"You cannot come to know the depths of the purpose of your life, however, if you are not willing to release those parts of your life that are no longer necessary."
For some time now it has seemed as though blogging on this idea has run its course. I've said what I have to say, and while I continue to work on these ideas, I find that blogging without direct feedback is more distracting than helpful. It's time to do some more in-depth work, and to cultivate functional offline partnerships.
It was never my intention to do this work live, online and in real-time. My philosophical and scientific ideas will undoubtedly change over time, so recording them here and now is simply recording a snapshot or what I was thinking during that weird period in my life when I blogged.
Blogging has been an interesting experience, in no small part for the data it has provided on detecting the influence of other observers. Thanks for reading what I've written, and for putting up with any discontinuities that you may have observed. That I blogged for this long was due largely to some of the people that I've gotten to know along the way. ;)
My hope is that in releasing myself from this format of writing, I'll be able to find other ways to express what I'm thinking. (Preferably some intricate math; yeah, I know.) I hope to gain back a few degrees of freedom in my experiences as well. Right now I find myself reduced to thinking about things in blog-able terms. The experience is never as intense or meaningful as it could be if one part of your brain is always thinking about how it will become a story that you can tell.
Perhaps there are a few topics that I haven't sufficiantly addressed. Most likely this is because I do not feel that my own thoughts on the subject are sufficiently formed. Check back with me after I've had the chance to do some more research.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Magic Goes Away
"Do you dream
That the world will know your name?
So tell me your name."
In trying to form a larger picture of 5-dimensional beings, the question of multiple observers becomes critical. Are we tethered to each other in a way that permits the ability of one observer to drive the state selection process for a group of observers? Or are we on a solo trajectory, unanchored by anything except our own minds?
About a year ago I mentioned that I was going to divert some of my attention toward a more intensive study of theories of magick. (We can see how well that went. ;) If a 5-dimensional picture fits a larger set of experiences (magick, psi, etc.) than a 4-dimensional picture, then people who have embraced these experiences should have valuable insights that might be mined by yours truly.
I come across odd bits of information every now and then, and I generally file them away for future reference. One idea that crossed my path again recently is the idea that a practitioner of magick should avoid being 'known'. It's not entirely clear to me if this means been being known in the sense that one is identified with magick, or just known in a larger sense.
Hearing that again reminded me of the first time I had heard that idea, which was several years ago while reading (if I remember correctly) a fairly good book on chaos magick. Hearing the same thing from multiple sources probably indicates that 1) most of the sources took their ideas from a primary source, or 2) it reflects a truism that more than one person is able to perceive.
Actually, this idea that one should avoid being known makes a great deal of sense in the framework we've already discussed. Allowing other to generate expectations about your ability to do certain things can set up a situation where multiple observers now have a means to influence the outcome. Their expectations (if we are using a model which embraces multiple observer dynamics) can create competing forces for the selection of a final state (to use a physics term) or universe (to use the analogy driving this blog).
This idea is also similar to another oft-repeated axiom of magick - "And if you try to explain it, it won't work. The same way magic stops working if you try to explain it." The idea being conveyed here is compatible with the idea that meta-level expectations about what should or should not happen can also drive the process of state selection. In fact, it's possible to use meta-level expectations to bypass more direct levels of observation. I was not entirely surprised to find that this idea is acknowledged in books on magickal theory.
Fans of free will aren't going to like the implications of a model where observers compete for state selection, because ultimately there is state selection involved in everything, including our own behaviors and states of mind. And after all, regardless of what choices in behavior we ultimately make, we usually experience the feeling/illusion that we freely chose to do whatever we did. But once aware of the idea that the observations/expectations of others make affect us in this non-local way, it should be possible (theoretically) to do a type of Fourier transform-analysis on the observed behavior and corresponding state of mind, in order to parse apart any likely influences of other observers. (It should also be possible (theoretically) to deconstruct the influences of larger groups upon observable events.)
To comfort anyone who just grew a little scared, it stands to reason that usually no one has more expectations about you than you. So control of the state selection process as it pertains to you and your behaviors usually belongs mostly to you. Think of free will as existing on a continuum, and you'll understand how this model works. Among others, this type of model would make the following prediction: You are more likely to be successful at selecting outcomes when you are the sole observer of the event. (This is predicated on the idea that there are no competing influences from other observers for the selection of the final state, but it also assumes a certain degree of awareness and skill on your part.)
As it might be regarded as an irresponsible act to go around spouting the idea that free will does not exist in an absolute form, for now I'm exploring this idea further in the larger realm of science fiction.
