"That's long been one of the problems in quantum mechanics: why do the observations of a single observer create a concrete reality for everyone simultaneously? The answer, of course, is that everyone is part of the overmind, so the observation made by one person is the observation made by all people - indeed, quantum mechanics requires the overmind in order to work."
You have to love fiction that can accurately and intelligently discuss Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose, Jung's work and additional dimensions.
While the dynamics of multiple-observer interactions may be relatively easy to describe from the multiple subjective perspectives, the construct(s) upon which these interactions take place and shape observable reality are virtually unknown. This is perhaps the biggest obstacle to 5-dimensional modelling with interacting and mutually-constraining observers. Of course, many aspects of the model could still be tested without any knowledge of the constructs that underlie their functionality. But definitive answers to the bigger philosophical questions demand more knowledge of substrate of a 5-dimensional existence.
Factoring Humanity suggests that an additional spatial dimension is what enables access to the overmind - a construct similar to Jung's collective unconscious. Naturally, in Factoring Humanity, we are given this knowledge and the means to access the overmind from aliens. (This in no way detracts from the compelling portrayals of the major human characters and their personal storylines.) Believe it or not, I had great difficulty visualizing a hypercube or a tesseract while reading the book. This should tell you that I have no great vision of a 5-dimensional construct for my model either. Part of the problem is that our observable reality has 4 obvious dimensions. The fifth dimension of experience is not immediately observable when you look out into the world. Much like the dimension of time, which requires the ability to notice change, the dimension of probability requires the ability to notice correlations and degrees of overlap among perceptual and mental data sets.
Time is a dimension of our experience because we have the ability to store previous observations and compare them to our current experience. Without this ability, our awareness of time would be lost and we would undoubtedly model 'reality' quite differently.
Does adding a fifth dimension of experience push us closer or further from having an accurate model of the substrate of our existence?
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
The Origin
"Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it"
In the relative quiet of these days, I find that I have a few more things to say before I am willing to consider this particular blogo-venture complete.
Among all the questions that demand answers from this way of modelling reality, one question I find particularly intriguing is the question of our entry into this experience. What we were/are (if anything) before entering human consciousness is of less concern to me than the questions about where and how the beginning of the trajectory of our consciousness is determined. Of course, without a more-complete understanding of the nature of consciousness, these questions cannot be answered with certainty, but they are worth examining nonetheless.
For example... At what point is the substrate of our consciousness advanced enough to act as an agent in the selection of outcomes? I am reminded of a study on baby chicks and other animals that were able to influence a random number generator so that target systems behaved in a way that benefited the animals. This suggests that even a human infant's consciousness may play some role in the selection of states. Could a fetus similarly impact a randomly-controlled system, provided it were able to interact with such a system? At what age could a fetus begin to exert an independent effect upon such a system?
Along the same lines, one might ask any number of questions about the optimal conditions of consciousness (COC) from which a noticeable influence upon random system might be obtained. Answering any of these questions requires, of course, that the question of multiple observers be settled definitively. (For what it's worth, and though it may leave me vulnerable to charges of ignoring a competing hypothesis, I believe, for various reasons, that the final model must be one that describes and accounts for multiple-observer interactions.) If our experience of this universe is a culmination of the effects of multiple observers, then our individual ability to choose outcomes may be severely limited at points of suboptimal COC.
There is a question of time as well. A 5-dimensional model is expected to exhibit signs of 'time' flowing in both directions. Does influence in the process of state selection flow into the past as well as into the subjective future? Can all that is significant to a single consciousness during its duration be derived from parsing a bi-directional temporal flow of influence? (This would be the best way to demonstrate the validity of the solipsistic perspective.)
And in considering the ultimate question of origin, it is amazing to me that more hasn't been said about how influence flowing backwards in time may play the leading role in determining how the conditions for this universe and our entry into it were created/selected...
In the relative quiet of these days, I find that I have a few more things to say before I am willing to consider this particular blogo-venture complete.
Among all the questions that demand answers from this way of modelling reality, one question I find particularly intriguing is the question of our entry into this experience. What we were/are (if anything) before entering human consciousness is of less concern to me than the questions about where and how the beginning of the trajectory of our consciousness is determined. Of course, without a more-complete understanding of the nature of consciousness, these questions cannot be answered with certainty, but they are worth examining nonetheless.
For example... At what point is the substrate of our consciousness advanced enough to act as an agent in the selection of outcomes? I am reminded of a study on baby chicks and other animals that were able to influence a random number generator so that target systems behaved in a way that benefited the animals. This suggests that even a human infant's consciousness may play some role in the selection of states. Could a fetus similarly impact a randomly-controlled system, provided it were able to interact with such a system? At what age could a fetus begin to exert an independent effect upon such a system?
