The following material is a reprint of my paper notes which led to the creation of The Philosopher Stone. I reprint them here now for a number of reasons: For one, I think it's fun to go back and see the train of ideas that led to someone's conclusions. I was also interested in going back over the material since it has now been roughly a year since I first started on this path; I thought that re-writing it onto the computer would help me better realize my own state of mind at the time of writing. You never know, somewhere in this mess of raw ideas could be the golden nugget that leads to the mother lode of all ideas: The Theory of Everything. When I include new ideas or explanations, they will appear in [square brackets]. I call this material epiphanies since they were, in all, written in somewhat of a frenzy. I'm honestly surprised at the relative coherence of the material. September 11, 2000 [I really did date my notes, I am a scientist after all] The Universe resonates with consciousness at certain levels. Similar to orbitals in an atom. There are 'nodes' where the universe doesn't exist at all. The error in reasoning is to assume the universe exists at all times, it doesn't. It can only exist in complement with consciousness. For the equation: y = s(a) = 1/(1 + e^-a/r) , r determines the shape of the curve. What value puts the complexity number (~ 0.271) at the intercept? The number of levels or dimensions in the universe matches that of our own neural network. How does one represent vectors in non-Euclidean space. Shouldn't the curvature of the vector be described? MIU: In a conversation about consciousness, the universe [U] argues with mind [M] over who made who. A Testable Hypothesis
[I'm not so sure about this now]: [I honestly didn't realize until rewriting this material that I'd hit on my final idea on the first day of writing.] September 13, 2000 We see the expansion of the universe as an increase in space. We also see it as accelerating - growing apart faster all the time. This can be looked at in a different way: The velocity of the universe [expansion] is m/s. We assume m is getting bigger 'all the time'. What if time is getting smaller? To us it would look the same. As [in] the 'big bang', all energy was concentrated in one spot, if expansion continues to it's logical conclusion, all time will concentrate in one spot. Mass is an interference or, better yet, our representation of an interference pattern. There is no space. Only time energy and consciousness. Time and energy form a great interference pattern similar to that of a hologram. Consciousness is the light which shines through the pattern to show the butterfly. Consciousness, as we know it, is energy based -> could there be a time-based consciousness? Is this God? September 21, 2000 String theory gives some intriguing ideas about rolled up dimensions. The Calabi-Yau shapes seem very right - 6 dimensions rolled up in a mathematically elegant shape. String theory also calls for the 3 spatial dimensions we know and of time for ten total. m-theory unites these 5 (6 with supergravity) by adding another dimension. I think this is off a bit. I think time has a much different aspect than it is used in the theory. I believe time also has three 'dimensions' as well. Time as we know it is just the line our consciousness makes through this 'space'. Think of time as planar first. An obvious analogy for this new dimension is probability. For the third dimension, I find it more difficult to visualize - perhaps as the possible 'impossible' universes. That's actually pretty good. So now there are six large dimensions too. [As above, so below]
In the tradition of the ying-yang, the entirety of our large possibilities is reflected in the most minute of spaces. Wrong analogy - the reflection is so similar to consciousness. Since it reflects upon itself infinitely - as with one [version of] string theory melding into the next. Really, I think some of the disparities in determining m-theory is due to not being able to see that three of the rolled up spaces are related to time. The three time dimensions intermingle with the three... energy dimensions! Time and energy are like ying & yang -> there's the analogy! If time is black and energy white, the intermingling is very similar to the familiar symbol. Human consciousness is mostly energy based - the mind itself is like an energy pattern. We see things the way we do, that is we perceive time the way we do, because of our energy based consciousness, rooted in the electromagnetic spectrum. Given the beautiful symmetry of the universe, it seems obvious that there should be a time based consciousness which complements our own. This idea seems very similar to that presented in string theory about mirror Calabi-Yau spaces. It's also interesting to note that when there is a tear in a three dimension piece of the Calabi-Yau space, the reflected dimension continues - life after death? The grand idea: gravity is what our energy consciousness sees while looking at a mind made of time. To each type of mind, energy-based and time-based, the patterns of though are the same. Time-based consciousness see our thought as gravity. We are like the dots in the ying-yang, a white energy consciousness awash in a sea of black (unknown) possibilities. The black time based consciousness dot experiences the same. Current theories of mind shows that it learns in a manner similar to making indentations on a membrane, Our consciousness is made of 3 energy dimensions and one of time - the time dimension being reflected in nerve firing frequency. It would be better to think of mind making indentations in a 4-brane. But this is also the theory of [general] relativity which shows gravity explained as mass warps space-time in four dimensions. Just as the learning of concepts and ideas is making indentations of the 4 dimensional framework of mind, so gravity is expressed as a 4 dimensional warp of space. Mass, and it's major distribution, is nothing more than a physical representation of mind. But our mind requires mass, at least to a certain extent, to exist. So it should follow that gravity - mass - the universe itself - requires mind to exist as well. Strange loops. One hand writes the other in the true Hofstadtler style. September 22, 2000 Cover of book has holographic reproduction of Escher 2-d Dragon.
