Fundamental question about Theory

[alihaidar1]

Hello to everyone,
This question is directly addressed to Mr. Peake

A huge question I have about the theory is why does the time dilation during the stress and chemical reactions at death extend to infinity, while the time dilation, although lasting quite a long time, during lets say ketamine use or extremely stressful situations eventually comes to an end and the person returns to normal time?

How do we know that at death we do not eventually return to normal time, like what happens with ketamine use, and enter the eternal nothingness which occurs when our neural processing is over?

Thanks in advance

[Hurlyburly]

I have been told the answer to this question before. I can't rememeber the exact science but I do believe it involves the following in the explanation.

Say for example that you set a light to turn itself off an on every 60 seconds, then halved the interval time to 30 seconds and so on. Eventually it would fall out of time.

Or something!

Don’t worry!

Your intellectual Mack Daddy’s will be along shortly to explain this correctly!

I have also read, loved and understood Marcus Chown's "The never ending days of being dead" which is a great book to explain this area of thought. Somehow, miraculously, better than I can...

The answer to the second part of your question is simply.... "We don't!"

[Anthony Peake]

Hi Alihanadar1 ... and thanks for your question.

It is important to remember that it is time that is dilated at death. This is subjectively perceived duration not external, objective, time. Therefore this external time can be extended to cover thousands, if not millions, or re-runs of the BIMAX.

However this cannot be extended to infinity. Earlier postings on this Forum and on my Blogsite have discussed this in some detail. It comes down to Zeno's "Bisection Paradox" and, as you may recall in ITLAD, the enigma of "Thomson's Lamp". This is; can time be infinitely bisected or is there a point were no more bisections can be made? Do we finally reach a "quantum" of time whereby time itself ceases to be continuous and breaks down into non-continual "packets" (quanta). According to modern physics this is a distinct possibility. There is a concept known as the "Planck Length". This is the smallest possible "quanta" of space. It is roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 ten to the minus 35) of a metre or about 10-20 (ten to the minus 20) times the size of a proton.

The Planck time is the time required for light, in a vacuum, to travel a distance of one Planck length. This is 10-43 (ten to the minus 43) of a second.

On thinking about this I realised that this is the smallest possible amount of time. No time can be shorter. As such the universe would have come into existence at 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang. So what existed in that "period" (here language simply breaks down as well) between the BB and everything existing. Indeed if the Big Bang happened before time existed in what way can we ever state that it "happened" as "to happen" is a verb which needs time to describe what is taking place (in my humble opinion it is this kind of debate that I wish this Forum to be having..... the real questions!

But back to my answer. As such there must be a point where time cannot be "bisected" any more. So, in answer to you question it is indeed possible that after many re-runs taking place in ever bisecting "bits" of time there will be a point when Planck Time will be encountered and there is no more time available for the next BIMAX to exist in. At that point it may be that "consciousness" "dies" and goes "somewhere else". Indeed I am sure that a Forum member would like to do the maths as to theoretically how many BIMAX runs could be contained between one second (objective time) and encountering the barrier of Planck Time. (Another related topic is the question of infinities as described by the German mathematician Georg Cantor).

It is important to bear in mind that all these BIMAX re-runs, possibly millions and millions of them, take place in the final moments of life. For the "dying" subject these take place over millions of lifetimes but for an observer they take place in the flash of an eye and, in their (the observer's) "Everett Universe", the subject is seen to die and does, actually die. Indeed what the observer perceives is the subject encountering the Plank Time Barrier.

Which gets me thinking ..... is there an "Event Horizon" equivalent ( or a Planck-Time "Schwarzschild Radius") in which the subject "freezes" never to cross over .....

Really, really interesting (and intellectually challenging) stuff ...... and the reason why I created this Forum!

Alihadar1, thanks again for forcing me to get "deep" again!

Tony

[SAB]

It is important to bear in mind that all these BIMAX re-runs, possibly millions and millions of them, take place in the final moments of life. For the "dying" subject these take place over millions of lifetimes but for an observer they take place in the flash of an eye and, in their (the observer's) "Everett Universe", the subject is seen to die and does, actually die. Indeed what the observer perceives is the subject encountering the Plank Time Barrier.

