[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Super, and super computers et. al.
- To: "Robert L. Vaessen"
- Subject: Super, and super computers et. al.
- From: Rob Garrity
- Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 11:11:34 +0900
- Cc: Patrick G Konshak
- In-reply-to: <8220B82C-38ED-11D6-BA05-0050E4F9E067>
I have been sinking slowly in the deep end of your conversation lately.
Pretty 'rarified' stuff!
But one piece did get me to think a bit. that was Pat's comment on the
conscience as a powerful super computer versus an outside mechanism which
imposes sequential order upon us.
Two seemingly unrelated thoughts occurred to me:
1. Isaac Asimov's observation that something, (technology) completely
beyond our understanding would be indistinguishable from God.
2. A story I heard about Thomas Edison. Supposedly, he was asked to give a
class to a group of physics students at Harvard. He gave them one of his
light bulbs (picture the old-fashioned curly-que designs) and as their
first assignment they had to measure its volume. The next day several
students presented him with a vast array of formulas for measuring this
strange object. he looked at them, chuckled, (I assume) and turned the
light bulb upside down and filled it with water and measured the water's
Ok, now my point, such as it is: Talking about probability paths as
un-doable because we would need to be super computers to be able to impose
the appearance of a sequence on events is kind of like people 200 years ago
scoffing Jules Verne because certainly there wasn't enough gun powder in
the whole world to send someone to the moon. We can't envision computing
power of any sort, mechanical or 'mental' that can handle the complexity of
a world striped of time and matter. So it must be infinitely complex.
But as we find with natural laws once we understand them, they are often
remarkably simple and eloquent. If there is only consciousness and the
rules which guide it; and assuming these rules are 'orderly' like cause and
effect; then it would make sense that these rules would be expressed by our
consciousness as 'sequential and orderly'.
It's not the only possibility. But back with Ocam's razor it surely cuts
things the cleanest.
On Saturday, March 16, 2002, at 11:52 PM, Robert L. Vaessen wrote:
On Thursday, March 14, 2002, at 12:09 , Patrick G Konshak wrote:
Your consciousness (conscience is sense of right and wrong) does not
impose the sequencing order. The limitations on your consciousness are
imposed by laws outside your control. The cause and effect limitations are
dictated by these laws (physics). Your consciousness is prohibited from
visiting the node where effect does not follow cause. These laws restrict
your selection of nodes along the probability path. It's not so much that
our physical brains are incapable of processing the data, but that they
are not presented with the data in any order other than that imposed by
Lets say that there is no such thing as time. All events happen at once
as individual nodes. But our limited brains can only receive then in a
linear events. If this is true then my conscience would have to be a
great super powerful computer to put these events into a linear pattern
of cause and effect. That is: the striking of a match is the cause of the
effect of fire (not the other way around). Or maybe there is a mechanism
that dose this for my conscience, like time? But that can't be right,
because time dose not exist. So my conscience has to be a great super
Also my conscience would have to make sure it stays on the right branch.
The rules (laws of physics) are what keep your consciousness on such a
narrow nodal path. As I explained in my other email. I think it's our
(mankind) job to figure out what all the laws are. Perhaps that will allow
us to circumvent or work around the laws. The bigger question is who made
What's to keep it from jumping around the tree and seeing fish turn
into refrigerators? Is the answer 'space'? Na, what's space? Nothing.
It can't exist.
If our minds are limited to only see events linear, what is the force or
mechanism that's limiting them? Or if the limitation is do to the lack
of something. What force or mechanism is our minds lacking?
Good question. See above. But once again, in a model of a universe without
time. The rules are imposed upon our consciousness. Not our brains. The
laws actually limit which nodes in the probability matrix we can
experience, not whether cause follows effect. Just like our consciousness,
these laws are outside the matrix.
All the actual physical objects inside the matrix follow very few rules.
They must have a shape, size, color, etc. These objects do not move
(another one of the concepts that must be accepted if one accepts the
principle of 'no such thing as time') or interact, they are separate from
each other. Fixed into a static grid, a node within the probability matrix.
Therefore all the laws of physics regarding interactions, movement, cause
and effect, etc. Are actually limitations on our consciousness. They are
limitations on the manner in which our consciousness experiences the
matrix. The rules that govern which node we may visit. If we have just
finished processing the node where a match was struck, then the rules are
written such that we can only visit one of two other nodes. We can either
visit the node where a fire results, or one where a fire does not. But we
cannot visit the node where the match is replaced with a GE Energy Saver
I know that this is a somewhat simplistic explanation of the probability
path/tree; but we've been following it so far. If you need more examples
that illustrate limitations on which node you can experience next please
let me know.
