time, the mind/consciousness has a focal point, which is marked by the dots.

 

(Just to point out very quickly, that these focal points is very similar to the focal points I relate the internal and external dimensions together in the spacetime theory of consciousness.)

 

Any sequence of three focal points are called a ‘’triplet’’, and in any order like this, the normal order is a larger blur prior to the focal point, and a smaller blur following it. It always follows this order. Why? Wolf explains it is because consciousness is preceded by an unfocused point of greater uncertainty, and is inexorably followed by a focal point that is nevertheless more certain than the previous unfocused point.

 

Complex? Keep up!!! Just read over it again, slowly if things get a bit rough out there…

 

Now, the relationship between these focal points and level of uncertainty. We can know nothing about a system until a focal point, for refreshment of trying to simplify this, and we know more about it afterwards. It will be interesting to see how we can fit all these strange concepts into place, integrating my principles.

 

Right, so let's continue this.

 

Mind the following:

 

''Any sequence of three focal points are called a ‘’triplet’’, and in any order like this, the normal order is a larger blur prior to the focal point, and a smaller blur following it. It always follows this order. Why? Wolf explains it is because consciousness is preceded by an unfocused point of greater uncertainty, and is inexorably followed by a focal point that is nevertheless more certain than the previous unfocused point. ''

 

This would mean that my principles of consciousness, when concerning uncertainty. If we give each principle three probability values, given as:

 

[math]2_{a}[/math] Expectant

[math]1_{b}[/math] Certain

[math]0_{c}[/math] Uncertain

 

Next, we have to understand what the lower case values represent. They represent real focal points in spacetime. But they have an ascending value, which in this system, represents ascending real values.

 

So a focal point being made in the most furthest back in time, will have a value of a, whereas a focal point established in the end, has a value of c, being the future. So present is logically b.

 

Since we know that the temporal schematic operates as:

 

__.__..__0__.__..__0__.__..__0__.__..

 

Where the zero's represent focal points, and the dots represent the uncertainty, or probability of uncertainty if you like.

 

If the uncertainty of consciousness reflects the uncertainty inherent in the schematic (1), which Wolf evidently expressed in his musings, then the uncertainty must be psychological as well as being a quantum subject, and it seems that the particular dance as i put it, may hold a key to undersanding this in new ways.

 

(1) - I make this connection, because his schematic relates to real time operations on the focal points of the abstraction, with evident values of a more uncertain progress into th future, whilst the past holds more certainty, or less uncertainty. All ready, values are popping up all over the place, and this is going to be my operation to express them in simple relations with the principles.

 

Now, lets take the notation we ended up expressing the relationships between the principles and plug in those variables of intensity.

 

[math][A(1_{b}<0_{c})][/math] (Past)

here the uncertainty located in the future is less than the value of certainty located in the variable [math]1_{b}[/math].

[math][b(2_{a}<0_{c}<1_{b})][/math] (Present)

here, in the present time, i would state that expectant values are more than the uncertain factors of what we expect from the future, and that Certain factors are more than both the expectant and the uncertain factors, because we are very certain about the past.

[math][C(2_{a}>0_{c})][/math] (Future)

And to finish, the future holds for us, an expectant factor that is less than the uncertain factors, because we can expect a lot from the future, but not very certain of anything at all.

 

I'll continue the implications later.

 

So in theory, there are possibilities for quantum waves of information altering the world in sqauring probabilities of undulating waves from the ''potentia realm'', as Prof. Goswami terms it. The squaring produces the thing, and in the theory of treating the mind as a dimension, we can use focal points to schemise actual actions taken between an observer and the external world as conjugates of each other.

 

When the conjugates multiply [math](a+bi)(a-bi)=a^{2}+b^{2}[/math], a focal point is created between the observer and the observed, even if we are talking about a single thought that changed the vacuum statistically and a very small probabilistic state

 

Only one Conscious Mind?

 

I found it interesting to learn that quantum physics actually predicted that there was only one mind ever in existence. It was a metaphysical physicist that proved there was only one mind ever present. It was conjected from the musings of Vedanta. So No two minds can ever exist, in a consistent quantum mechanical framework.

 

It will obviously appear strange to imagine that we have different thoughts, actions and plans, but find sharing a by-product of a single unit of energy we call the conscious realm of the mind. Surely we are unique? The answer turns out to be a mixed logic, when concerned with quantum mechanics. There can be no separate mind, but only one mind ever existing.

 

If this is true, which I surely do believe it is, then there is a complication removed from my theory. There was the chance, one could have argued that my theory would in fact be a lot more complicated than a single subspacetime dimension for consciousness, because the line of thought would say that there have been many minds, so many different dimensions we would need to make note of.

 

But if independent minds are proven by quantum mechanics to cause problems, then a single mind, created by all the ‘’illusory’’ of separation and identity, is in fact lost to all the networks operating interdependently, again as one single unit. Dr Wolf argues that this is the Mind of God, and he has not been the first to postulate such notions, as they extend right back to Plato’s time.

 

Then there is one mind, and there is no need to worry about how to treat so-called ‘’individual’’ conscious minds in a mathematical framework for a quantum field model, because we can remain safe describing all ‘’conscious minds’’ under the same single dimension.

 

Everything Is Relative

 

We find, that there is no absolute time frame in the universe. Everything must be relative to another framework. And because of the this, nothing is moving, and nothing is standing still. For instance, we find in relativity that time is actually a frozen lake, that does not flow at all, and everything that exists in the history of the universe, it is found to be all layed out, existing like side-by-side graphs, or myraid sheets. Single frames of existence, all layed out like a breath frozen by the cold air.

 

But its not such a wimper, with the term of zero-point energy in quantum electrodynamics. If you could freeze the vacuum down to absolute zero, -273 K, there is still movement in the vacuum. Everything is still vibrating in the absolute cold temperature. This is the zero-point energy, and it is seen as the spontaneous frothing of energetic and material quantum bubbles. John Wheeler coined this famously as ''quantum foam.''

 

Even when you think you could freeze something, there is still something happening. This sea is a virtual electromagnetic sea, and is required as a model in the Dirac Sea, where an electron moves through spacetime, and moves in a jitter-bugging motion, as the virtual negative electroparticles are bouncing the poor electron back and forth. Dirac, by formulating quantum mechanics and relativity together in 1926 (a big year in physics), found that the electron could move at near light speed, and whenever we observed it moving through spacetime, it would appear to move slower, because it followed a jagged path through the vacuum.

 

Weird stuff eh? It predicted the electron quite well, and dispite the little attention of the media concerning such things, the notion of the Dirac Sea has been enlightened again as quite possibly somehow the same thing as the zero-point energy field itself.

 

If thoughts come from the zero-point field, as speculated by quite a few physicists in the field, then it may also be something we need to use to model a system to how we come to know something.

 

Dr. Walker, a physicist who works deep in the field of cognitive science, also took a quantum mechanical approach, among three seperate groups of scientists at the time who where working on such models, back in the 80's. He proposed hidden variables to answer for how we come to know something. He is a really smart scientist, but the idea never really caught on so much.

 

What most of the models did generally conform to, was the collapse of the wave function upon a measurement, and perhaps a collapse in the psyche. The collapse is obviously an operation that works in imaginary time, but it has been speculated by Bertrand Russel that the imaginary dimension of spacetime is somehow the same realm as consciousness. Again, this never really caught on either, but it is still the foundation of the possibilities of spacetime theories ~ the so called relationships between objective and subjective dimensions...

