Why does this article matter to every day humans? I’ll take that question first; since it is germane and related to an article published yesterday (Aug. 2024) entitled: “Neuroscientist Reveals Connections Between Simulation | Consciousness | Nature of Reality by Jeffrey Thayer (August 2024)”That article addresses habitual negative thinking of people 80% of the “time”, and 95% of their thoughts being repetitive; and with this one, we frame a main theme and mission of Change the Thoughts. No doubt today most people are facing challenges which at times seem bewildering. What we habitually observe, and the thoughts we perceive are intimately linked to what we project into our own personal reality. It’s a dejavu loop, all over again, each day as illustrated in the film “Groundhog Day”. Fortunately there is good news. You can change “your” thoughts.🌀
The first video we open this article with is “Lucy” and a short clip entitled: “Time is Unity”. Skeptics of the day were critical claiming one scene (not this one) was false science. Interviews of the writer and director Luc Besson reveal he deeply researched the film with scientists before writing it. Perhaps ironically, our knowledge of the space time sciences in the clip below has not only been confirmed; it has in the succeeding 10 years increased exponentially.
Other videos relevant to concepts presented in this article are provided at the end.
Consciousness is observing fixed space of a frequency of frozen frames which change from “frame to frame” giving the “observer” the “illusion” of movement.
In video editing we refer to it as frames per second “FPS”. Consciousness of our observations of these frozen frames (per second), we label “perception” in space, which requires “time” of observation (FPS) to measure them. How often, when we listen to a friend recount remembered events of a difficult “period” of experiences do we think … or ask: “How long did that last?”. Yes! We do measure perceptions in “time”. Is it real? Is its consciousness’ way of interpreting the perceived experiences to give them meaning? Both? Or is are more layers to this onion?
The higher rate of the speed (velocity) of the frames observed per unit of time (measurement), yields a higher resolution of the images we perceive. That velocity of frozen frames giving the illusion of a car moving in this clip from the movie “Lucy” demonstrates a traveling car “disappearing” when the rate (its speed) reaches a point beyond (higher in frequency) than can be observed by humans. Did the car in “reality” actually disappear?
https://youtu.be/DIal4k5kR3k?feature=shared
Physicist Klee Irwin and colleagues of the Quantum Gravity Institute whose Mission reads:
“QGR’s mission is to discover and communicate the geometric unification of space, time, matter, energy, information and consciousness. Our team of physicists, mathematicians and chemists are hard at work on what we call “emergence theory,” a new quantum gravity theory (or “Theory of Everything”) that unifies space, time, energy, matter, information and consciousness.”
Some physicists refer to this unity as singularity.
https://quantumgravityresearch.org/our-mission/
“A New Approach to the Hard Problem of Consciousness:
A Quasicrystalline Language of “Primitive Units of
Consciousness” in Quantized Spacetime” (Part I)
Klee Irwin*
Quantum Gravity Research, California, USA
https://www.jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/download/380/404
Keel Irwin begins his paper with several relevant quotes worthy of mention:
Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. — Erwin Schrödinger
Physicists and other scientists recognize this word “fundamental” as being a “First Principle”. In science terms these first principles are considered postulates or axioms, which are self-evident … and do not require proof.
Keel cites a few more scientists to set a framework for his article:
Stuff of the world is mind-stuff. — Arthur Eddington
We do not find obvious evidence of life or mind in so-called inert matter…; but if the scientific point of view is correct, we shall ultimately find them, at least in rudimentary form, all through the universe. — J. B. S. Haldane
Mind or something of the nature as mind must exist throughout the entire universe. This is, I believe, the truth. — Julian Huxley
The laws of physics leave a place for mind in the description of every molecule… In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree and not in kind. — Freeman Dyson
That which we experience as mind… will in a natural way ultimately reach the level of the wavefunction and of the 'dance' of the particles. There is no unbridgeable gap or barrier between any of these levels… It is implied that, in some sense, a rudimentary consciousness is
present even at the level of particle physics. — David Bohm
How physical processes create a subjective sense of experience, or “consciousness”, is unknown. David Chalmers calls this “the hard problem” [5]. The definition and even existence of consciousness is debated.
The problem has been grappled with primarily by philosophers,
neuroscientists and psychologists with little success over the last few decades [6-9].