Along the same lines, one might ask any number of questions about the optimal conditions of consciousness (COC) from which a noticeable influence upon random system might be obtained. Answering any of these questions requires, of course, that the question of multiple observers be settled definitively. (For what it's worth, and though it may leave me vulnerable to charges of ignoring a competing hypothesis, I believe, for various reasons, that the final model must be one that describes and accounts for multiple-observer interactions.) If our experience of this universe is a culmination of the effects of multiple observers, then our individual ability to choose outcomes may be severely limited at points of suboptimal COC.
There is a question of time as well. A 5-dimensional model is expected to exhibit signs of 'time' flowing in both directions. Does influence in the process of state selection flow into the past as well as into the subjective future? Can all that is significant to a single consciousness during its duration be derived from parsing a bi-directional temporal flow of influence? (This would be the best way to demonstrate the validity of the solipsistic perspective.)
And in considering the ultimate question of origin, it is amazing to me that more hasn't been said about how influence flowing backwards in time may play the leading role in determining how the conditions for this universe and our entry into it were created/selected...
Shadows of the Mind
"By understanding the Self, all this universe is known."
When confronted with the idea that the selection of this universe represents a choice, I am also confronted with all that is painful in the universe, and forced to ponder questions about the meaning of all the suffering in this world.
If my conscious experience is self-contained - that is, if I am not subject to any constraints put upon the states that I observe by other observers - then how do I explain the existence of pain and suffering (my own and that of others) in my experience? Is the suffering I see in others simply a shadow of some level of my own suffering? I do not suggest that this is an excuse to become indifferent to suffering, especially the suffering of others. Indeed, if this solipsistic vision of reality is correct, then the observation of suffering may only go away upon engaging both the internal forces that propelled me to this particular universe, and the external manifestation of suffering. Perhaps the internal forces that pushed me to a place where I am suffering or I observe suffering may only be understood and mitigated by engaging the external manifestation in attempts to alleviate the suffering.
If, however, I accept a model wherein state selection is function of multiple observers, then I wonder how it is that we have not evolved into a state where we can collectively select better outcomes... I wonder if it is possible to attain such a point in the evolution of our species, or if we will remain constrained by factors yet unknown. In either case, we cannot become indifferent to suffering simply because we view ourselves as powerless to stop it completely.
In Buddhism, suffering is considered one of the three marks of existence. It is suggested that awareness of the impermanent, codependent nature of observed reality is a means to alleviate one's own suffering, but I have a hard time believing that simple awareness on my part has a material impact on the suffering of others. Seeking to alleviate the suffering of others is consistently viewed across all major religious and mystical belief systems as being the mark of having attained the ultimate state of being/awareness...
"Having realized his own self as the Self, a person becomes selfless... This is the highest mystery."
This suggests to me that the suffering that I observe in others is indeed, in part, a shadow of my own mind. It also suggests that this type of selflessness/altruism is selfishness of a sort, for once you have opened yourself to understanding how it is that you participate in the selection of the states that you observe, you cannot escape a feeling of responsibility for what you find.
When confronted with the idea that the selection of this universe represents a choice, I am also confronted with all that is painful in the universe, and forced to ponder questions about the meaning of all the suffering in this world.
If my conscious experience is self-contained - that is, if I am not subject to any constraints put upon the states that I observe by other observers - then how do I explain the existence of pain and suffering (my own and that of others) in my experience? Is the suffering I see in others simply a shadow of some level of my own suffering? I do not suggest that this is an excuse to become indifferent to suffering, especially the suffering of others. Indeed, if this solipsistic vision of reality is correct, then the observation of suffering may only go away upon engaging both the internal forces that propelled me to this particular universe, and the external manifestation of suffering. Perhaps the internal forces that pushed me to a place where I am suffering or I observe suffering may only be understood and mitigated by engaging the external manifestation in attempts to alleviate the suffering.
If, however, I accept a model wherein state selection is function of multiple observers, then I wonder how it is that we have not evolved into a state where we can collectively select better outcomes... I wonder if it is possible to attain such a point in the evolution of our species, or if we will remain constrained by factors yet unknown. In either case, we cannot become indifferent to suffering simply because we view ourselves as powerless to stop it completely.
In Buddhism, suffering is considered one of the three marks of existence. It is suggested that awareness of the impermanent, codependent nature of observed reality is a means to alleviate one's own suffering, but I have a hard time believing that simple awareness on my part has a material impact on the suffering of others. Seeking to alleviate the suffering of others is consistently viewed across all major religious and mystical belief systems as being the mark of having attained the ultimate state of being/awareness...
"Having realized his own self as the Self, a person becomes selfless... This is the highest mystery."
This suggests to me that the suffering that I observe in others is indeed, in part, a shadow of my own mind. It also suggests that this type of selflessness/altruism is selfishness of a sort, for once you have opened yourself to understanding how it is that you participate in the selection of the states that you observe, you cannot escape a feeling of responsibility for what you find.