 

..anyway, from my babbling on, the collapse of the wave function responsible for consciousness, is seen as the process of the two-dimensional image cast into the three-dimensional phenomena.

 

How do we come to know something?

 

We tend to say that we gain information, just by analyzing a particular event, and by thus processing it in our neural networks. However, where does this information come from? Does it come from the outside? In fact, the last question is taken seriously by physicists that the very information we gain flows into our beings from the outside. But what if it doesn't?

 

I've always had a problem accepting the idea that information comes into our beings. I'm not exactly sure why. I have always thought of the human being, as being a gigantic memory unit, storing all information in a potential mixed state. Indeed, such an idea shouldn't be difficult to understand, based on two premises:

 

1. That entropy, causing the distinction of past and future, makes our perception of the future as something we move towards, and when we do, it seems as though the future is already apart of our memories. For this reason, one must suspect that somehow thought and wishes exists beyond the observer.

 

2. That information or knowledge about a system instantly becomes known to the observer upon measurement.

 

Now, if we take premise one seriously, thought and memory exists beyond the observer. As much as this might just be a psychological illusory of the mind, we might even consider taking such an idea seriously. For instance, the human observer exists in the present, and we can have memory about the past. However, whenever we come to remember the past, we do no such thing as jumping backwards in time and recollecting the memory being asked for. Instead, we reevaluate an experience we had, and recreate the past in the present as memory. Thus, the real question is, when we do come to experience the future (in the present), how is it that the future already exists as memory? Does thought and wishes exist beyond the observer?

 

I think so - but perhaps not in the way I’ve been making out. You see, one might think that the mind jumps into the future, and this is how thoughts can exist beyond the observer... memories of the future. However, as we have seen, the mind is bound to the present time. The only other way to explain this, is if we have a complete record of future events in our beings, just as we have a record of the past; but the record of the future must be seen as a record we can potentially remember, but cannot, because experience must activate these memories (just as the experience of the past activates our memories of a past event).

 

Thus, the record of the past can be now put in terms of ''real'', and we can say that the future is a record that is ''virtual''; this is only an idiosyncratic method I am going to use, to distinguish the differences. I would like to note, that the past and future have no existence... the past makes up the present time as a record. The only difference with my interpretation is that the future also makes up a record in the present - but this record differs quite a bit from any other type of record we might suspect through subjective knowledge.

 

It turns out, I believe, that both the past and the future is made up of conscious experience (1), which in turn, exists in the present time as a record of memory - one real and the other potentially real. We must be the perfect machines capable of storing these records, as one exists as memory, and the other is unfolded to us as memory.

 

If we take the second premise seriously, then we might ask how we come to process information [almost] as instant as we come to measure something. One example, is how we come to analyze written language, and know it almost just as quickly? In fact, how can blind people touch brail, and equally know it just as fast? How do we bind optical and other sensory perceptions into the phenomena of knowing about it almost just as quick?

 

Let us put forth another mystery concerning consciousness. How can written text seen by the eyes, contain [almost] the same information as when heard by the ears? How does this information vary and fluctuate? Indeed, this 'binding problem' holds also many questions; the most prominent being, how do we crystallize existence in a continuous flow of perception, rather than discontinuous flashes?

 

The only way (I believe) consciousness can perform such tasks, is by saying that we do in fact have a record of all-information about spacetime... Thus, when push comes to shove, consciousness can process the knowledge of a system, because that information is already contained within us. Indeed, such psychic phenomena such as 'Deja Vu' might be explainable, if certain sensory perceptions are abnormal, and certainty get's mixed up with the uncertain realms of knowledge. In fact, psychic predictions of the future might be explainable, if we do indeed have a record of the future in embedded in our consciousness!

 

(1) This applies only to real time. And consequently, the only time something exists.

 

Then using the final equation here, without introducing superfluous probability values right now, the present time frame, in which A and C functions are complimentary to each (the so-called, Complimentarity Principle of Quantum Mechanics),

 

So…

 

Since function A, called in the mathematical principles of my spacetime theory consist experience as temporal focal points in real time stimulations, which I, after a few hours, came to my memory of past musings, that relativtsic time coordinated systems in special relativity could be integrated as an observer-dependancy.

 

Imaginary Time concludes through the notions in spacetime, concerning an event, in this case can very speculated to be simply and observer invariant relevance within the mix of the empirical equations:

 

(a) ~ ∆s = ∫(√ η μv)(dxμ/dλ x dxν/dλ)(dλ)

 

And in time frames relevant to this, is also a dependant variable of a non-conscious influenced observation, or general relationship, since the equation (a) works in real space: The definition that the observer operates in symbiotic mathematical laws whenever we experience and memorize the system being observed.

 

Then there is this…

 

In timelike conditions, we define the paths in real time, the conditions we experience for instance, but only is very slow durations. Truth is, we experience more time in the imaginary time than what we do in real time, or imaginary space, as it is also known as.

 

∆t = ∫(√ - η μv)(dxμ/dλ x dxν/dλ)(dλ)

 

And here, we have the coordination of a lego piece of time as imaginary values. These are the points where a conscious, memorizing system of the outside world, (and there is no proof to suggest we lose thoughts at all. There are cases, concerning strong evidence where old people find they can remember more about their youth, and maybe the old metaphor of ‘’the older the wiser,’’ is in fact a truth of psychological astrangement.

 

So in conclusion, I believe that the whenever the human observes an object, and disturbs the wave function so that the particle collapsed, then we must also consider that even the spacetime equations ~

 

(a) ∆s = ∫(√ η μv)(dxμ/dλ x dxν/dλ)(dλ)

Yet;

(b) -∆s = ∫(√ η μv)(dxμ/dλ x dxν/dλ)(dλ)

 

resembles a physical interaction, because I concluded that the equation (a)-bove, expresses physical attributes, so the observer must have the proof that not only does the mind exist only ever in exist real focal points in space, they are ultimately tied to the world she measures.

 

If we state, instead of reducing the left hand side, just to keep things simple as possible, and state the variable of change, and its constant s, we shall give it a negative time direction, the variable (-∆s) becomes negative instantaneously, then the overall construction will remain negative. So to be proper, it really should be expressed as the equation:

 

-∆s ∫(√ η μv)(dxμ/dλ x dxν/dλ)(dλ)

 

......................................................

 

[math](a_{(ii)j} + b_{(ij)j} )=a^{2}+b^{2}[/math]

 

In this equation, where a equals the tdi variable i have been using to describe the external mind is given as (a), whilst Tdi gives the internal (b). The lower case trace variables, are not traces in the sense of matrix notation, but instead in this theory, trace the different time directions of possible superluminal waves of information.

 

Phase velocity of a Quantum Time Wave

 

Look at this wave equation i devised ages ago:

 

[math](d^{2}/dt^{2})(c^{2})(du^2/dx^{2})+w^{2}u=0[/math]

 

Which can be solved as

 

…has a set of solutions:

 

[math]u = Acos( ax - bt )[/math]

 

[math]c^2 a^2 - b^2 + w^2 = 0[/math]

 

Which are ‘’sine waves’’ propagating with a speed,

 

[math]v=b/a=\sqrt{(c^{2}+(w/a)^{2}}[/math]

 

The problem here, is that they are moving at a speed which exceeds ''c'', at tachyonic speeds that would oscillate in the imaginary time dimension, and spend no time in real time.