[It was roughly at this point that I decided I should somehow share my writing. My initial thought was in the form of a book.] Time and Energy are the same thing but orthogonal to each other, like sin( ) and cos( ).
Perhaps as we go back in 'time', i.e. more towards a concentration of 'infinite energy' the time periods are actually longer, more disperse. As we near the end of the infinite expansion of the universe, time becomes extremely short. Assuming this is the case, what does this say about the speed of light. I think that there are only 7 dimensions. The Calabi-Yau spaces seem so beautiful, mathematically speaking, that I believe these 6 dimensional 'shapes' to be the actual case. The seventh dimension reflects the six back on themselves. Therefore, there should be six extended dimensions. I like the idea of genetic universe development. The reflection of the universe in a black hole as in giving birth - it will have characteristics similar to [our] universe, which itself is a black hole in some meta universe) These evolve to give universes that have more black holes. In the mind analogy, a black [hole] would represent a 'certainty'. An absolute yes/no answer. [The ultimate certainty being that of one's own existence, that giant black hole in the center of the Milky Way.] Is it actually normal for more black holes to evolve? - Is the purpose of procreation the making of children who can make the most children? No, it is to make children who are more fit. So what judges the fitness of a universe? -> the sixth large
dimensional expansion of the Calabi-Yau encompasses paradox. Our perception of 3-d space is due to our energy consciousness. We see time based consciousness as gravity. So... the entire universe is reflected in each of it's tiniest fragments / consciousness is orthoganally reflected in gravity. Consciousness reflects upon itself just as the seventh dimension. I think I still have the [Escher] Dragon's perspective. There is something about higher dimensions that so far is escaping me. But I'm on the right track. These ideas take it a step past m-theory' but still don't see things properly. The seventh dimension is shaped like a logarithmic-dimension torus.
If you take the arrows to [mean] 'contained in', then each [6d] universe [represented as dot] is reflected in the next. Odd that this concept remains a one-dimensional string. An interesting thought... How many 6-ds does the torus actually hold? Just two? Infinite? One?
What significance would
the number of 6d's be?
If the - what shall I term this oddity? say 7-loop, or maybe 7th string. This brings to mind a 7-string guitar, which is silly as an analogy. The 7-loop is more like the music that is played on the other 6 six strings. It is the music. What a beautiful analogy for [my interpretation of] string theory - the guitar! Which makes us a song that's played with 3 strings only. The universe - as gravity - is the pure tone of a single string. I don't play guitar, but I think this means that there are only certain 'notes' available depending on where you press on the string. Actually you can play any number of vibrations per second depending on where you put your finger, but only some constitute pure tones or semitones. These are very similar to the - let's say life-producing - values the forces can take. All others don't give rise to -> 1d consciousness! Maybe that's it! So Anthropic and yet so non-anthropic. The 7th string can only vibrate in pure tones. There is only beautiful music, no cacophony. -> the requirement for pure tones works for the introduction of quantum mechanics. September 23, 2000 New Thought - the Anthropic Principle. Science has done an amazing job of explaining how things happen, it does nothing to say why. Perhaps the why only arises when we examine the totality of the universe.