It seems to me that the more one ponders things ITLADian the more we need to grapple with the problem of time and what time actually means. One of the conundrums that seems to stump me sometimes with the ITALD hypothesis as it currently stands is that on the one hand the concept of subjective time is central to the illusion and yet this subjectiveness seems to play out within a linear “objective time” frame which in “reality” cannot exist if all time experiences are subjective and based on the observer concerned. To this extent I think that it is useful to pick up some points I made on a previous post :

Under MWI there is not a linear time line where one universe outcome is dependant upon what is currently happening in another after the introduction of the first change. Also under MWI a new universe does not need to wait for an Eidilon to die before it comes into existence. Therefore as long as a change (or a possibility for a change) is introduced (no matter how minor) a new universe would need to manifest itself into existence. Therefore this means that we have a Daemon that is simultaneously existing possibly within an almost infinite number of universes. This implies that the SAME Daemon is present in ALL relevant universes every time a change (or an action of free will that is different) is introduced.

Consequently, to me anyway, this implies that :

a) the virgin life becomes redundant. The Daemon is already living many versions of the same life simultaneously

b) everything that can happen in a particular moment is already happening “Now”

c) By default the Daemon always knows all outcomes from all possibilities

Therefore what is the rational for guiding a specific Eidilon in a specific universe towards a directed outcome when it's already happening in another Universe?

The very act of providing a guiding hand in itself implies that there is only one universe. This would need to be a universe where all possibilities are happening simultaneously that exists in the “Now” ( I won't go into this again as it has already been discussed extensively else where). In other words If we have a constantly evolving present moment then it makes sense for the Daemon to introduce change, purely because it is not happening anywhere else.

If this is so then rather than there being an “eternal” recurrence from replays of the Bohmian IMAX, we have all “replays” running concurrently within a never ending moment given that there can only ever be subjective interpretations of time. Time in effect becomes timeless when all versions of all “lives” are played out simultaneously in a single moment.

Tony : I should be most grateful if you could share your thoughts with respect to why we should need to "wait" for “death” before another “recurrence” is possible under your interpretation of MWI. Surely ( in the same way that light effectively experiences everything "Now") it should all be happening “Now”?

Sab

[YouAreDreaming]

This is really a challenging topic largely due to our concepts regarding Time and Space. At this point in my growth with such theories and concepts that involve the BIMAX and how reality is "Rendered" on this particular canvas; and furthered by research into Digital Physics and Information Processing I am beginning to suspect that both Time and Space simply do not exist in the manner we have believed them to be. This brings me back to existing in a singularity which you may or may have not heard me mention that I suspect we are in a singularity right now.

If Time and Space are the products of information processing and there are several people who are starting to build up a volume of data to support this theory such as Konrad Zuse [1], Frank J. Tipler [2], Jürgen Schmidhuber [3], Ross Rhodes [4], Nick Bostrom [5], Tom Campbell [6], and Brian Whitworth [7] to name a few who think along this lines. All of these thinkers support the notion of a virtual reality, not a physical reality. One that is derived from information processing.

Tom Campbell describes it best stating that Consciousness formed a system of reality cells that acted as a type of automata to form what he calls the Big Computer which is busy processing out all of our Realities. We know cellular automata[w] exists and quantum automata exists [8] which in turn show how simple systems can produce the basis of information processing.

When you seriously consider the implications of existing within a virtual reality simulated Universe; then all the chemicals, atoms and sub-atomic particles are really just computer code, classes and objects within a sophisticated software system and database that render into a view at the point that such a view is required by an observer.

This is where the BIMAX fits in; as the observers personal VR interface. The observer takes in data and renders a view producing an animated sequence (Time and Space) that is in turn what we respond to as our Reality. This further supports Plato's Cosmology, The Veda's Maya, the Gnostic's Black Iron Prison etc. as insights that others have through their own means observed the illusion of existing within a Virtual Reality Simulation.

We may want to believe that the distance from here to the Sun exists and we know we do have to try to travel to it. But that is no different then if we played World of Warcraft and traveled from Kalimdor to Outlands... there would still be a sense of distance, and time required to get from point A to point B but the reality is... it's a simulated journey in NULL space. Just cycles calculated on a cosmic CPU.

If time and space are simulated, then Infinity would just be a while loop with no terminator. Infinite space would just be Pythagorean theorem's calculating without terminating the XYZ variables. All the matter, energy and substance would merely be computer program language and rule-sets.