We believe the hard problem may be a false question. Many scholarly works have been published suggesting that fundamental physics related to quantum mechanics (QM) may play a role [towards solving the hard problem] [10-15].
However, little progress has been made, possibly due to the fact that mankind has not yet discovered a “microscopic first principles” theory of everything (TOE). QM and general relativity are not theories of everything. And there is no first principles TOE, i.e., a model with no plugged physical constants. The belief system and culture of pre-QM era institutional science is deeply embedded into our society, especially in the hard sciences. And one of the memes of this system is that consciousness is a phenomenon restricted to brains made of atoms. Unfortunately, this bias blocks serious academic work on ontological questions regarding foundational physics.
Ontology, the inquiry into what reality is, seems to be the logical starting point for both the hard problem of consciousness and a first principles TOE. We propose a rigorous deductive approach to help scientists to think more critically about the most fundamental questions of reality.
particles are a form of energy, and if we consider a frozen moment of reality (a “mosaic” of some unknown Planck length objects), then everything is the potential (information) for work because in each frozen Plank time moment, no work (change) is occurring. But what is “work” at this microscopic foundation of reality?
We can discuss this using the related terms “force” and “energy”. Of course, energy is the potential for work. And work for a fundamental particle is merely a change to its direction or rate of movement under a force, a form of influence causing this change. The reader may notice that this is circular and convoluted because we know there is an equivalency between mass and energy – and by extension matter.
For purposes of making this point more clear, we shall again refer to matter as “a form of bound up energy” and rephrase the definition of “energy” thusly: Energy is the potential for a change in the direction or speed of a particle, i.e., a “bound up quantity of energy”.
Reduced further: Energy is the potential for a velocity of a of a quantity of bound up energy. The circular nature of this unpacking of high school level classical definitions is a helpful way to realize that, fundamentally, reality is made of information not some absolute stuff that we label as mass or energy or even spacetime. The importance of belaboring this point is that realizing that reality is made of information requires us to conjecture what mind is perceiving the information, since all information is the stuff of mind.
Quantum mechanics speaks to the energy/mass = information idea in two different ways: First, it tells us that fundamental particles do not undergo continuous smooth movement from one location to the next. In fact, it tells us that motion itself does not exist.
Instead, reality is a sequence of frozen frames, where a particle is here and then there, with no motion in between – like flashing one hundred sequential still photographs on a computer monitor to create the illusion of motion. Within each frozen frame there is no change or motion, there is only a change between two or more frames observed by the observer. There is no work occurring in the classic idea of what work is. It is pure information. Second, the most popular interpretation of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation, teaches us a bold new ontology that is disturbing to some who have thought deeply about it.
Until a conscious entity measures/observes a particle, it does not exist in the same notion of reality that our common sense indicates we live in. It requires us to question the very nature of reality. It is important to understand that this idea of an unmeasured particle having no position is not merely a result of our lack of knowledge of where the particle is. Instead, the particle exists in an informational realm called a possibility space, where it literally has no location.
Because of the cultural remnants of old Newtonian thinking, it is troubling for some scientists to admit that everything is made of information. The idea that there is some absolute “stuff” of matter or energy beyond the logical and elegant notion of pure information may come from a
pre-scientific era story – a story of an atom or little absolute chunk of something created by a god from outside the universe. This religious idea is engrained into Western thinking, including much of academic scientific discourse, where it has morphed into a false distinction (definition) and two nonsensical words: “materialism” and “idealism” (the later means reality is made of information – the stuff of mind). The two words are used to distinguish between people who think that only physical stuff exists versus those who think reality exists within some sort of “cosmic mind space” as pure information. Materialists, though, are unable to say what energy is if not information. And, as far as we have found, no materialist can articulate exactly what they mean by “absolute stuff other than information”. Interestingly, most professed materialists have not actually thought about this question rigorously and are only vaguely aware that they believe in some sort of little chunks of absolute stuff or some non-informational substance called energy. Indeed, they are usually unaware of the fact that they cannot define energy beyond being information. We should also be clear that everything is a story – a theory.
We are not suggesting that the story of absolute stuff beyond information is wrong simply because it is known to have an origin that can be traced back to religious stories, such as a god from outside the universe creating the universe out of some form of “stuff”. In fact, there are also spiritual type ontologies from ancient Eastern stories that have great similarity to our model. The key is to update our stories to best fit the latest scientific measurements of reality. And all indications are that reality is “information theoretic”.