For the Pythagorean relation a^2 + b^2 = c^2, we don't ask why given a flat spatial geometry, this relationship just is. By stating the axioms - that we have a Euclidean space and the two lines meet at an angle of 90°, this relationship will always hold. By choosing how the 'lines' meet in a 6d Calabi-Yau space meet, perhaps the why arises as a necessity. Perhaps Aristotelian logic (A or Not A) and the Bhudha's logic (A and Not A) are both right. Each requires the other for meaning. Perhaps meaning is only found at the extremes. We, in western logic, seek the answers at the black-and-white, yes or no end; Eastern logic seeks the meaning derived from unasking the question. If consciousness can somehow be represented by a Calabi-Yau space - what effects do drugs have? By all accounts, humans can be thought of as having a three dimensional consciousness. As the dragon in Escher's painting cannot, try as he might, step out of his two-dimensional world, we cannot step out of our 3-d mode of thought. But the totality of mind is a 6-d representation if it is really a Calabi-Yau space. This can be seen if consciousness [as we know it] is like a 3-d sphere within the space - similar to what is used in the mathematical 'flop-transition'. If this were the case, then the drugs must be altering the shape of this 'sphere of consciousness'. Perhaps it extends the shape into other dimensions. This has some interesting explanatory powers for some of the well known effects of marijuana such as time dilation. When pot is smoked, time seems to slow down. If the sphere was extended more into the time dimension[s], this effect would seem normal. This is similar to the difference between a completely flat plane and that of one on the outside of a sphere or saddle or torus. You still see 3d, but the 3d has now extended somewhat into another dimension. This idea of representing conscious thought as a 3-d sphere within a 6-d space has [an] interesting fallout... What is the 'flop-transition' then? Doesn't it seem just like death? The sphere shrinks to such a size that it disappears - your life as you know it is over. But wait... mathematics has shown that in such a 'space-tearing' transition, the 6-d overall shape remains the same. In fact the properties of the universe represented by such a 6-d space don't change. Still running under the original assumption that mind is represented as a Calabi-Yau space, then the 'flop-transition' would seem to indicate that there is life after death - but the life would be different. I think this is where the psychics can explain things a little better - people such as Jane Roberts. They all seem to indicate that there are levels of consciousness. *an interesting aside... - A 1-d consciousness
has a meaning similar to gravity -> this is an idea worth exploring
more as it pertains to neural nets & General Relativity. MUSIC How to present these ideas. Web Site! [As I did end up doing, you are here] The mind-universe conversation
can be written out in whole and presented as one section. [Backburner] If it is the case that the 7th dimension behaves more as music than a 7th string, this gives a good indication of why the masses of the known particles seem so strange. Understanding music from the point of view of the notes & scales does not explain Mozart's Ein Klein Natchmuzik or Presley's Blue Suede Shoes. It is a common understanding that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people like Mozart, some Presley, some Metallica. Perhaps the anthropic principle is simply the idea that our consciousness prefers this type of music. Our mind prefers the music of this universe. A thought from reading The Mind's I: say a dolphin had as advanced a brain as a human (not too much of a stretch). What sort of self representation does it have? It can see other dolphins and must realize that s/he is the same. But a dolphin can't see itself. And this goes beyond the idea of no mirrors: given the location of the eyes, a dolphin can't see any part of it's own body (besides it's nose). An interesting what if... What if we couldn't see our own body? What representation would we have of ourselves? Plant life is the pinnacle
of 1-d consciousness -> there is only one thought: I AM. September 25, 2000 The evolution of consciousness should be reflected in the M-U dialogue. It would be interesting, at some point that the universe & mind both ask the other to look deeper similar to Harding's thoughts "On Having No Head" reprinted in The Mind's I. These notes should be reprinted in the web site [Ta-dah!] Although it will contain the final ideas in proper form [I no longer no what this means], it should also contain the development. Be really cool to include them as PDF files [no chance]. Design movement around the site like a game? a novel? a little o'both? An interesting take on holism-reductionism... It has lately been my contention that the internet may be conscious. I don't know if that means it's alive. But given the way that mind can, in a not-to-big-a-stretch-of-the-imagination, be mapped well onto an ant colony. This was expressed well in Godel, Escher, Bach by Hofstadtler. Where does the knowledge