 

… just gonna get to some more conclusions which lead to something quite interesting things to consider, even if you don't go away a believer...

 

The usea of the equations, i feel, can describe posible (TTTI), ''two- time measurements and the Transactional Interprtation. The theory involves how quantum time waves, that could be totally analogous to the ones provided above.

 

A state vector, |S> deteremined the probability of the field of the original wave. If the orginal wave does not compute, it simply cancles out. An Echo Wave, |E(t,1)> meeting an Offer Wave <(t,2)O|, moving at superluminal speeds, just like the wave equations i made above.

 

Afterall, not all information should be speculated to move necesserily at the same speeds, which is accepted as lightspeed. But information is far more etheral than a photon, and may have abilities that are of significance.

 

‘’ Faster-than-light (also superluminal or FTL) communications and travel refer to the propagation of information or matter faster than the speed of light.’’

The velocity of a wave, can be defined many ways, and they are by theory found to be at different speeds. What I am interested in, is the speeds of the Echo Wave and the Offer Waves velocity, upon a measurement made in real time. (Such superluminal postulations even lead some to believe this is how to solve the spooky action at a distance, because information moves faster than light, or at least, certain information travels faster than light.

 

You must not mistake however, wave velocities referring to something like a photon, except for under very special conditions… for instance, Hawking can make a photon move at superluminal speeds for a short time using the uncertainty principle.

But I am not talking about radiation here. I am talking about totally ethereal information, phantom of waves of information that whiz past us faster than light, and we are non-the-wiser.

 

We had

 

[math](t=|t|^{2}=(tt))[/math]

 

Where the absolute square created a reference between the internal and external world, and I described the internal world as having a reference to the internal world. But by treating t and t’ as conjugates that gave a real value, it opened the door of allowing an exchange of information: A wave undulating through the imaginal realm, that meets with its conjugate in real time.

 

So the observations we make in everyday life might even be creating the world around us. Many take the idea seriously, such as Dr Cramer in his Transactional Interpretation. Dr Wolf has also promoted the use of the Delayed-Choice Experiment as evidence of backwards-through-time traveling waves. Using the TI, he explains that reality could be built up on superluminal waves traveling through time in a sinusoidal manner.

First, we would need to integrate the TI theory of a complex-valued retarded wave of a quantum state vector [math]| S >[/math] that moves forward through time, as Cramer calls it, an ‘’offer wave’’ in the present state:

 

[math]|O(t, 1) >[/math]

 

Which then moves to the future: t >1 When it does so, it will activate an echo wave state vector which Cramer calls ( a complex-conjugated advanced wave) <E(2)|, toward the present time

 

[math]<E(t, 2)|[/math]

 

The field of probability distribution allows the ‘’transaction’’ to be complete through probability amplitude:

 

[math]<E(t,1)|O(t,2)>[/math]

 

The field requires on exact values of the initial state, and if the original wave does not contain the correct information, then the waves simply cancels out. But each time a successful transaction transpires, a collapse in the wave function follows.

 

This cannot be applied to a multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, such as the Everett Interpretation and the Existential Interpretation, because there is no collapse of the wave function.

 

These waves will move in a sinusoidal manner, it can be seen, to not only move forward in a smooth curve of probability in the positive time direction along an axis, let’s call axis y, and then find itself back at its original starting point, by moving back through the negative time direction.

 

To complete a cycle, such as an Offer Wave moving into the future state, and then back again, the wave now have a displacement on angular frequency [math]w[/math] to the magnitude of [math]2\pi,radians[/math]. You can also work out that you can express such a wave traveling in the form of, noting though that [math]A_{0}[/math] is the amplitude as the maximum function of the equation:

 

[math]A(t,x) = A_{0} cos(kx -wt[/math]

 

To express this wave in the positive time negative direction, we can state:

 

[math]A(t,x) = A_{0} cos(kx + wt)[/math]

 

This should be a firm start to set off any notion of superluminal waves in the form of Echo and Offer Waves operating and undulating the spacetime fabric. In a sense, this is information to be able to move through space, requires to be somehow a part of the vacuum itself, and in reflection, this MUST mean that the vacuum does store and transfer information.

 

......................................

 

Only one Conscious Mind? -And Debunking Parallel Universe Theory

 

I found it interesting to learn that quantum physics actually predicted that there was only one mind ever in existence. It was a metaphysical physicist that proved there was only one mind ever present. It was conjected from the musings of Vedanta. So No two minds can ever exist, in a consistent quantum mechanical framework.

 

It will obviously appear strange to imagine that we have different thoughts, actions and plans, but find sharing a by-product of a single unit of energy we call the conscious realm of the mind. Surely we are unique? The answer turns out to be a mixed logic, when concerned with quantum mechanics. There can be no separate mind, but only one mind ever existing.

 

If this is true, which I surely do believe it is, then there is a complication removed from my theory. There was the chance, one could have argued that my theory would in fact be a lot more complicated than a single subspacetime dimension for consciousness, because the line of thought would say that there have been many minds, so many different dimensions we would need to make note of.

 

But if independent minds are proven by quantum mechanics to cause problems, then a single mind, created by all the ‘’illusory’’ of separation and identity, is in fact lost to all the networks operating interdependently, again as one single unit. Dr Wolf argues that this is the Mind of God, and he has not been the first to postulate such notions, as they extend right back to Plato’s time.

 

Then there is one mind, and there is no need to worry about how to treat so-called ‘’individual’’ conscious minds in a mathematical framework for a quantum field model, because we can remain safe describing all ‘’conscious minds’’ under the same single dimension.

 

One Mind, One Universe

 

There was a time when physicists considered that there was only one electron in the universe… as the theory was so obviously called, ‘The One Electron Universe.’’

 

The idea that there was only one electron was to account for its similar attributes and spontaneous actions. The theory has now been overruled with other quantum evidence. But the reason I bring this up, is because it is inherently different to unifying every quantum mind into a single mind-unit.

 

I do believe, and I could be wrong, but I have no reference, I do believe Einstein once said that every mind in the universe, was a dimension upon its own. This line of reference has now been speculated, backed by very strong arguments, philiosophical and quantum mechanical, to be wrong. If there is only one dimension, there is only one mind that is ever conscious.

 

The argument, is that the human brain projects a frame of existence that is, what we call in physics jargon, ‘’self-contained’’. This means that there is no real reference between my mind, and yours. Therefore, I state there is only one mind ever present to my reality of existence: That is my own conclude that even if there are other universes, it does us no good to talk about them, because not only do we never really observe this universe, the universe we measure, exists in the framework of the mind, and that must render parallel universe theory invalid.

I needed to ask my expert friend on Parallel Universes, (an enthusiast to say the least), to see whether this is correct reasoning, that there is only one mind, and therefore only one universe:

 

 

Gareth-Lee: ''Might it be, that if mind is only one, and one reflecting

> consciousness, and this consciousness gives rise to an

> internal world that is only ever perceived, might it also be

> quantum mechanically useless to consider more than one universe?''

 

Fred Alan Wolf: You might say so. Since we do have quantum physics doesn't

that deny the premise?

 

Wolfs first rule of quantum mechanics, is that there is no reality without the perception of reality...

 

... taking this AS TRUTH, then there is no reality at large, but the reality that if of ''mind stuff'', as Arthur Eddington once put it, ''To put it cruedly, the stuff of the world is mind stuff.''