That means all the neurotransmitters in the brain are simply acting out based on a program rule-set and are really just reduced to the cosmic language of this simulated Universe. Our death would likely be based on a pre-defined rule-set that this simulated virtual reality governs but would also be virtual and a simulation. Death would be devirtualization from this simulation.

If this is a virtual reality, abandon all hope that this is a Physical Reality... you really think that is air you are breathing?

References
[1] Konrad Zuse 1969 Rechnender Raum
[2] Frank J. Tipler 1994 The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead
[3] Jürgen Schmidhuber 1997 Computable Universes & Algorithmic Theory of Everything
[4] Ross Rhodes 1999 "A Cybernetic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics"
[5] Nick Bostrom 2003 ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?
[6] Tom Campbell 2007 My Big Toe
[7] Brian Whitworth 2008 The Physical World as a Virtual Reality
[8] Anuj Dawar Quantum Automata, Machines and Complexity

[SAB]

Tom Campbell describes it best stating that Consciousness formed a system of reality cells that acted as a type of automata to form what he calls the Big Computer which is busy processing out all of our Realities.

Hi YAD,

This would presuppose that the source of consciousness (and quite rightly in my opinion) resides out with the virtual reality of “reality” so to speak.That "reality" is a manifestation of consciousness. A dimension within a dimension where time is absent in both. Consciousness like light would be simultaneously present in all “locations” in all “times” experiencing everything that can be experienced within a single moment of awareness. Imagine walking into a library: All of the texts in all of the books are present in the "now". What our perceived individual experience is in this moment of "now" is dependant upon which page of which book our focus (enacted by freewill - ie the observer collapsing the wave function) is currently directed at.

Sab

[mikegrove4]

As I have said previously - I SO go with the singularity theory.
It explains everything down to the last detail.

You cannot divide a cpu cycle (time) or a bit (single unit of measure - information to be more precise) those are your Planck divisions.
Everything that happens in this 'reality' IS (I repeat, IS) computed data - whichever way you look at it.
Information - which is all we process - is data, one's and zero's. It's all measurable and calculable.

Maths is not a phenomena of the universe, the universe IS maths personified - calculated data.
Everything is an effect and in that sense nothing is truly real, it's all just as much an illusion as a game of the Sims, altho much further advanced.
There is a whole society who hold yearly meetings regarding the idea of the singularity (Google it).

The only real flaw in this argument (some people think) is when somebody says "well what is the reality behind ours? and the reality (if there is one) behind that".
Well I say that we can only observe anything in our environment - their physics may or may not be different and they may or may not have come from somewhere but we can only perceive what we can perceive through our limited senses.
There is a knowable amount of data available to our senses, and then there is unknowable data on top of that.
A computer doesn't know it exists, the avatars in the computer 'could' know they exist, if the 'program' was sufficiently advanced and the 'consciousness' routine upgrade had been placed in. And we know they exist because we created them.

For us, the barrier to the outside world is the computer itself, you cannot take a (simulated) 'living' being out of the computer as there is then no medium to support his existence as he knows it.
The same is true for us.
The evidence to support the singularity theory seems irrefutable to me, I see it all around me all the time.
I wouldn't be surprised if we were to learn that the pyramids and such like are part of the original 'game's' first landscape - already programmed in.
After all, life would be nothing without wonder and lack of knowledge, if we were born knowing everything, what would we do?

Regarding how this fit's in with the various parts of Tony's hypothesis, You only have to think about what happens at the end of a computer game...
You have the option to start over again.
And perhaps the Daemon is that part of ourselves that owns (for want of a better word) our avatar (and by that I don't mean the operator in a game of this world sitting on a heavenly sofa with a big ol' controller). I mean, perhaps the daemon embodies our capabilities as beings - it keeps us ticking over, according to the code (information) that creates us as beings, it contains our limits and our functions, and our eidolon is the 'free will' and the 'doing' part of ourselves. The one taking the ride in the human body.
The daemon has a differing consciousness to us (or connects to it in a different way) He keeps our heart beating and our cells reproducing, etc. all the automatic things that would kill us if the became our (the eidolons) responsibility.

anyway - I gotta go get my kids from school on the way home, may take this thread up again later - depending on the replies of course.
Hopefully now there will be nobody ridiculing my observations..............

BTW, Ray Kurzweil is another name for the list.