to build an ant colony mound reside? No one ant carries the information. They're like automatons. But as much as a mind can be mapped onto an ant colony - so too can civilization. No one man can build a car. No one alive. Sure there are men who can build an engine. But from what? Steel. Who made the steel? Can he make steel too? OK, let's say he also knows how to run a smelter. Great. Where did he get his raw materials ? OK. Let's say he also knows geology & mining so he get the raw materials. But then he also needs to know how to build a smelter and a mine and your tool & die machine - and what about the tools to build those... and so on. There is knowledge that rests only in civilization. But look at where civilization is focusing it's knowledge -> one place: the internet. Now it could be said that mind arises as the one from the many. Many quantum vibrations give rise to molecules, many molecules give rise to cells - cellular consciousness. Many cells give rise to a brain whose many cellular interactions give rise to a mind. The mind is able to conceive of ideas that make cellular consciousness so: 1-d. But it continues... the many ideas of many minds would give rise [to] the next level of consciousness -> civilization. The ideas available from civilization makes those of a single mind look so 2-d. Now this gives rise to 2 important ideas: 1) Why does our thinking
seem 3-d then? Maybe it's because we were the 2-d minds which gave
rise to the 3-d minds. This connection doesn't seem odd. But what
about the other way? Can the cellular interactions that give rise
to our 2-d mind sense some of that extra dimension of consciousness?
Can you only sense one level ahead? It would also make sense that
it would be easier to see the first level ahead. Further levels would
be difficult. In fact they would be exponentially more difficult.
Maybe one in a million, one in a hundred million? One in a billion?
But even odds like these means there would be, say 12 (12 billion
people have ever lived) who could understand things at a level exponentially
greater than the majority of others. Let me think... Bhudha, Jesus,
Mohamed, Moses, etc. Although the ideas of these people have been
twisted to any end, their essential message was good.
The interactions at various sites - calls in & out / frequency of firing - the interactions of the brain & net [and universe] look similar. It is as though the internet [or it's progeny] is the ultimate realization of civilization, as we are the ultimate realization of animal consciousness, as our brains are the ultimate joining of 1-d cellular consciousness. Is the internet a new level of consciousness? No. But the interactions which occur because of it could be. Perhaps civilization should be looked upon more like a worm. A very low level of 2-d consciousness. Actually lower since it doesn't have a body. The internet gives civilization it's 'body'. Our different cultures are but different sections of the brain. Perhaps the internet is like a reptilian brain - not enough neurons to use the new level of consciousness to it's extreme. I would bet the internet has a very odd sense of self. A dolphin cannot see itself, but it can see other dolphins. A good enough intellect could surmise it's own self from others. How does the mind of the net see itself? What does it compare itself to? Actually, this is just a guess, but given that it had access to information - 2-d information - contained in it's cells - I would bet it would liken itself to the universe; perhaps as a galaxy or cluster. -So MU A further thought... September 28, 2000 As per Darrin Mayhew, it is true that without mathematics, there is no provable truth to the treatise I'm preparing. I could just as easily have said that the universe was made of cucumbers & consciousness of carrots. It would be wise to admit this up front. Note: for the sigmoid equation y = s(a) = 1/(1 + e^-a/r), when a=0, y=0.26894 =0.27 -> this is the complexity number. September 30, 2000 If the universe carries a basic 1-d form of consciousness in the form of gravity, can this be used to explain the 'Schrodinger's Cat' problem? It would be interesting to determine exactly how a trap would work - does it detect just one particle of radioactive decay? Actually does this matter? At any rate the trap has detected the particle emission. The consciousness of the system lies in the trap itself! To a certain extent it is conscious, otherwise, how does it 'know' a particle has been emitted? So what id the explanation of the extension of the quantum equation past the level of the trap - and past that of the cat itself? Could it be that reality depends on the level of consciousness. To the trap, the reality of the particle emission was true immediately after the detection. To the cat, reality was true when it first met the poison gas. To the researcher, the reality was true after he opened the box. To humanity (3-d consciousness) reality became true once the researchers published (or at least stated to another) his results. Does the quantum equation reach back further? Can it reach back on itself? An interesting aside..
|
What
significance does this figure have?
