I would like to propose a theory about the structure of reality. I was just inspired of it, and instinctually it seems very exciting to me. It unites the fractal theory of the Universe with wave-particle duality, the knowledge of left-right brain hemispheres, and the idea of the Universe as Information. I am personally very excited about this right now, but this may be an example of something that is difficult to properly communicate the significance of. Lol. We will see. Plus it is very long, so there is that. It was necessary, though, to properly describe it. I wanted to make a visual model to help illustrate exactly what I am talking about, but I found that was not going to be a task I could do so quickly and easily. Therefore, I decided against, and to just continue my writing. Hopefully this will interest some, anyways. lol. If you look deeply, you will see that the wave-particle duality mirrors a duality within our own brain, the duality of the left and right hemispheres. First let me propose a visual description of this concept. This can be seen as the operating ‘formula' behind reality, creating all aspects of reality, at all scales. It is, of course, not limited to this visual-model, but to understand the correspondence between all of this you will have to understand the underlying principle. To make the principle more clear, I am going to begin with linear, left-hemisphere, ‘particle-reality' explanation. It seems, to me, arbitrary to try to find what comes ‘first,' or is ‘more real,' particle or wave. They are mutually dependent. So we will imagine a single particle, or a single dot in empty space. Consider the particle going ‘down' and ‘to the right' a certain amount of distance(there is, of course, no ‘up-down' or ‘left-right' in empty space, but we use this phrasing to assist in understanding). After this, it would return backwards in one of the initial planes, or dimensions, and continue in the same direction in the other. So, supposing the first movement was down and to the right, the next would be back up, and still to the right. At each point where the motion changed directions, a new particle is created. It continues this process, each path being exactly equal in terms of distance and spatial relationships. It would do this until it reached the end of its ‘field,' or the boundaries of what ‘it' is, which most generally be defined by the ‘observer,' or the linear-model imposed upon it. This linear-model would impose the general ‘system,' in terms of material appearance, and the distinctions between the various ‘things.' Once it reached this end, it would go directly up or down, whichever created a straight line in closure. It would then repeat the exact same process in reverse, down and to the left. Once it reached the end, you would have a series of particles/dots in a straight lines defining the ‘top' and ‘bottom.' To give a description of a visual depiction of this particular part of the process, let me mention the infinity sign. Suppose that you viewed the infinity sign in terms of a dot at every change of motion. Notice how it creates a close-system, whereby you can continuously repeat this process of motion. That is not exactly the same, but it helps you to understand. Upon the completion of this, it would repeat the process, only this time going exactly half the distance horizontally. It would go right then left, creating another perfect creation of equi-distant lines defining the top and bottom, this time each point having half the distance. It could theoretically repeat this process ad-infinitum, creating a more and more complex, and more and more ‘dense,' or ‘subtle' system. The model composed after each left-right rundown could be seen as its own ‘dimension,' or ‘scale' of reality. The ‘reality' of what is ‘really there' would be an incomprehensibly complex pattern of particles, getting infinitely more complex as it continuously repeats this basic pattern, which defines its organizational structure. One could only possibly perceive the system to the capabilities of his own mind to organize the material. The infinite repetition of the pattern would not be recognized by the observer. It would be seen only to the degree of subtlety capable of being perceived by the mind of the observer. This would imply his degree to create meaningful distinctions, and he would organize the scale he was able to perceive according to his own pre-defined models or maps. Now let me explain how this ties into the wave-model of the Universe. As I said, the particle-model just provides an understandable baseline for physical reality. Every single particle in this logical-model for particle-distribution would emit its own energies, and the energies of each of these particles would interact with each other to create an even more(much more) complex model of what is there. Note that the observer is an integral part to this process. Through observation, information is created about the available data of mass and energy, particle and wave. The particles and waves, then, are organized according to the modeling of this information, provided by the observer. Thus you can see the usefulness of this model of reality, as it unites many of the exciting new theories about reality. This can be seen as a mathematical fractal pattern repeating, creating the infinite depth of matter and energy. Beyond this, the observer, consciousness, is an essential part, for it must compute the available Information; Information is the essence of the Universe.
Wow sick read. I came up to similiar on conclusions regarding how fractals make up every shape and the universe is essentially information. Have you heard of the double slit experiment? Where when observed photons behave like particles but when it doesn't it acts like waves? Just adding in some knowledge
wow, i think things like this when my mind is in other higher places of high thought capacity. i knew i was fucknig on to something maan.