[SAB]

A computer doesn't know it exists, the avatars in the computer 'could' know they exist, if the 'program' was sufficiently advanced and the 'consciousness' routine upgrade had been placed in. And we know they exist because we created them.

For us, the barrier to the outside world is the computer itself, you cannot take a (simulated) 'living' being out of the computer as there is then no medium to support his existence as he knows it.

Hi Mike,

You make some interesting points which in themselves throw up even more interesting questions.

You seem to imply that self awareness can be programmed in to “reality”. As you rightly state a computer does not know that it exists, even if it is running an application that would give the outward appearance that it does. How should it be any different for an avatar that is running within the electronic circuitry of that self same unaware machine; after all the avatar and it's surroundings would effectively be an application of sorts.

Surely the avatar is an expression of the programmer made through the medium of the computer and if this is so the avatar can only ever give the outward appearance of awareness without actually having any internal knowing/awareness that it is aware. This must be the case unless of course the “consciousness” of the programmer himself is, for want of a better word, “breathing” awareness into the avatar in the same way that a gamer playing an RPG knows that the avatar is bereft of any real awareness as it can only do the things it does on screen because it is the consciousness of the gamer that is controlling the avatar and not the avatar itself.

Some may be of the point of view that this whole self awareness thing is nothing but a grand illusion, being nothing but the product and enactment of an internal biological code brought about somehow by spontaneous creation; in effect a creation brought about by “random” chance and as such must have a deterministic outcome leading to the conclusion that awareness in itself is a self perpetuated fraud because everything is programmed and hence everything must have a deterministic outcome in accordance with that self same programming. It seems odd to me that some advocates of quantum theory can adhere to the concept of superposition requiring an observer to collapse the wave function and at the same time advocating a predestiny within the universe that cannot be changed. Why should there be states of superposition if nothing can escape the net of determinism? Why the need for an observer to effectively exercise a choice based on his observation? It seems to me that quantum theory reinforces the view that the universe does not know what is going to happen next, for if this were not the case an observer would be irrelevant and unnecessary. This In my opinion points to the suggestion that the universe requires a conscious act of free will to progress from one state to the next and if this is so then how do we reconcile this with an awareness brought about by nothing other than a program which by it's very nature is deterministic? Why the need for an observer to in effect determine the deterministic?

In a previous post I wrote :

Is consciousness a result of brain activity or does consciousness use the “machine” to express itself within it’s current experience? If it is the former then one could argue in favour of a backup of data simulating reality when it is run. If it is the latter however all we are left with really is the data backup to a “grand game” with nobody around to play it. With no observer to view and participate in the game can it be said to exist at all? Who wrote the game in the first place?, was it a consciousness independent of the game and if so, consciousness cannot be part of that selfsame game. Perhaps the game being a product of consciousness would be used as a tool for consciousness to express itself, if so we are still left with the fact that consciousness exists outside of the game/data.

If this is the case then I would suggest that the “barrier” of the computer is not the barrier to the “outside” world because the very thing that gives us awareness within the computer IS the thing that IS the outside world. In effect we ARE the outside source that is using the avatar to play the grandest game that could ever be conceived of in an attempt to truly appreciate who and what we are as consciousness itself.

Sab

[YouAreDreaming]

Hi Mike and Sab,

You are both bringing up interesting points with regards to a simulated reality. It seems likely that if we have a system of reality that is founded on consciousness, and not matter. Then as Sab says:

That "reality" is a manifestation of consciousness. A dimension within a dimension where time is absent in both. Consciousness like light would be simultaneously present in all “locations” in all “times” experiencing everything that can be experienced within a single moment of awareness. Imagine walking into a library: All of the texts in all of the books are present in the "now". What our perceived individual experience is in this moment of "now" is dependant upon which page of which book our focus (enacted by freewill - ie the observer collapsing the wave function) is currently directed at.

In a simulated Universe, time and space will simply be data access at a given point within the software design. If consciousness produced a natural digital system that allows virtual reality simulations to exist then re-runs are easily explained as going back and accessing the same data within a recorded database and rendering the output on the BIMAX for review.

Time dilation, synchronicity, precognition, deja vu can also be explained as the future data and many permutations already exist and as consciousness is in all locations in all times, it's likely that the self-aware aspects of the program (namely us the observers or players) would also be entangled with this already existing future data.