You say 'time' doesn't exist, and then you say our conscience perceive
things in a linear way. Linear perception is time. Your say time doesn'
Time does not exist. Perception does not equal reality. We perceive the
sun 'Rising' in the morning, and 'Setting' in the evening. The sun does
not 'move' across the sky, and it doesn't 'disappear' at night. Our
consciousness processes/experiences different nodes in the matrix. The
manner in which it experiences these nodes is governed by a series of laws
or rules. One of those laws or rules dictates the order rate in which we
experience the nodes.
t exist, but then you say our conscience exist in time.
We experience the nodes (instantaneous events) in a linear manner. In one
direction at a time. Going back to my illustration of a probability tree
(see my web page: https://www.robsworld.org/notime.html); Node A,
followed by node A1, followed by node A11. If we were not limited by this
rule/law we could be in more than one place at a time (so to speak). We
could experience node A, followed by A1, and then A2 (or reverse). Since
A1 and A2 are adjacent nodes in a standard experiential probability path
you would be experiencing two nodes simultaneously. You'd be experiencing
the nodes in a parallel, rather than linear, fashion.
We experience the nodes in a sequential manner. In our case, the
consciousness is limited to experiences that follow a path of node A,
followed by node A1, followed by node A11. If we were not limited by this
rule/law we could move from node A11 to node A, and then to node A1.
Moving backward and forward at will along the probability path.
If we were not bound by the laws as I've described, the probability tree
model would look differently. It would be more like a probability sphere
Our consciousness does not exist in time. The rules which restricts how it
moves with the matrix are interpreted by us as time.
At one time man interpreted the earth as being the center of the solar
system. He did this because he was unwilling to believe something that was
contradictory to his senses. What are your senses telling you about time?
Very young children have no concept of time. They learn about time from
adults, and what they are told is reinforced by their senses. Adults
describe time in terms of motion and cause and effect. The lessons are
reinforced by sight and sound.
You say 'events'. Photons, gravity, electron, etc.. exist. An event.
What's an event. Events don't exist because an event is time.
Everything happens at once so there is no such thing as events. Our
minds can't perceive linear events (past, present, and future), they don'
I use the term event to describe a node. A singular configuration of
matter in which all things exist. This configuration constitutes a single
node within the probability matrix. I call this frozen/unmoving
configuration of matter a node or event. I've been using the terms
t exist. There for we don't exist.
An event is not time. An event is a single node within the probability
matrix. There is no time component in the probability matrix. Perhaps I
shouldn't use the terms interchangeably? I created the term 'node' to
avoid the time based connotations attached to the word 'event'. I thought
that I could use them interchangeably after I had defined node. I thought
you would see the interchangeable aspects, and accept them as synonymous.
Our minds do perceive linear events. They do this as a result of the laws
imposed upon our consciousness. Our consciousness is only capable of
experiencing the nodes in a linear fashion. In turn, we rationalize this
linear sequence as being part of the physical order of things.
You need to answer these questions. Don't just say "You have to ask a
priest or something". This is why. You formed the believe that 'time'
dose not exist. You had to base it on something or did you flip a coin?
I'm not sure exactly which questions you want me to answer. Aside from the
questions about who created these laws, and why are they written the way
they are. I've been doing my best to explain how our universe could exist
without time and motion.
Base on the questions I asked above, there's a big part of the puzzle
missing. Your holding back. Cuff it up. What are you hiding up you
sleeve. Maybe you think I will not understand. This why I sent some may
reply. Trying to get you to reveal your secretes.I decided it's time
for a Klingon approach and come right out and ask you.
I didn't come up with the idea that 'Time does not exist'. Others thought
about this long before I was born. I sort of stumbled upon it. Having
cobbled it together experientially (Not experimentally) throughout the
years. Reading the book, 'The End of Time' by Adrian Barbour, is what
helped me codify my beliefs about time. I hadn't even thought about motion
until reading that book. The book helped me put names to the things I'd
been thinking about. It helped me understand why I'd been having trouble
believing other cosmology theories.
I didn't flip a coin, and I'm not holding back on you. The only thing I
haven't been giving you is the formulae. The math that scientists (There
are many scientists who believe that time does not exist) have been using
to support the 'No time' theory. The math is actually used more to
disprove time based models of the universe, than it is to prove 'No time'
theories. I haven't been using/describing the math because it's way over
my head. It doesn't do me much good, and I usually can't follow it. I suck
at math, and excel at words. I could describe just about anything with
words. But I can't see a sphere in 2(Πr2). (is that right?).
If I still haven't convinced you that time doesn't exist I may never.
Perhaps you'd like to read the book I suggested. It doesn't explain things
in quite the same manner that I have, and it uses somewhat different terms.
It does, however go into much greater detail, and includes mathematical
formulae to support and refute various points.
Actual term: Chronophobia - Abnormal/irrational fear of clocks, time or
duration. Recognized by medical and psychology fields.
Temporaphobia (I made that one up)