 

And since there is no reality at large outside of the mind without the reference of an observer, this renders parallel universe theory a metaphysical defect.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Graviphoton
multiple post merged

[north]

and if , I , as an individual mind , doesn't believe in god then what ?

[Graviphoton]

Do you remember these premises?

 

1. That entropy, causing the distinction of past and future, makes our perception of the future as something we move towards, and when we do, it seems as though the future is already apart of our memories. For this reason, one must suspect that somehow thought and wishes exists beyond the observer.

 

2. That information or knowledge about a system instantly becomes known to the observer upon measurement.

 

North

 

It doesn't matter whether you believe in God or not. This is called ''self-contained'' knowledge. It was David Albert who realized this as a serious mechanical application to automaton, and there are those who believe the same principle applies to consciousness...

 

David Albert, PhD

''On Quantum-Mechanical Atomata,'' physics letters, 98A nos, 5,6

 

Now, i asked,

 

Do you remember these premises?

 

1. That entropy, causing the distinction of past and future, makes our perception of the future as something we move towards, and when we do, it seems as though the future is already apart of our memories. For this reason, one must suspect that somehow thought and wishes exists beyond the observer.

 

2. That information or knowledge about a system instantly becomes known to the observer upon measurement.

 

......................

 

Well, soon i will show that somehow memories to exist ''beyond'' the observer, and beyond ''the physical mind.'' The information of these things must therefore already exist, so without further adue, i will start on my mathematical musings on memory, loss of memory and regaining that memory. Be back soon.

[north]

Do you remember these premises?

 

1. That entropy, causing the distinction of past and future, makes our perception of the future as something we move towards, and when we do, it seems as though the future is already apart of our memories. For this reason, one must suspect that somehow thought and wishes exists beyond the observer.

 

explain further

 

 

 

 

2. That information or knowledge about a system instantly becomes known to the observer upon measurement.

 

not fully

 

measurement for the most part just scratches the surface of information or knowledge of a system

[Graviphoton]

[∆1]->(a[1(t,1)]+b[2(t,2)]) -> [?(t>1)]

 

[math][?(t=1)]-ab[1(t,1)2(t,2)] -> (a[1(t,1)])[/math]

 

I'll explain what this means soon.

 

explain further

 

 

 

 

 

 

not fully

 

measurement for the most part just scratches the surface of information or knowledge of a system

 

To understand the first notion, you must note that the future, whilst it holds a great amount of uncertainty for us, in knowing what kind of knowledge will present itself, it is, still nonetheless, expected, and exists already there in the future.

 

The second premise, i agree. It scratches the surface, but i shouldn't go into detail about the Observer Effect at the moment, suffice to say, i have covered most of what i think about it throughout the posts.

 

[∆1]->(a[1(t,1)]+b[2(t,2)]) -> [?(t>1)]

 

[math][?(t=1)]-ab[1(t,1)2(t,2)] -> (a[1(t,1)])[/math]

 

Where Nabla here [∆1] not only represents the change in the state of evolutionary thought processes, the three sides symbolically represent the three actions in the expressions...

 

[math]a[1(t,1)][/math]

 

here, the variable (a) represents a memory, and relates to a single event in time (t,1). It would be found in the past variable sense t<1.

 

[math]b[2(t,2)][/math]

 

represents the next event (t,2), where we are reflecting on the thought, which would make it a memory. This would be found in the present time variable t=1.

 

Now, we know that after time, we can expience the loss of knowledge/memory, so this is where the function, [math][?(t>1)][/math] plays the part, and also notice it is found as an event of knowledge loss in the future.

 

so,

 

[∆1]->(a[1(t,1)]+b[2(t,2)]) -> [?(t>1)]

 

Repesents the spontaneous event of thought entering the mind, then the reflection of the memory, to the probability of knowledge loss.

 

But behold, we can get this knowledge back.

 

[math][?(t=1)]-ab[1(t,1)2(t,2)] -> (a[1(t,1)])[/math]

 

Where the loss of knowledge, which exists beyond the observer, is found to be subracted from the relationship of [math]ab[1(t,1)2(t,2)][/math], which would ''pop'' that original memory back into our present minds.

 

Some musings bewteen me and Dr Wolf:

 

> You said, ''Fred Alan Wolf: I don't recall saying "that this

> universe we come to

> > perceive is in fact one unit of perception itself". I am not sure

> > what this means.''

>

> I'm just trying to apply logic to what i have learned from

> your teachings.

> If there is one mind, then there is one peception cast by that mind.

> And if spacetime requires the observer to give it any

> meaning, or collapse the wave function, and add detail in

> general, then spacetime. If there is one mind, there is also

> one reflection on this bubble of existence we call

> ''universe,'' then in effect, the universe, in total, is a

> unit brought alive by perception itself. Did you not add the

> following> Space-Matter-Time-Energy-Mind as one single thing

> in Mind into Matter? I ignore the notion of a ball sitting

> behind the wall of an observer, because there is no one to

> affirm it is there. This goes for the whole universe, i would

> have thought, and any points we make in real time through our

> observations, must also be considered that the universe is

> somehow, ''alive''... and this of course, requires that one

> mind, and one perception of the whole and self. But please, i

> am not arguing. I am treasuring these conversations with you.

>

>

> Fred Alan Wolf: '' Again I don't believe I posit that

> "quantum mechanics

> > states that the only universe ever in existence is the

> subjective and

> > subliminal dimension of the mind". Quantum physics deals with

> > material reality. That it must include the observer effect

> is true,

> > but it does not go as far as denying the objective world at all.''

>

>

> I apologize, i have misinterpreted your work then. The

> Imaginal World where porbabilities square with their

> conjugate, an undulating wave from the imaginal realm, you

> must then consider as something beyond mind?

 

 

Fred Alan Wolf; Amit Goswami would agree with you. He would say

consciousness is the ground of all being. I am, perhaps never really

satisfied with any pat answer to the mystery of mind and matter. Hence I

may from time to time disagree with myself. I don't really know that mind

is all there is and everything comers from the imaginal realm. I know that

everything doesn't come from the material realm. Hence on the one had I

write about Parallel Universes and on the other hand I write about the Bohr

Copenhagen interpretation or the Bohm interpretation. These are all very

different from a met point of view.

 

>

> I prefer the idea that somehow it is mind, or atleast,

> contains all the information the mind requires, since i am an

> advocator that the fabric of spacetime not only stores

> memory, but also we must assume the history of everything,

> including mind, and history of future as well, must already

> be written down, predetermined somehow.

>

> As for dealing with the material side of things, i agree you

> insist it consists of a reality, but i am asking you to

> consider the following logic, which i suppose, is highly

> philosophical at best, to imagine there would no longer be an

> observer their to observe Her beauty, then really what kind

> of existence can there be? If quantum mechanics is right,

> then it also states the same fact, since it hints that before

> any resolution is made on the wave function, the world, the

> objective world seems incomplete, and devoid of meaning...

> the meaning we are dealing with every day...

 

 

Fred Alan Wolf: I generally agree. If no observers would hard core stuff

exist? I would say no. However, I don't think that it is our human

consciousness that creators this reality--but something like a field of mind

of which we play what appears to ourselves to be a significant role.

 

>

> Gareth-Lee

> I said ''then surely any premise of

> >> other universes, even if they do exist, must be rendered

> >> non-existent, even if those other universes do contain

> like-organisms

> >> such as ourselves?''