Good go, but I disagree with your conclusions. The wave particle duality isn't a conundrum of either/or, it's two ways of describing the same thing. What it really means is that it's one thing that has the qualities of both without strictly being either.. You also talked about the idea of a left and right hemisphere brain and it being a duality, but this idea is not used much in the modern idea of how the brain works, though you will still find references to it everywhere. There is for example, no creative right side and introspective left, things are coordinated (usually, but not always) form both hemisphere as one. "...Note that the observer is an integral part to this process. Then what you're saying is that where there is no consciousness to observe reality that there is none? Through observation, information is created about the available data of mass and energy, particle and wave. The particles and waves, then, are organized according to the modeling of this information, provided by the observer...." This as I said is a misunderstanding about what wave-particle duality means. There is nothing to organize into one or the other, it is a quanta of energy that displays both wave and particle traits. It's simply two ways of seeing the same thing. Thus you can see the usefulness of this model of reality, as it unites many of the exciting new theories about reality. I would imagine that the 'exciting new theories' are based on the idea that consciousness helps create reality? The observer effect is a myth that's based on a faulty understanding of the double-slit experiment. I don't know whether you know, though it's worth mentioning, that the idea came from a movie called 'What the Bleep' created by the Thrive disinformation industry and was intended to deceive to promote the idea that the mind interacted with reality. There's a thread somewhere on it, but anyway... No brain or 'particle; duality unfortunately. MelT
MelT: If you would like, you can do some reading on the idea of an 'info-cognitive' Universe here: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf It is a suggestion of a new model for organizing available data, which synergizes currently existing models. It suggests that information is the essential nature of the Universe, and that an observer of some sort is inextricably bound. John Archibald Wheeler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The person proposing it is certainly noone to be rejected offhand. Certainly a very brilliant and well-respected physicist. Now, you are suggesting that I am stating that there exists in reality an ultimate and true split between left and right hemispheres, between particle and waves. This is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that these are two mutually dependent ways in which reality can appear, depending on the viewpoint behind it. Beyond this, there certainly is a 'split' between the left and right hemispheres. They are, of course, not entirely independent, but that does not mean that they do not each have their own primary functions. Yes, they are synergistically connected, and in communication, but each hemisphere does have its own essential function, creating two essentially 'different' views of reality, though not ultimately separate. Now, as for as the ultimate legitimacy of the necessity of consciousness in creating reality. It could be that there needs to be consciousness somewhat in the way we think of it in order for reality to exist. I am a bit skeptical of this worldview, though. If we could re-organize consciousness as something like 'data/info registered and reacted to by structure,' then you can see how this extends far beyond the 'human-domain,' where human cognitive processes are simply more complex versions of this definition of consciousness.
I have to ask you again what Wheeler fails to answer. If human consciousness creates reality was it non existent before we appeared? No, of course not. His background is of no interest if his theory is unsupported. I don't ascribe to the idea that we should accept a basically spiritual idea of the universe by pretending that it is 'data' and not consciousness they keep relating the term to. There is no place at all in quantum mechanics for consciousness in terms of it making reality, no need for it as a mechanism, because we can already see much of what is taking place and are already manipulating it. We have not, in any research, needed to include consciousness to do this. Beyond this, there certainly is a 'split' between the left and right hemispheres. The physical split has no bearing on its function in the context that we're talking about it in. They are, of course, not entirely independent, but that does not mean that they do not each have their own primary functions. No, it's not really like that. It still sounds as though you are proposing that the right hemisphere controls one type of emotion and function and one the other. That isn't the case, emotions and functions are usually the product of joint work in both hemispheres.Yes, they are synergistically connected, and in communication, but each hemisphere does have its own essential function, creating two essentially 'different' views of reality, though not ultimately separate. That is not true. You think of them as being emotionally biased left and right. Nothing you say sounds convincing to be honest. You misunderstood the nature of quantum particles and I think that your views on the brain and hemsipheres may not be as we think of them nowadays. Only my two pennorth, as I'm a fan of QM. I'm sure Sam will have a read. Zylark too is pretty hot on physics. Any more you want to add before we get going? MelT
You seem to have missed or ignored what I said...I propose a re-understanding of what has been called 'consciousness.' Thus you will have to detach from consciousness as we generally refer to it. We may as well just stop using the word consciousness, since you seem to be hung up on the word. Let us define x, and you may use whatever term for x you would like, as: information, or energy, received through structure. It may logically follow that the structure inherently reacts to the data it takes in, though I'm not entirely sure. Regardless, this is how I am defining x, which has been called 'observation' or 'consciousness,' but it need not be given those names, as they have already been pre-defined in people's minds and may lead to misunderstandings. So, energy-interactions occur between physical apparatus'. The physical apparatus' take in the available environmental data, and sort it according to its own structure. This is consistent with the copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. As the physical apparatus sorts the data after its own structure, this being process x, formerly called 'consciousness,' it creates an 'image' according to its own structure. When I say 'image,' it does not literally mean visual. In fact, you seem to get very caught up in word-choice, so we will replace 'image' with 'y.' So, the physical apparatus takes in environmental data through a process called 'x,' then creates 'y' which is formed after its own structure.