Because it's a digital simulation the computer can easily calculate all the "unknown" variables of which the players are unaware of to ensure certain conditions and events take place which in turn give way to all our synchronicity and wonderment as to how reality can sometime feel like it's meant to be this way or planned out.

Which really leads us to what the movie the "Matrix" touched on, and that is the Architect of the Virtual Reality. To program and create a simulated Universe, there has to be a "Reality Engineer" or "Engineers" that over see the production of the system. It is also likely that the players are also the Engineers and facilitating a role in the overall scope of the created experience.

Of course here we call such beings "Gods" and have many religions that subscribe to certain myths and theories yet seemingly contradict each other over the tangible truths that must be "out" there once we come to understand what creates reality and if it's a self-aware and intelligent consciousness; then what we have is a system of self-aware consciousness that is both creating and experiencing it's creation simultaneously in every permutation (as Sab says, in all locations and relative to the "now").

If we need an immediate example of how a self-aware intelligent consciousness can create a simulated reality, look no further then yourself and your own night-time dreams. Dreams are a stunning example of this "creating and experiencing simultaneously" example.

We do create and produce our dreams. We effortlessly express a vivid simulated reality and quite often are completely unaware that we are indeed creating such experiences. It is not until you have a lucid dream, or a dream where you know you are creating it that such a relationship is realized.

So dreams offer a first-person example of such a theory at work in our real lives. What complicates dreams even further is that some of these dreams are known to come true and actually be an event in our waking reality. As some of you know I have also changed such dreams and those changes have actualized in this waking reality. Which further supports that this covert and not so obvious relationship of "creating and experiencing" scales up into this reality from that non-linear perspective within a lucid precognitive dream.

On might say Dreams are the "Programming Language of Reality". That very well may be the case.

[mikegrove4]

Sab

I have previously pondered the point you make about the gamer, but I think the gamer would have his own life to lead. If not then all the gamers would have to shut the game (and all of us) down to go about their business, and other similar scenarios, unless they log off when we sleep as in the film Avatar (which is one of the things about the film that I personally did not feel comfortable with).
The point about the Singularity that we are aiming to create (whether we are currently in one or not, people are trying to make it happen) is that the one we eventually come up with, once computing power allows, [and this amount has been calculated for the universe as we know it already – although I forget what it is but it's to do with the number of bits needed to simulate the universe – and is currently unachievable] is that with enough computing power the avatars achieve conciousness through the sheer complexity of their simulated selves.
I think that this is to do with the fact that they are all part of the same thing (as far as they're concerned – 'everything that IS') as are we – we are all part of the one big thing known as the universe (expand onward from there if you wish into multiverse territory).
I think that our conciousness is just a giant conciousness part of the program and that we tune into it and experience it ourselves (as in the theory mostly attributed to Karl [on here, that is])

regarding deterministic thinking - that is a tough one for me to get my thoughts across

I think we fall somewhere in the middle between free will and determinism. that is to say I think elements of both ideas are true.
I'm not that good at explaining my thoughts, but the way I see it – if you have an unwritten history book with a set of rules (like you can't flap your bare arms and fly, for instance) although you can change what you do and where you go and even how you do it, you can't change the rules that enable such things.
Also, (and you may miss my point here, because of my poor vocabulary and education ) at the end of the day [sic], that book was always going to say what it says now purely because it does.
From the 'beginning of time' I was always going to be born cos here I am to prove it!
There's nothing wrong with that arguement I think – it doesn't discount free will in my opinion, although, yes, some people think it does.

And Yad, you have a really firm handle on this and I agree with everything you say in your post.

We already have the computing power to render our own reality - it's our whole biologically computing brain and body.
cellular automata (based on the rules encoded in the DNA) keeps us functioning during sleep as it does in the day.
I'm not sure if a portion of the conciousness is still connected during sleep. (I digress).
When computing power goes biological (if it can without an initial conciousness to keep it going) then we will be able to simulate people biologically - I wonder if they will have acces to conciousness?
But anyway, before we get that far (in the future) we have to have been able to simulate the brain (at least) entirely through computing power.
if nothing happens to prevent it, then Once we reach that point we will have what's known as an AI (a real artificial intelligence equal to our own), in time that AI will learn faster than us and at some point will become an AI+, he will then be in a position to create an AI, in time he will become an AI++ in which case he will be able to create an AI and an AI+ and that will be the one below him's reality.
or something like that!