>

> Fred Alan Wolf; Based on your solipsistic point of view

> your conclusion is

> > logical. But I don't agree with the premises.''

Edited June 9, 2008 by Graviphoton
multiple post merged

[mooeypoo]

Excuse me. Didn't we talk about this before? The same theory, the same problems with math, the same logical errors...

 

Did you start a new thread because you couldn't handle the questions in the other thread, or because you forgot about the answers and questions in the other thread?

 

How many times, I wonder, should I remind you to read the rules? It is getting quite tedious, though somewhat adventurous at the same time. Like hitting the buzzer on jeopardy. At this point, I might just win the jackpot.

 

... and yet I am not sure if that's a good thing, or just extremely disturbing.

 

Opening many threads on the same (or, relatively the same-, or continuing the same-, or pretending to start a new and yet the same-) theory/idea/math-based-blabber was, is (and will still be when you do it next) - against the rules.

 

Bzzzzzz.

Read the rules.

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

Not only have i introduced several new concepts, they ultimately tied into the conclusions i needing to bring forth first, to help understanding, because this shit aint easy to talk about.

 

This is my final model, and in my eyes, is a new thread deriving new logic entirely.

 

So NO.

 

(And i corrected the math) I haven;t seen anyone propose a mistake in them yet

Edited June 10, 2008 by Graviphoton
multiple post merged

[mooeypoo]

Not only have i intriduced several new concepts, they ultimately tied into the conclusions i needing to bring forth first, to help understanding, because this shit aint easy to talk about.

 

This is my final model, and in my eyes, is a new thread derving new logic entirely.

 

So NO.

 

No, it's not, it's the same idea (the fact you introduced a few more items make it a slight rewrite, not a different idea).

 

The math is still incomprehensible. You were asked to use proper math in the other few threads you opened about this. Opening another will not lighten the burden.

 

And your logic is still as it was in the other posts. Your lack of basis as to the existence of consciousness, soul, mind, whatever else that you claim exists and mainstream science either disagrees or have yet to decide on the matter is still present.

 

You have yet to have proven ANY of the issues we have discussed so many times before. You keep ignoring them, as if they don't matter, when they are the biggest problem this theory has. Switching threads on us will not lighten the burden you have on proving your theory's validity.

Presenting the same problem-filled theory from a slightly different angle and with minor changes is *NOT* equal to presenting a new theory.

 

It's not the first time, either.

 

It's trolling. Stop it.

 

 

Oh.. wait... "Bzzz".

Read the rules.

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

How did i come to the same conclusion? I ended up with new math, and new concepts on a single universal mind????????? This is not the same as before, even though it must contain the things i spoke about before, just to keep it generally understood.

 

Now stop annoying me.

 

And if you could read the math, you would understand their implications. But i am guessing you cannot, so why make these claims on not only modfied equations, but entirely new ones as well?

[mooeypoo]

<sigh>

 

the same type of math, that we TOLD YOU was utterly unknown to anyone. We have people with Math phDs here, and they have no clue what you're talking about or what type of math you're trying to display. You were ASKED about it. A few times. Quite a few.

 

You ignored, or tried to argue, and now you use it AGAIN in this thread.

 

You again use consciousness and mind when you were TOLD that these were unproven - and that if you use them as part of your premise, your theory is null. You use them again.

 

You were told that peer review is not personal, and that you should stop getting into silly personal attacks. You were even suspended, partially over this matter. You do it again.

 

your theory, my friend, is unscientific. Start basing it, start citing, stop plagiarisng, and stop avoiding the problems that people raise in your concepts.

 

I am *NOT* going to waste my time (yet again) in summarizing all the problems that you already KNOW exist in your theories. Go back to the threads you openned back, and mark them one by one. Until their solved, you can open a trillion new threads with slight variations on whatever conclusion you want, it's still going to be void.

 

We didn't get into the conclusion of your "thesis" in past threads so much, because the problem was, first and foremost, in your PREMISES.

 

They are still problematic.

 

The theory is STILL VOID.

 

It is the same idea, with a slightly different "take".

 

 

This is not your personal rant forum. Stop posting multiple threads with teh same problems in it, and start dealing with the problems in your theory.

 

READ.

THE.

RULES.

 

 

BZZ.

 

~moo

[Klaynos]

How did i come to the same conclusion? I ended up with new math, and new concepts on a single universal mind????????? This is not the same as before, even though it must contain the things i spoke about before, just to keep it generally understood.

 

But it was shown your original ideas and therefore conclusions where flawed, so why would this be any better bassed on the same thing? What you should have done is satisfied the issues in the other thread and then followed up with this thread but in the same thread continuing the theme.

 

Now stop annoying me.

 

It's a public forum. She is just trying to help the community as a whole...

 

And if you could read the math,

 

One of the good things about maths is that it's supposed to be universal, if you introduce new notation or concepts you need to define them fully.

 

you would understand their implications. But i am guessing you cannot, so why make these claims on not only modfied equations, but entirely new ones as well?

 

Because she's basing the criticisms on your words, as the maths is unusable.

[Graviphoton]

Klaynos

 

I did indeed make a mistake in my previous conclusions. The theory was, in definition, progressive, and not unfied. I guess it still isn't, but i have a few more treats in store. The problem you are making, is that because I DID them wrong, makes the theory wrong. I have shown it is not wrong, modified the equations slightly, even adding new ones, and still reach a final, greater conlusion.

 

Also, if there is anything in the posts that seem mathematically undefined, please cite them for me, so i can explain them.

 

And the math is usuable, because it is a protoscience.

[Klaynos]

The original premises as well where flawed though!

 

You've still "shown" nothing...

 

And the math is usuable, because it is a protoscience.

 

Urmmm I'm not quite sure what to say to this...

[mooeypoo]

I did indeed make a mistake in my previous conclusions. The theory was, in definition, progressive, and not unfied. I guess it still isn't, but i have a few more treats in store. The problem you are making, is that because I DID them wrong, makes the theory wrong.

 

Your conclusions were not the problem as much as the PREMISES.

The premises are still wrong.

 

I have shown it is not wrong, modified the equations slightly, even adding new ones, and still reach a final, greater conlusion.

Nooo... you CLAIM to show. You didn't base this on anything other than your claims, and repetitive "but but"s. Those don't count.

 

 

Also, if there is anything in the posts that seem mathematically undefined, please cite them for me, so i can explain them.

nnnooooo nonono. You posted the math, it's the SAME math you posted in the other threads, it's the same math we challenged you on in the other threads. It's the same math you keep refusing the either explain, or drop using. The burden of proof is not on us, Graviphoton. It's on you.

 

Own up to it.

 

That too is in the rules.

And the math is usuable, because it is a protoscience.

 

Well, explain it then, because other than you, no one knows what it means.

 

But I must insist that we take a step BACK. (AGAIN!) -- the problem with this theory is the PERMISES, first and foremost. The math might be a problem, but even if it WAS legible, it's still irrelevant if your premises are null.

 

Fix the premise, explain it, or make sure you base it on something more than your gut feeling, then we'll discuss protoscience mathematics.

 

 

~moo

[Phi for All]

Pick which of these iterations you want to keep, Graviphoton. You have too many threads open on the same topic. I lose sleep at night worrying about how much time our members are wasting.

 

Is this the one you want to keep?

[Graviphoton]

This, i would like to keep.