this thread is now making my brain explode. im like on the edge of not understanding any of this hahaha too much word association confusion.
[quote name='TheJourney']You seem to have missed or ignored what I said...I propose a re-understanding of what has been called 'consciousness.' Thus you will have to detach from consciousness as we generally refer to it. We may as well just stop using the word consciousness, since you seem to be hung up on the word. .. You propose a new understanding of the term on no basis that I can see so far. Why should I adopt your meaning when there is no evidence of your theory being true? It's already wrong because you misunderstood what the wave particle duality meant. You quote Wheeler- which parts of your theory are his and which of your own invention? I have no interest in his theory, but I am interested in what you believe it means and use it to support. You earlier mentioned 'exciting new physics' could you tell us who the other proponents of what you say are? Let us define x, and you may use whatever term for x you would like, as: information, or energy, received through structure. Mmmm...In the end, no matter how we frame it or what we call it, you are still talking about your personal theory that mind has a hand in reality. Forgetting of course how we define mind... I haven't heard anything convincing in what you say, not Wheeler, that would make anyone think you're right. There's no evidence for it in the quantum world. It's a good shot, I understand why you might want to float it here, but you've based it on misunderstandings. Have you any replacement idea for the way you said the mind made particles collapse into either waves or particles? So, energy-interactions occur between physical apparatus'. The physical apparatus' take in the available environmental data, and sort it according to its own structure. This is consistent with the copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. No it's not. Could you give me the actual lines where it talks about this effect and the relevant part of it in your theory? As the physical apparatus sorts the data after its own structure, this being process x, formerly called 'consciousness,' it creates an 'image' according to its own structure. When I say 'image,' it does not literally mean visual. In fact, you seem to get very caught up in word-choice, so we will replace 'image' with 'y.' Ahh, this is your MO, I see. When you get pulled up in what you say you accuse the other person of being hung up on words. Not really working for me TBH. You want to pretend that those who disagree with you or who questions the logic of what you say have hangups that prevent them seeing the truth. Actually, the problem may just be that you're theory is wrong and the other person is pretty okay with things Are you sure this isn't projection and it's you who is hung up on definitions? "... As the physical apparatus sorts the data after its own structure, this being process x, formerly called 'consciousness,' it creates an 'image' according to its own structure...." Everything you say sounds a little nonsensical if you don't mind me saying. It's okay, I know it's a science forum, but you don't need to try to make what you say sound like it's science. We're good. You're winging it, there's no need to over-try we're a friendly bunch here, you don't need to know all the proper terms. The way you write doesn't help what you're trying to prove. QM doesn't work in the way you think it does. MelT
How do you define 'deep reality,' or 'actuality,' without referring to the results of a measurement-device, whether mechanical or the brain? I am dissociating entirely from consciousness. I have used 'x' to make this clear, but you still keep talking about 'mind.' What in the universe functions without the exchange of energy/information? I'm not speaking about conscious thought here...I'm speaking about information/energy being filtered through structure. You continue projecting 'mind' or 'consciousness' onto what I am saying, despite that I have repeatedly dissociated from that notion. So: What is the deep reality? What REALLY exists, without referring to any measuring device? Or else, what measuring device is able to measure everything about reality perfectly? If you cannot explain deep reality without deferring to a device, or refer to a device that fully explains every aspect of actuality, then anything that could be said about actuality is based on a limited model produced by the limited capabilities of a measuring device. Or, in other words, an information-model produced after the structure of the measuring device.
