The Language of Vampyr

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

So where did you find your longer quote? It was actually much closer to correct than most quotes one sees.

That was not a quote.

The problem with 'divine male' and 'divine female' is that both the word 'divine' and the words 'male and female' are human concepts, that don't translate well into physics.

Perhaps the choice of physics as a language is the problem here? Some things may not translate well. As an alternative language I would suggest mathematics and in particular; geometric surfaces. Grok the Möbius Klein.

There does seem to be a 'bit' of truth to the human body having tie ins to something 'greater', and that's what 'kundalini yoga is about' or other forms of Tantra or even something like your 'merging of shells' practice.

The phrase A maiden's womb is simply the fruit of a tree is meant as a literal statement.

How do I say?

The tree is there in the tree's world, the fruit is not. The fruit is in this world.

When a fairy vanishes she does not disappear, she inverts her Being.

So one might say; A woman's womb is simply the inverted fruit of a tree.

I wonder if this has a parallel with Direne's "predetermined time"? My guess is once the fruit inverts into a womb it exists in time and therefore a temporary predetermination.

For the "tie ins to something greater", I would propose a thought; a million wombs connected through the tree.

I say "propose a thought" that this may be so. My guess is the world linking the wombs and tree are the roads of the unborn. Once in there, the only exit may be birth through a familiar door. Not a place to be lost within.

Regarding the shells. Optics and topology is the language I would use here. How to say?

Within the mirror we see our reflection. In the looking glass we see something else. To change a mirror into a looking glass we stop seeing ourselves. That is how I would explain the knack of scrying. The mirror is only a tool.

The boundaries of self are our own inbuilt mirrors and looking glasses.

Gazing into the mirror, my reflection disappears.
She steps forward and smiles, my love lost so long ago.
Her hands reach up, her palms upon the glass.
Our hands nearly touch.
Then her fingers interlace with mine, then mine with hers.
The boundaries are breached, she pulls herself across and into me.

a reply to: Direne

1) never ever can any given Peeple ocuppy exactly the same position that is already occupy by another Peeple (that is, you can entangle photons, but you cannot have two photons located at the same time at the same point in space)

Actually, photons are are bosons, and can occupy the same space at the same time. Photons pass trough each other like ghosts. On the other hand, fermions (such as protons), can't occupy the same space at the same time. They will "bump" if you try to pass them trough each other. Tough I get this is an analogy, and may actually be referring to something else (such as the MIW interpretation of QM) . What exactly it's referring to, I do not know. The devil is always in the finer details.

2) time travelers (be them particles or humans) are memoryless systems: you can travel back in time, or travel to the future, but you are not allowed to remember anything of your past (if in the future), nor of your future (if in the past)

Some say memory makes the man. Some say memory makes time itself. That our past is past because we remember it, and our future is future because we don't. Some say Alzheimer's is the most terrible disease. "Memoryless humans" are a terrifying thing to think too deeply about. But I digress. My point is, can a time-traveler be really said to have traveled in time if his memory did not come along with him? What difference is there between "Peeple from the past" and "Peeple from the future" if not memory? Without a way to distinguish between the two when they are copresent the notion of time-travel itself becomes meaningless. Both buddhists and scientists would agree on that one. Or perhaps I'm misapprehending the problem? Who can say.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

What If you peak into the Looking Glass and you found that "omae wa mou shindeiru" Ah, what then!?

a reply to: boozo

omae wa mou shindeiru = "you are already dead".

Would it really matter since I had not noticed?

a reply to: Peeple

we can certainly allow for example a "holographic" Peeple that could overlapp, no?

Yes, you can, but then those are different objects. One is Peeple, and the other is a Hologram of Peeple. The rule I mentioned applies to two identical Peeples, a totally perfect replica of Peeple1, with her mindset and consciousness being identical. Another you. The rule states, however, that there is a difference, a big and unsurmountable difference: you occupy a place in space that your replica cannot occupy at the same time.

it seems to me, you've deprived your theory/ your self of the only thing that can "give meaning" => learning

Fair. The intention is not to teach, but to learn. Universes are simulated to test if they are secure and a safe place. Once you run the simulation, you get to know what things to correct and modify, or remove, for you to come to a design of your liking. I am here talking about, say, a terminal hypercivilization, one that wants (or needs) to avoid the big crunch, so they need to escape to another universe. They create their new universe, and test it to see how it works before moving.