[mooeypoo]

Pick which of these iterations you want to keep, Graviphoton. You have too many threads open on the same topic. I lose sleep at night worrying about how much time our members are wasting.

 

Is this the one you want to keep?

Does that mean we're starting from scratch on this theory? There are lots of remarks that are quite to-the-point on the other threads.

 

I think locking them might be a better idea than deleting them, so we can use the references, at least, to the points made, instead of again repeating ourselves in a brand new thread.

[Graviphoton]

Actually, i think going over the points in the system i have provided, would keep it clearer, and also would refresh and perhaps make clearer what is meant.

[Klaynos]

So you're going to avoid the questions posted previously?

[insane_alien]

we'll just keep asking till he gives us answers.

 

how about this.

1/ graviphoton, layout your claims, point and all in a nice ordered manner,

2/ the rest of us set out a list of questions we want answers to.

3/ graviphoton, you go through that list and give us answers(one by one if you have to)

[Graviphoton]

Klaynos

Did i say that?

 

 

Insane

1/ graviphoton, layout your claims, point and all in a nice ordered manner,

 

Let's start with this. What part of the OP's claims are not ordered? Or nice for that matter?

Edited June 10, 2008 by Graviphoton
multiple post merged

[insane_alien]

Let's start with this. What part of the OP's claims are not ordered? Or nice for that matter?

 

way to much ambiguousness and redundancy, be more precise and concise.

[mooeypoo]

Actually, i think going over the points in the system i have provided, would keep it clearer, and also would refresh and perhaps make clearer what is meant.

 

Of course you do.

 

Fine. Yet again, here are my *initial* analysis, ignoring the mathematics for now since until the premises are clearer and the conclusions sorted out, the math is utterly irrelevant.

 

Initial Thoughts on Spacetime Theories

 

Its seems that spacetime theories are quite a mainstream theory.

 

I don't mean to be picky, but you really should be more specific. There are many types of theories and many hypotheses in relation to Spacetime. Many of them are actually not quite mainstream and are, still, hypotheses. If you claim such a thing, you need to specify which of the theories you are about to critique or replace. Even if to make sure we are all on the same "page".

 

I came up with the idea of treating the mind

as a dimension of spacetime, and I wasn’t aware of this. Its actually good, because then it cannot be so

crack pot. The idea, is that consciousness is related to geometrical features, and are therefore called

spacetime theories.

So your premise relies on the mind being separate than the physical brain? You need to prove this, or at the very least give an explanation of why this is valid.

 

The existence of the mind as a separate entity is NOT something people just take for granted. In fact, scientific advancements currently lead towards the strict connection between physiology and what we call 'consciousness'. Hence that consciousness is NOT separated from the physiology, is inherently IN the brain and dependent on neural circuits.

 

If you disagree with that, you need to first explain why and base it on actual science, not just your own opinion.

 

I believe it was Arthur Eddington who first came up with the name to the theory, and advanced by Dr. John

Smythies. It seems that the theory is based upon the proposal that the spacetime continuum we perceive in

the four dimensional phenomenon, neither exists in time nor space… But we do have points and places in

space and time as though our bubble of perception has these degrees of freedom.

... what?

 

Spacetime is both space and time. I'm not sure about this proposal since I haven't read what it says (And I couldn't find it online... do you have anywhere we can read it more thorroughly?) but it sounds a bit like wordsalad. Spacetime is Space+time connected. To say that spacetime has no space and no time is illegible.

 

I don't understand what it means that it doesnt exist in time or space but we have points in our 'bubble' of perception that allows for degrees of frteedom... to do what? To see timespace? To be timespace? To notice timespace?...

 

I'm sure the proposal has more merit behind it than "Space Time Continuum" (Startrek?) and the wordsalad that the rest of that paragraph entails. Just give us the original proposal, please, so we can understand what it is you're proposing after them.

 

The Relationship between Internal and External Spacetime (a.k.a Reference Theory)

Didn't you just claim that spacetime we percieve does not exist in time and space? I don't quite understand which "internal" and "external" spacetime you are talking about now. Reference theory is a bit clearer, but the jump from spacetime to the statement, or idea of reference, hence - "Points-of-View dictate reality" - is quite a large one.

 

You still need to explain what is the 'visual bubble of spacetime'. If you claim that what we see is not what exists, you need to base it, not just claim it. If you claim that our perception is a bubble that represents the reality (pretty much the same as the other claim) you need, again, to support it with science.

 

Explain that term and SUPPORT it with science before you move on to build premises from it, let alone conclusions on top of it.

 

‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a point in external space and time.

The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to be equal to the law, that the rule that

the absolute square of the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an

observed system.’’

 

....

I don't know where you take that quote from, but it makes no sense. For one, visual bubble is not defined (as I pointed out before). What corresponding variables? What law? what's t? why the square? who said this and in what context??

 

The probability of a spacetime occurrence is proportional to the magnitude of the external time variable

with the internal time variable, which will be described as t and t’, so the probability equation is given

as

Where do you bring this? Where's your supporting EVIDENCE? Facts? Observations? Explanations? ANYTHING?

 

You just throw around a claim, call it a sentence, and make out math to support it.

 

Besides, I utterly disagree.

 

The proposed relationship between the mind's gamma wave at sleep is proportional to the proper posture of an adult male pan paniscus when it is in its verge of externalizing his internal fluids from digesting local flora. The variables accompanied are in direct and opposite relation to the square root of the size and length of the pan paniscus external organ when it is lifted and ready to pick a fruit, hence the equation given proves its fruitfulness.

 

See? I can do it too.

[math](P=|t|^{2}=(tt’)[/math]

 

*Where t’ is the conjugate of t.

 

 

You're jumping to mathematical jibberish before you even set your premises straight. I am not going to deal with taht math right now, since it's utterly irrelevant, on top of being illegible.

 

I, too, can add some nifty (and if I try, probably CORRECT) mathematical equasions to my pan paniscus mambo jumbo. That doesn't make any of my thesis correct. Or legible. Or english.

 

This of course is identical discipline to Born’s Law, an empirical equation [math](P= \psi \psi*)[/math] describing the

probability of finding a system in one of its quantum states, given by the quantum state vector given as |Ø>.

My goodness, Max Born is twisting in his grave right now.

You now have successfully set forth a "link" to Quantum Physics -- all that without even trying (let alone SUCCEEDING) to prove that such relation exists.

 

How, in zeus name, are you going from Space time, to Mind being another dimention, to quantum physics, is beyond me. And not just me. The entire of physics.

 

The MIND is *not* proven to have ANY relations with quantum physics, specifically since the MIND being SEPARATE than the brain and the body is not proven either.

 

Get your premises straight, Graviphoton.

 

(All these, btw, are repetitions on claims not only I have made. Visit the other threads to see all the people who begged you for explanations on the same exact problems before. Ignoring them will NOT get us to forget they are problems.)

 

An example, is the electron, with a position, momentum and energy is totally described by the state vector, given as |Ø>. Although, the rule of complimentarity ruled itself by the uncertainty principle forbids us ever knowing everything about the mathematics behind |Ø>.

Right. I will let others with more strict knowledge about this deal with this one more fully, and leave the comments I have on that ... paragraph... for later.

 

Though, potentially, anything you want to know is behind that variable. The state/wave vector spreads out over spacetime. It can potentially and theoretically calculate the wave vector of entire galaxies and even the universe itself!

Now you're just being magical, mystical, and utterly unscientific.

Anything you want to know is behind a variable? WHAT!?