Just say you were standing there quietly observing your fractal patterns and someone kicks you in the balls ?
I'd like you to crane your neck upwards and look at the title of your OP '...and Observation Create Reality'. And now you are saying that observation is not consciousness. Define observation. We seem to be straying somewhat from the OP. You said that quanta became either wave form or particle-like depending on which side of the brain they're processed by. Both ideas are wrong, particularly as there is no left/right brain split as you think. I'm not really sure what the problem is? Your theory is wrong, why are you trying to say it's about definitions? The crux of your post is that consciousness - or data, depending upon how you'd like to define it, I have no problem with either - does things it does not do. Now apparently we're talking about what lies at the heart of reality, below, which your theory doesn't answer. So: What is the deep reality? It is not the idea you explained in the OP. What REALLY exists, without referring to any measuring device? I see, your problem is that you think that everything we know about reality is based upon 'measuring' devices, is that what you mean? Sorry if I misunderstand, but a good deal of what we know about reality is based on math, not the ability to measure things. We can use data to understand processes and experiment with outcomes, it isn't all about measurement. But, to your question. Do you mean what lies at the heart of matter or is the basis of reality? The quantum field. We know it's there, we work with it, manipulate it, watch how particles interact at a very tiny scale. Do they exist? Not really. They're possibilities as much as actualities, and the idea that they're even particles in their own right is of course untrue. I'm sure you've heard about the effect in music where if two people harmonise they sound as though a third voice is singing? Some of particle physics is a little like that, particles seem to appear, but in fact they're just they're the result of a very similar harmonic effect. Are they real, kind of, kind of not. Or else, what measuring device is able to measure everything about reality perfectly? What you're doing is trying to appeal to the idea that 'science doesn't know everything' because it uses 'measuring devices', which as I've said is untrue. Also, you seem to be behind on how powerful and accurate our observations of the world are nowadays. We can film light in motion, watch molecules interact in real time, manipulate single atoms. The world has moved on Journey. If you cannot explain deep reality without deferring to a device, or refer to a device that fully explains every aspect of actuality, then anything that could be said about actuality is based on a limited model produced by the limited capabilities of a measuring device. Or, in other words, an information-model produced after the structure of the measuring device. No limited model or reliance on 'measuring devices' unfortunately. Math backed up by experimental data, observation and predicted outcomes. The problem is that you don't understand how science goes about collecting data, the extent to which we can now do this, and how proofs are formulated.We moved on, it's time you did too. MelT
In my opinion, you keep disproving your own strawman arguments. That is, using what I am saying as a basis for an argument which you proceed to disprove, yet that which you are disproving is actually a mis-characterization of what I am saying. When I try to correct your mis-characterization, that either gets mis-characterized or ignored, and the cycle repeats. That is ok, this is a very common thing for people to do. And I'm sure from your perspective you're not doing that, so therefore you will think I am mis-characterizing you. For all of this, any debate between us will be, simply put, un-fruitful, because of the reasons I have just mentioned. I believe you are mis-characterizing my words, and you probably feel I am doing the same to you. Let me just mention one more thing you are either misunderstanding or mis-characterizing, because you made the point in your last post, but after that I see no purpose in continuing to spin our wheels in this way. I did NOT say that wave-particle duality was the SAME as left-right brain hemisphere. I was simply trying to make the point that if you are able to look for general correspondences in reality-at-large, there are similarities between left-hemisphere and particle-reality and right-hemisphere wave-reality. I am not saying that they are the same, or that they are dependent on which hemisphere it is processed by. I am simply pointing out correspondences. I briefly mentioned that, to make the point, but didn't go into detail.
Yea, as I was thinking of this, and certain other things I have been thinking/noticing lately, sacred geometry keeps popping into my head as well...
Sadly, Sacred Geometry just about in its entirety (he has copyright of the term and idea)was invented by Drunvalo Melchizedek, AKA Bernie Perona. I have followed and investigated his career for years. Mr Perona got all his information regarding SG from - I kid you not - two angels that appeared before him, one green, the other purple. These angels were also kind enough to give him the cellphone numbers of all the world's spiritual leaders too. He now claims to channel Satan. MelT