a reply to: One_Zero

Actually, photons are are bosons, and can occupy the same space at the same time

Not really. I understand your concern, but that will happen if a wave function associated to the particle were the particles themselves, which is not the case. Each of the two photons has each a wave function, and these can indeed occupy the same point in space at the same time (they overlap, and provided you don't touch them, they wouldn't collapse). But the wave function of the photon is not the photon. If you could squeeze both photons pushing them one against the other, what happens is that the wave function of any of them collapses before both photons could ever kiss each other.

can a time-traveler be really said to have traveled in time if his memory did not come along with him? What difference is there between "Peeple from the past" and "Peeple from the future" if not memory?

Yes, exactly. This is correct. There is no difference for the travelling Peeple. But there is a definite difference for an external observer. That you have traveled in time is something someone else tells you. You have no direct prove, as you cannot recall having travelled. Imagine both Peeple and you are part of the hypercivilization, and that for some reason, one of you needs to travel to the future in order to verify a certain supernova exploded or not close to a planet. Assume you both decide Peeple wil stay in your current present, while you zero_one are sent to the future. Once there, you are simply taken back. If you are back, the supernova didn't explode.

But if Peeple cannot recover you and take you back 'home', it is obvious for her the supernova did explode. Notice here how whether you remember or not your travelling is unessential for you both knowing what you wished to know.

The important thing here is that you have free will, even if you live in a simulated Universe, because as Peeple promptly remarked, a fully deterministic universe without free will would be pointless. No need to run a simulation when you already know the result of the simulation in all its details. I'll put another example: you know you will die one day, yet this doesn't seem to diminish your free will at all.

a reply to: Direne

They create their new universe, and test it to see how it works before moving.

Why not just use one of the more than googol universes that are already made? How does anyone from the inside of one universe create another?
If they're that advanced and can time travel and all why not just reverse the crunch?



Also: what would be the difference between simulated and real?


Are they devolving or something? How did they become so advanced, if their way to operate is that redundant and wasteful? Instead of fixing their problem they go through such big lengths just to get stuck in an infinite loop of reliving their trauma (crunch)?
...sounds like someone needs therapy...

a reply to: Direne

I understand your concern, but that will happen if a wave function associated to the particle were the particles themselves, which is not the case.

Fair enough. The wave function being equal to the particle is a common assumption in many interpretations of QM, but by no means necessary, nor necessarily correct.

Assume you both decide Peeple wil stay in your current present, while you zero_one are sent to the future. Once there, you are simply taken back. If you are back, the supernova didn't explode.

I'm going to assume this is referring to some form of mental travel, because sending and retrieving matter from the future (or past) might cause all sorts of trouble (violation of the conservation of energy, etc.) . Please correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption.

But if Peeple cannot recover you and take you back 'home', it is obvious for her the supernova did explode. Notice here how whether you remember or not your travelling is unessential for you both knowing what you wished to know.

Well, that means I'm not as "memoryless" as was initially assumed. Allow me to elaborate: I don't notice or remember any travel to and from the future, so long as I, while being in that future, survive. But my brain/consciousness will get fried in the present, if I die in the future before Peeple brings me back. Thus giving Peeple 1 bit of information about the, let's say hypothetical, future state of the supernova.

One life for 1 bit seems like very high price to pay for information, then again, depending on exactly what that bit is supposed to tell, some people might be willing to pay that price. Even at the cost of their own life.

Anyway, back to your example. You can use it to get information from the future. If you can't use that information to change the future, then indeed, the timeline is fixed. If you can use it to change the future, then that future you saw was only hypothetical. No different than looking outside on a cloudy day, "seeing" yourself soaking wet, and deciding to take an umbrella to avoid that future. The example, as given, is equivalent to a highly advanced (yet ethically dubious) weather prediction machine. What I'm really interested in is how would your time machine work in traveling to the past. Because the future depends on the present, but the present depends on the past. And, trough the present, the past has a habit of sticking around and being real. You can go on a drinking binge to forget about the past, but it will still catch up to as soon as sobriety does. The past will still have its imprint in the present, regardless of whether an individual person chooses to forget. That's what common sense and day to day experience teaches us.

My question is this: can you use the machine to change the past, thus effecting large scale changes (recomputation?) of the present? (for example, prevent Hiroshima and Nagasaki) . What would happen if you sent someone to the past?