That the world will know your name?
So tell me your name."
In trying to form a larger picture of 5-dimensional beings, the question of multiple observers becomes critical. Are we tethered to each other in a way that permits the ability of one observer to drive the state selection process for a group of observers? Or are we on a solo trajectory, unanchored by anything except our own minds?
About a year ago I mentioned that I was going to divert some of my attention toward a more intensive study of theories of magick. (We can see how well that went. ;) If a 5-dimensional picture fits a larger set of experiences (magick, psi, etc.) than a 4-dimensional picture, then people who have embraced these experiences should have valuable insights that might be mined by yours truly.
I come across odd bits of information every now and then, and I generally file them away for future reference. One idea that crossed my path again recently is the idea that a practitioner of magick should avoid being 'known'. It's not entirely clear to me if this means been being known in the sense that one is identified with magick, or just known in a larger sense.
Hearing that again reminded me of the first time I had heard that idea, which was several years ago while reading (if I remember correctly) a fairly good book on chaos magick. Hearing the same thing from multiple sources probably indicates that 1) most of the sources took their ideas from a primary source, or 2) it reflects a truism that more than one person is able to perceive.
Actually, this idea that one should avoid being known makes a great deal of sense in the framework we've already discussed. Allowing other to generate expectations about your ability to do certain things can set up a situation where multiple observers now have a means to influence the outcome. Their expectations (if we are using a model which embraces multiple observer dynamics) can create competing forces for the selection of a final state (to use a physics term) or universe (to use the analogy driving this blog).
This idea is also similar to another oft-repeated axiom of magick - "And if you try to explain it, it won't work. The same way magic stops working if you try to explain it." The idea being conveyed here is compatible with the idea that meta-level expectations about what should or should not happen can also drive the process of state selection. In fact, it's possible to use meta-level expectations to bypass more direct levels of observation. I was not entirely surprised to find that this idea is acknowledged in books on magickal theory.
Fans of free will aren't going to like the implications of a model where observers compete for state selection, because ultimately there is state selection involved in everything, including our own behaviors and states of mind. And after all, regardless of what choices in behavior we ultimately make, we usually experience the feeling/illusion that we freely chose to do whatever we did. But once aware of the idea that the observations/expectations of others make affect us in this non-local way, it should be possible (theoretically) to do a type of Fourier transform-analysis on the observed behavior and corresponding state of mind, in order to parse apart any likely influences of other observers. (It should also be possible (theoretically) to deconstruct the influences of larger groups upon observable events.)
To comfort anyone who just grew a little scared, it stands to reason that usually no one has more expectations about you than you. So control of the state selection process as it pertains to you and your behaviors usually belongs mostly to you. Think of free will as existing on a continuum, and you'll understand how this model works. Among others, this type of model would make the following prediction: You are more likely to be successful at selecting outcomes when you are the sole observer of the event. (This is predicated on the idea that there are no competing influences from other observers for the selection of the final state, but it also assumes a certain degree of awareness and skill on your part.)
As it might be regarded as an irresponsible act to go around spouting the idea that free will does not exist in an absolute form, for now I'm exploring this idea further in the larger realm of science fiction.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The Gods Themselves
"Let us design a Universe, for after all whatever we design must exist, and search for it."
Further proof that if you don't say it, someone else will.
The problem: Our universe is "uncannily suited for life." This leads to an enormous amount of speculation as to why it is so perfectly suited for we seemingly-self aware 'bags of mostly water'.
Aside from the hat tip to Asimov, I'd like to leave the idea of God out of this conversation for the moment. Science shouldn't be driven by the perceived need to rid society of religion and belief in God, as destructive as those things might be.
The solutions discussed in the Discover article focus on the idea that there are many universes. It stands to reason then that we exist only in the one that is suited to us, and this ceases to be a 'miracle' because there are a vast number of other universes out there. Other universes would presumably be identified as such because they have different laws of physics. String theories aim to identify a general construct that would give rise our set of physical laws, as well as those of other universes. "The staggering challenge is to think of a way to confirm the existence of other universes when every conceivable experiment or observation must be confined to our own."
I raise my eyebrow at string theories and this line of inquiry for this reason. Naturally, I shouldn't raise my eyebrow unless I have something else to offer. ;)
We are confined to the limits of our own observations. Efforts like the LHC are attempts to extend the limits of those observations. So is research on the nature and limits of conscious experience. I suggest that adding an additional dimension to conscious experience may also extend our understanding of the ultimate construct of reality (which I half-jokingly call 'the smear').