 

Where.. is the proof? Where is the road to explaining how you reach this conclusion? Your reasoning? Your basis in (oh..) reality?

 

How would you claim that we can theoretically calculate the "wave vector of entire galaxies" - and the UNIVERSE! - with this variable or vector!? you're making absolutely no sense. NONE.

 

So at the very least give us the reasoning behind such a grandiose proposal.

 

But here is the really interesting [part]. If we want a unification of physics, we need a model of the mind that corresponds to it having its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, even if we have to integrate them as real points in time, and that would also include space, according to special relativity.

Is this a citation from somewhere? (you added [part] as if you complete a quote)..? if so - from where?

 

Regardless, however, now you start talking about unification of physics. A unified theory. You're jumping alllllll over the place now. From spacetime is not space time, to mind being separate from the brain, to mind having another dimention, to knowing everything from a single vector/variable, to having a unified theory.

 

Where is the reasoning behind linking each of these? you keep raising more and more issues in Physics, none of which you explain or give any type of reasoning to your use of.

 

NONE.

 

You don't even go to premises, Graviphoton, you just state your opinion and go straight to the math and conclusion. That's not science.

 

If my law that states:

 

‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a point in external space and time.

The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to be equal to the rule that

the absolute square of the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an

observed system.’’

 

Again that illegible law. If/then statements need to include a legible scientific thesis, not a wordsalad that works for you. Explain your rule before trying to test it.

 

For that matter, if the pan paniscus is directly related to the opposite square root of of the size and length, then whatever i say now has no meaning because the beginning of my paragraph has absolutely no meaning. At all. Even though "Pan Paniscus" is a real animal.

 

 

.. is true, then we do have a few things to consider, that seem totally logical.

I'm glad it seems totally logical that we have a few things to consider. I personally think that we have quite a lot of things to prove before we consider anything.

It would mean that for consciousness to operate, a collapse in the wave function between an observer and the observed must occur, so that the observations we make, can be used as a reference to what is observed: The internal and external realities, in this specific case of reasoning.

And now you introduce consciousness into the mix. Is that the same as 'mind'? What is it? Is that separate than the mind or the brain? Is it separate from the human body or is it part of it? Is it part of our perception? Those are NOT things that science just "accepts". They are DEBATED.

 

You need to deal with this and explain what you call consciousness, how you define it, and prove why it is separate from the physical - or why it isn't.

 

The rest of the paragraph is you making claims without proof again. Collapse of the wave-function is a theorised phenomenon, NOT A PROVEN ONE. If it could even BE proven. You have too many unsupported claims you just ignore their problematic state and go on and on into more and more conclusions.

 

It's just invalidating your theory more and more as you go if you don't deal with them.

 

These are the only times when real time models can be used, and is really, according to one line of mainstream physics, the only real time anything is real. When things are not observed, is when we can use imaginary time.

Proof? How do you know it's the only time real time models can be used? Did you wittness it? What are you basing it on? It's not explained properly.

 

Also, how do you know that is the only time things are real? Didn't you say reality is objective? What, it's temporarily objective? THis is the only time it's not objective? What do you mean by "Real"? Real for everything, or real for an individual? Does that mean we all live in an illusion all the time and only THIS is when things are real?

 

This is a GREAT philosophical argument, but it's FAAAAAR from being scientific. Where is the proof for this?

 

This law is empirical to the following work, and if it fails, all else does as well.

 

You should refresh yourself on what is empirical.

 

An Arrow of Time for the Model

 

…Is interesting, because my model cannot suggest a unique arrow, because of some discrepancies with the instantaneous frames of existence that seem to be posited from the above conclusions. I have quantized consciousness, so that only whenever we make an observation, can there be a correlation in space and time. In fact, time may be the very conduit that relates the internal world and the external world together.

What does that mean? a unique arrow? Do you mean directionality of time? What does *THAT* mean? Can time go any other way? Are there 'directions' for time? Nice hypothesis, but it is, AGAIN, not proven. Surely not in this post. If it is any other place, I suggest you start citing where.

 

And you have not "quantized" consciousness, since you haven't DEFINED consciousness or what YOU mean when you talk about consciousness. You might want to believe you have, but you haven't. Stop ignoring this problem, it's - at the very LEAST - the fifth or sixth time I have seen someone (including me but not only me) point this out to you.

 

 

You also have absolutely no proof or explanation or ANYTHING to the proposed relation between consciousness and spacetime. You spoke about spacetime, gave some math, assumed we all know exactly what you mean with "mind" and "mind having its own dimention" and jumped to the conclusion that space time and consciousness (undefined) are correlated.

 

Huh?

 

So only a point in conscious spacetime, which has collapsed the state vector of external reality, does either variable exist… in other words, there is no reality without the perception of reality, and this would conclude that consciousness and the perception of consciousness are invariant to each other.

So.. conscious space time is different than 'regular' spacetime, that does not include space or time other than specific points where we're allowed to be free.

 

Did I get that right? So when you say the "Conscious spacetime" do you mean one of these points? Do you mean the subjective experience of the unvierse? Do you mean that precious variable-connection to the mind-dimension consciousness-link that you spoke of?

 

"There is no reality without perception of reality" -- Really? And you support this on.. what? That the mind is in its own dimension?

 

The above paragraph is a huge leap taken after all the other huge leaps. At this rate, you're jumping through thin air.

 

In fact, this is where the next premise derives:

 

‘’You cannot have a real point in conscious spacetime, without a corresponding point in external spacetime.’’

... egh. Again.. leaps, mixing of terms, and a huge salad of all the existing and proposed and imaginary theories.

 

If what we observe is not a current projection of external spacetime, then what we are witnessing cannot be

real in the sense of what we define as a reality.

Perhaps, but you haven't proven or based your assumption that what we observe is not a current projection of "external" spacetime (nor have you DEFINED external spacetime as opposed to 'internal' spacetime, or by itself, may I remind you).

 

There needs to be a simultaneous squaring of our world and

the external world, for both to define a real existence.

 

What, like world^2 ? ... I don't even know what to say to this statement.

 

We actually require this rule, if we are going to integrate the mind as a dimension of spacetime, because in

spacetime, we, find that matter and energy cannot exist without a vacuum, and vice versa. We need a

relationship like the one proposed, so that there is an answer to how there can be a similar premise for the

time vector of the mind and its relationship with matter.

The reason matter and energy "cant exist" without vacuum and vise-versa is because you can't DEFINE them without one another.

 

Vacuum is the LACK of matter and energy. By definition.

 

There is no real vacuum in space. Only partial vacuum. Vacuum is a WORD we INVENTED to define a situation where there is no matter.

 

It's like saying "Color and Red cannot exist without one another". Duh?

 

And again with the time vector of the mind -- that is not defined, not explained, not proven, and you have yet to show how the "time vector of the mind" is different than, say, the "time vector of the universe" or "the time vector of reality" or whatever time vector else you want.

 

And you have NOT proven it exists.

 

You haven't even proven that the mind has a different time frame to REQUIRE a differen "arrow" of time vector than "reality".

 

Its explanation, is that matter is popped into existence whenever we observe it, exciting the two dimensions

HUUUUUUUUGE Claim here, and absolutely NO supporting data, not even supporting hypotheses for it. It's a well known philosophical claim, and it's NOT empirical science. By FAR.