The important thing here is that you have free will, even if you live in a simulated Universe, because as Peeple promptly remarked, a fully deterministic universe without free will would be pointless. No need to run a simulation when you already know the result of the simulation in all its details. I'll put another example: you know you will die one day, yet this doesn't seem to diminish your free will at all.

Without some form of memory, free will also seems pointless. Have you seen Groundhog Day? A guy is forced to relive the same day over and over again. But he has one advantage over the rest of the world: memory. Each "rewind", he remembers what he did before. Thus he realizes his situation, tries new things, learns about his "scripted" world. Among other things, he learns to play the piano. Eventually, he does what is needed to escape. But none of that premise would have been possible without memory. Or, more abstractly speaking, some form of informational persistence and state change. His starting state for rewind number n+1 must depend on, yet be different from his starting state for rewind number n. Preferably as a form of memory. Because without that happening, he would live the same day, over and over again, acting exactly the same as he did before. Memory is a necessary perquisite for learning. That includes learning to escape simulations.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

You may recall that I complimented you a few days ago; i didn't do it to make you feel good, I did it because there was reason to compliment you. You have managed to observe some of how things work. Keep up the good work.

a reply to: zero_one

One of the best analogies;

is a transporter beam from Star Trek a murder machine?

The whole thing is really about Buddhism!

a reply to: Peeple

...sounds like someone needs therapy...

That's what Gnosticism says.

There's reason that I call my system "Temporarily-Corrected Buddhism";

time is the only mystery worth mastering, if you can only master one thing.

Do one thing, do it well.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

You seem to have a special quarrel with gnostics?
Why?
What does salvation through knowledge have to do with me belittling hypothetical simulators?

a reply to: Peeple

Read my post in the other thread, and you will understand.

I have nothing against Gnostics.

What I'm determined to do, is to learn form my mistakes, and cleanup my mess.

Kev

a reply to: Peeple

Peeple, how to create a universe can be found in this book:

Hig-Energy Astrophysics

The book can be downloaded for free by signing in as a guest. Once you get it, go straight to page 153, paper by Alan H. Guth, titled Can a man-made universe be achieved by quantum tunneling without an initial singularity? In that paper, Mr. Guth gives you two receipes on how to create universes in a lab.

Why not just use one of the more than googol universes that are already made?

Already made by whom? That's the question. The simulated universe theory holds all of them are made by the simulator.

If they're that advanced and can time travel and all why not just reverse the crunch?

To time travel does not mean you can reverse time. That you can travel to yesterday does not mean everyone and everything travels with you. You are the only one traveling.

what would be the difference between simulated and real?

None. Ther is nothing like a real universe. All of them are simulated.

Instead of fixing their problem they go through such big lengths just to get stuck in an infinite loop of reliving their trauma (crunch)?

You can create universes, but you cannot control with laws of physics apply and which not. All of them are ruled by Physics, and in all of them exists gravity, hence all of them eventually collapse. Entropy cannot be made to disappear. You can create a day , to start with, and apples, if they exist, will still fall according to the law of gravitation. In other words: you can create a jail, no matter how beautiful, it is just a jail.

a reply to: Direne

But if the simulator lives outside the universe what did crunch and why would they need one at all?


Sorry to me it seems like loads of fantastical hooey.
I don't believe a word of it and it is nothing else than the biblical/God story translated into a pseudo technological setting.


Inflation is not scientific

To make predictions with inflation one cannot just say “there once was exponential expansion and it ended somehow.” No, to be able to calculate something, one needs a mathematical model. The current models for inflation work by introducing a new field – the “inflaton” – and give this field a potential energy. The potential energy depends on various parameters. And these parameters can then be related to observations.
Three possible 'hills-and-valleys' potentials that could describe cosmic inflation. Though they give... [+] somewhat different results for the various parameters of the Universe, ...

The scientific approach to the situation would be to choose a model, determine the parameters that best fit observations, and then revise the model as necessary – i.e., as new data comes in. But that’s not what cosmologists presently do. Instead, they have produced so many variants of models that they can now “predict” pretty much anything that might be measured in the foreseeable future.

It is this abundance of useless models that gives rise to the criticism that inflation is not a scientific theory. And on that account, the criticism is justified. It’s not good scientific practice. It is a practice that, to say it bluntly, has become commonplace because it results in papers, not because it advances science.

source

a reply to: Peeple

People steeped in Isaac Arthur and Nick Bostrom are prone to develop theories like the one you are not liking.