The problem of why the universe is so adapted to our form of life seems to me to be less pressing for the following reason...
Conscious experience will reflect the circumstances that permit it. Altering the circumstances that give rise to consciousness will alter the experience of consciousness. For example, psychedelic drugs permit the experience of 'universes' that may seem to obey radically different laws of physics, or are incompatible with the rules of the universe as we understand them. No doubt this is why such a trip is often spoken of in terms of having travelled to a different plane/universe/dimension. If our experience of these physical laws can be so easily subverted, then perhaps treating those laws as an absolute and building from there isn't a guarantee for understanding the underlying constructs of our experience of reality.
But saying that only brings into question another problem - the problem of consensus reality. In other words, why can so many of us agree upon what we observe? And why do the rules of our universe stay (for the most part) constant enough to allow us to make very concrete predictions?
For example, does the moon exist when nobody is looking at it? And if it doesn't, then why, upon the resumption of observation, does it return to exact place where it can reliably be predicted to be? You could argue that the moon is never really unobserved. And in fact the moon is much less likely to be unobserved at any particular time than, say, something at the back of your fridge. This idea can be pushed to create a set of testable predictions. Prediction: You are significantly more likely to experience a new observation that is inconsistent with existing memories when the memories in question are the result of observations made by you alone than when the observation has been shared by others. (This prediction could be extended, for example, to say that there may be a linear relationship between the degree of memory consistency with new observations and the number of observers who shared the initial/critical observations.)
Lately I've been doing more thinking about the idea that we are not self-anchoring. That is, the idea that our conscious experience may be shaped in great part by the observations of others.
But that's a topic for another post.
Further proof that if you don't say it, someone else will.
The problem: Our universe is "uncannily suited for life." This leads to an enormous amount of speculation as to why it is so perfectly suited for we seemingly-self aware 'bags of mostly water'.
Aside from the hat tip to Asimov, I'd like to leave the idea of God out of this conversation for the moment. Science shouldn't be driven by the perceived need to rid society of religion and belief in God, as destructive as those things might be.
The solutions discussed in the Discover article focus on the idea that there are many universes. It stands to reason then that we exist only in the one that is suited to us, and this ceases to be a 'miracle' because there are a vast number of other universes out there. Other universes would presumably be identified as such because they have different laws of physics. String theories aim to identify a general construct that would give rise our set of physical laws, as well as those of other universes. "The staggering challenge is to think of a way to confirm the existence of other universes when every conceivable experiment or observation must be confined to our own."
I raise my eyebrow at string theories and this line of inquiry for this reason. Naturally, I shouldn't raise my eyebrow unless I have something else to offer. ;)
We are confined to the limits of our own observations. Efforts like the LHC are attempts to extend the limits of those observations. So is research on the nature and limits of conscious experience. I suggest that adding an additional dimension to conscious experience may also extend our understanding of the ultimate construct of reality (which I half-jokingly call 'the smear').
The problem of why the universe is so adapted to our form of life seems to me to be less pressing for the following reason...
Conscious experience will reflect the circumstances that permit it. Altering the circumstances that give rise to consciousness will alter the experience of consciousness. For example, psychedelic drugs permit the experience of 'universes' that may seem to obey radically different laws of physics, or are incompatible with the rules of the universe as we understand them. No doubt this is why such a trip is often spoken of in terms of having travelled to a different plane/universe/dimension. If our experience of these physical laws can be so easily subverted, then perhaps treating those laws as an absolute and building from there isn't a guarantee for understanding the underlying constructs of our experience of reality.
But saying that only brings into question another problem - the problem of consensus reality. In other words, why can so many of us agree upon what we observe? And why do the rules of our universe stay (for the most part) constant enough to allow us to make very concrete predictions?
For example, does the moon exist when nobody is looking at it? And if it doesn't, then why, upon the resumption of observation, does it return to exact place where it can reliably be predicted to be? You could argue that the moon is never really unobserved. And in fact the moon is much less likely to be unobserved at any particular time than, say, something at the back of your fridge. This idea can be pushed to create a set of testable predictions. Prediction: You are significantly more likely to experience a new observation that is inconsistent with existing memories when the memories in question are the result of observations made by you alone than when the observation has been shared by others. (This prediction could be extended, for example, to say that there may be a linear relationship between the degree of memory consistency with new observations and the number of observers who shared the initial/critical observations.)
Lately I've been doing more thinking about the idea that we are not self-anchoring. That is, the idea that our conscious experience may be shaped in great part by the observations of others.
But that's a topic for another post.