 

[math](P=|t|^{2}=(tt’)[/math]. The notion that, ‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a

point in external space and time. The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to

be equal to the absolute square of the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an

observed system (1),’’ not only unites the points of internal spacetime and external spacetime as playing

exactly the same roles, it also plays the same role as the observer effect.

Ignoring all the same non-defined claims you hagve there -- 'found to be equal' how? What's the process in your math, or any other process that made this amazing discovery be "found" ?

 

In fact, the very idea that a system will collapse on the ‘’transaction’’ of * (using Cramer

terminology), may play exactly the same roles in uniting the variables t and t’ together. I also

came to these conclusions obviously from mathematical idea’s, and we will cover that soon.

Obviously. The only trouble is that the non-existing premises this mathematical ideas are based on are utterly unscientific and unbased.

 

The relationship between the external and the internal dimension(s), can be expressed as:

 

[math]<t(a,1)|(b,2)t’>[/math]

I won't get into the math, again, for obvious (and explained above) reasons. I will just point out AGAIN that you gave no definition to "External", "internal" dimensions or the difference between them. I assume that by 'dimensions' you mean, again, 'spacetime'. Otherwise, you have yet ANOTHER term to explain and prove.

 

… as an expression detailing their ‘’meeting’’. We must assume for this expression to be correct,

there must be the ability to describe both t and t’ as having values that can be expressed as a set of events

which describe their evolutionary steps to reach their final State Value.

Yes, we must.

 

Why?

 

1) [math]P_{12}=|t_{1} (a_{2},b_{2})|^{2}=|(\Delta S)t’>,|(\Delta S_{f})t’>[/math]

And for the conjugate

2) [math]P_{12}=|t_{2} (a_{2},b_{2})|^{2}= |(\Delta S)t >,|(\Delta S_{f})t >[/math]

 

Where:

 

P ~ Probability

[math]t_{1}[/math] ~ The time variable (just a mathematical duration)

t ~ The time dimension

t’~ The Second Imaginary Time Dimension

a ~ Event One

b ~ Event Two

[math]S[/math] ~ Initial State

[math]S_{f}[/math] ~ Final State

Math at an irrelevant point of the theory. Ignored.

 

The reason why I have exhausted this part, is because the upper equations do describe some kind of

time passing using a time variable... (But this is ok). The process can be instantaneous, but be careful,

we may not actually be talking about speeds, as in faster than light.

I don't see it, but I didn't get into the math because it's (AGAIN) irrelevant. Your premises make no sense to make the math relevant.

 

I know a nifty trick where 2+2 equals 5, not 4. That doesn't mean I have 5 toes in my right leg.

 

Of course, superluminal speeds would be hard to distinguish in the theory, because there is no obvious

evidence that anything moves at all. It may just be a case of two myriad imaginal sheets that square

together. I obviously attend for the latter.

Now we're into superluminal speeds? Speeds in general.. in.. what relation? Time? Energy? Movement? The mind?

 

And I'm not sure I understand what you mean by having 'no evidence that anything moves at all'... have you looked at the closest highway to where you're at lately? It appears that in the big scale and the small scale things move all the time. Atoms, molecules, subatomic particles... why do you claim there is no evidence things move? Philosophically speaking? Well, philosophically speaking there's no proof for anything at all, including your existence.

 

It's still not science.

 

 

 

 

---

 

Now, the rest of your post is, in my part, repetitive. You use the same unbased, unfamiliar, unfounded, unscientific terms as if they're absolute facts without ever relating to the problems that they raise or the fact that no one has any clue what the math stands for.

 

There. I've made an effort to summarize for you the major problems in your theory - AGAIN - so you don't have to go to all those other threads about consciousness and mind that you have openned in the forums and gather them all up.

 

Now before you add anything to the theory, or correct the math, or explain the conclusion - you first need to deal with the PREMISES and the opinions that you have that are NOT supported and not dealt with in this entire long post/thread/thesis.

 

I'm going to let the physics experts deal with the mid-claims you made here about energies, dimensions and Max Born).

 

Good luck.

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

way to much ambiguousness and redundancy, be more precise and concise.

 

Well, let me just get my crystal ball, to see which parts are ambigous...

 

Right mooey... just coming to you and your post.

 

//Actually, i think going over the points in the system i have provided, would keep it clearer, and also would refresh and perhaps make clearer what is meant.

Of course you do.//

 

Mooey

 

Fine. Yet again, here are my *initial* analysis, ignoring the mathematics for now since until the premises are clearer and the conclusions sorted out, the math is utterly irrelevant.

 

> We shall see yes?

 

//Initial Thoughts on Spacetime Theories

 

Its seems that spacetime theories are quite a mainstream theory.

I don't mean to be picky, but you really should be more specific. There are many types of theories and many hypotheses in relation to Spacetime. Many of them are actually not quite mainstream and are, still, hypotheses. If you claim such a thing, you need to specify which of the theories you are about to critique or replace. Even if to make sure we are all on the same "page".

 

Mooey

 

I don't mean to be picky, but you really should be more specific. There are many types of theories and many hypotheses in relation to Spacetime. Many of them are actually not quite mainstream and are, still, hypotheses. If you claim such a thing, you need to specify which of the theories you are about to critique or replace. Even if to make sure we are all on the same "page".

 

 

> No, it is mainstream. Check ''Spacetime Theories, Consciousness,'' and you will find the experiments and the history there.

 

// came up with the idea of treating the mind

as a dimension of spacetime, and I wasn’t aware of this. Its actually good, because then it cannot be so

crack pot. The idea, is that consciousness is related to geometrical features, and are therefore called

spacetime theories. //

 

Mooey

 

''So your premise relies on the mind being separate than the physical brain? You need to prove this, or at the very least give an explanation of why this is valid.

 

The existence of the mind as a separate entity is NOT something people just take for granted. In fact, scientific advancements currently lead towards the strict connection between physiology and what we call 'consciousness'. Hence that consciousness is NOT separated from the physiology, is inherently IN the brain and dependent on neural circuits.

 

If you disagree with that, you need to first explain why and base it on actual science, not just your own opinion.''

 

> No, actually. The mind requires the matter, so that consciousness can survive in the state it does. The single mind, or consciousness, which has been proven by a Vedantic metaphysical physicist, is that which i refer to being beyond matter.

 

// believe it was Arthur Eddington who first came up with the name to the theory, and advanced by Dr. John

Smythies. It seems that the theory is based upon the proposal that the spacetime continuum we perceive in

the four dimensional phenomenon, neither exists in time nor space… But we do have points and places in

space and time as though our bubble of perception has these degrees of freedom. //

 

Mooey

 

... what?

 

Spacetime is both space and time. I'm not sure about this proposal since I haven't read what it says (And I couldn't find it online... do you have anywhere we can read it more thorroughly?) but it sounds a bit like wordsalad. Spacetime is Space+time connected. To say that spacetime has no space and no time is illegible.

 

I don't understand what it means that it doesnt exist in time or space but we have points in our 'bubble' of perception that allows for degrees of frteedom... to do what? To see timespace? To be timespace? To notice timespace?...

 

I'm sure the proposal has more merit behind it than "Space Time Continuum" (Startrek?) and the wordsalad that the rest of that paragraph entails. Just give us the original proposal, please, so we can understand what it is you're proposing after them.

 

> Much to learn you still have, don't you? Space and time are the same thing, because Minkowski, Einsteins teacher proved that they play the exact same roles. He said,

 

''We can no longer thing of space and time seperate.''