A pure technologist personality likes those theories,

while a gnostic personality could ram it into their framework, depending on which variety of Gnosticism they are currently espousing.

But there would be argument between those two personalities.

This would be why it would be better for such personalities not to post from an individual perspective.

It ruins the puppet show.

a reply to: zero_one

sending and retrieving matter from the future (or past) might cause all sorts of trouble (violation of the conservation of energy, etc.) .

This is totally correct, but only if you inject matter, let's say a single humble electron, into another Universe, because you are then destroying the delicate balance between matter and antimatter, to just mention one of the many problems you will induce. Actually, you would destroy that Universe. Same if someone sends a positron, for instance, from another Universe into yours. But mind, zero_point, that situation only holds if Universes were connected. They are not. They are causally disconnected.

What we are talking here is to move matter back and forth inside the same Universe, hence no violation in the total matter balance occurs.

that means I'm not as "memoryless" as was initially assumed

You are correct. However, you are memoryless indeed for what concerns your past, not your future. Namely, if you spend two days in the future, you will remember the first day while staying there. If you spent three days, you will remember the first two days there. Once back, you don't remember anything of your travel. You just remember having closed your eyes, having followed your operator's instructions, and then blackout. In fact, for you, your time in the future is a missing time.

If you can use it to change the future, then that future you saw was only hypothetical

Exactly. However, all futures are hypothetical until they are realized. They exist for you only as potentialities. There is a fan-out of possible futures being radiated from one single past (as Mr. Everett taught), and if you wish to know all of them, you need to travel to all of them (that is, you need to explore the entire phase space).

the future depends on the present, but the present depends on the past

The future depends on the present, much as the present depends on the past. The present is just the point in which the past and the future meets. Think of the future as a past traveling backwards.

The past will still have its imprint in the present, regardless of whether an individual person chooses to forget.

Agreed. But, as per my answer above, the future has its imprint in the present, on equal stands.

can you use the machine to change the past, thus effecting large scale changes (recomputation?) of the present? (for example, prevent Hiroshima and Nagasaki) .

Yes, you can. But mind: you have just changed your past, not everybody's past. What this means, and this is the crux of the matter in simulated universe theory, is that you soon realize changes you make to the past or the future are really changes to your own past and your own future. This is the role of consciousness: to keep you causally disconnected from others. The others, the people you love, the sunsets you watch, all of it, are just there for you. Remember, we are simulating reality... just for you. This is called [cognitive bubble] by virtue of which we keep realities disconnected from each other.

This is probably and likely the more unnerving and dark side of the simulated universe theory: everything exists, but just for you.
Think of a dream. It is your dream. It belongs to just you. You cannot share it. You live inside your dreamland, and everything there is for you as real as what you call reality.

What would happen if you sent someone to the past?

To whom's past?

Without some form of memory, free will also seems pointless

I see your point. I understand your needing memory to exist. But memory is the reverse of forgetting. Forgetting is just memory traveling backwards.
You cannot choose what to remember, much as you cannot choose what to forget.

Memory is a necessary perquisite for learning. That includes learning to escape simulations.

Agreed. But the same holds for forgetting. If you don't forget, soon your brain will collapse under the overload of information. You need to forget in order to learn new things; you need to make room for new experiences, and this means sacrificing certain learned experiences. Forgetting is a blessing when what you have to store information is limited and finite. Otherwise you will exhaust your storage capability.

a reply to: Peeple

No need for apologies, Peeple. You are free to believe whatever you wish. On the other hand, this is not my theory. I am explaining to you what Mr. Guth and others wrote about. However, not believing about the creation of Universes is tantamount as to not believing in current physics, as Mr. Guth's theory is non-controverial and widely accepted in Physics.

But again, you are hopefully free to not believe. That's unquestionable.

a reply to: Direne


See my edit
I added why Guth is being seriously questioned because it is not science to cover all grounds with predictions so no matter what anyone observes your theory allegedly predicted it.

It's just more hooey on top, a lot of people with degrees are full of # you know?
Guth is one of them.




But don't worry about it I will see myself out, I have a rule not to argue with "believers"

a reply to: Peeple

Oh, I never worry. Why should I?