Again, QM is very much an ontological theory because it posits (in the widely adopted Copenhagen interpretation) that reality is made of two primary things; (1) abstract waves of possibility, where particles do not exist in our common sense notion of reality until we observe/measure them and (2) the controversial idea of “particle”, where some theorists say it is made of abstract information and others say it is some absolute non-informational thing.
John Wheeler, in his “It from Bit” ontology [16], was one of the first titans of physics to posit that reality is made of information. 21st century physicists who argue that reality is made of information include, MIT’s Max Tegmark. He points out that everything we observe about reality indicates it is made of information [17-18], specifically mathematics, and that to speculate
on some other absolute stuff beyond information is forced and unnecessary, especially since there is no competing scientific definition of reality (energy) being something other than information in the first place.”
“Combining the idea that (1) the universe is made of mathematical information and (2) the idea that reality is composed of “pixels” of change (time) and length (space), leads us to the notion that at the smallest scale fabric of reality, there is an algorithm at play – one that must involve some primitive “conscious operator” to actualize possible information into observed and “physical” information.”
“1.2 Information Is a Product of Consciousness and Consciousness Indicates Freewill.
To support the statement, “information is a product of consciousness”, we must first unpack rudimentary definitions of “information” and “consciousness”. The simplest definition of consciousness” is to be aware of something. Awareness, even of self, comes about through
observation, i.e., measurement.
So, awareness via observation is the defining action and quality of consciousness.”
Good News: Case Studies of Significant Research on Changing Biology | 7 Day Immersive Sessions | Results of Assigning Different Meanings to Thoughts and Experiences:
https://youtu.be/1rQ4mzz6Hgs?feature=shared
“Similarly, “information”, i.e., meaning, which is always subjective, is both a product of the observation and a defining quality of consciousness. In other words, the state of being aware of something is
itself information or meaning. And to be aware is to be conscious. At this foundational level. …”
Please read the entirety of this article from the link give at the beginning. I would also humbly suggest readers follow Klee Irwin and his colleagues’ on-going publications, which are voluminous:
https://quantumgravityresearch.org/portfolio/all-papers/
Also: Dr. Roman Yampolskiy and colleagues:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0_Rq68cAAAAJ
Also: Dr. Peter Gariaev and colleagues:
https://wavegenetics.org/en/issledovania/
https://dnadecipher.com/index.php/ddj/search/search?simpleQuery=gariaev&searchField=query
Some Immediate Applications | Digital Biology & Physics
Are we now simulating what we observe in the Simulation in which we now live? Would that be digitally possible IF the Simulation we seek to mimic and perhaps change was not already an encoded Simulation; that is, a “First Principle”?
Digital biology and physics are not simply sciences using digital technologies (i.e. computers, holographic lasers, microscopes and machines to investigate phenomena within reality. Yes they are used for that purpose; but, they have been and are also used to simulate our Simulated reality. Examples include synthetic biology SYNBIO, GMO’s, modeling of existing genomes, hacking existing genomes and inserting new synthetic genome codes into humans augmenting them (i.e. CRISPR-Cas9 in super soldiers). The latter has been taking place since 2006, or earlier.
DNA | How it Works Simplified | Intelligent Design | What is the Source of the In-Formation?
References:Governments and NGOs refer to these hybrid organisms as cyborgs, borgs or augmented humans.
One example is the May 2021 UK and German Defence Ministry report Human Augmentation – The Dawn of a New Paradigm: A strategic implications project, which is replete with examples of experiments and augmentation procedures already undertaken. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/986301/Human_Augmentation_SIP_access2.pdf
In recent interviews, of Attorney Todd Callender has referred to a 2001 NASA Langley report on h generation warfare as the source of the homo borgiensis term.
These two reports are related to the issues:
January 2001 - Emerging Technologies: Recommendations for Counter-Terrorism, Dartmouth College Institute for Security Technology Studies, edited by Joseph Rosen, MD, and Charles Lucey, MD, JD, MPH
July 2001 - Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025]: The Bots, Borgs and Humans Welcome You to 2025 AD. NASA Langley Research Center, Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist.
One of several observations in the second document of many data points of this 113 slide powerpoint deck is its provenance and its date in 2001.
VIDEOS
X-Files (Season 10, 2016) short clip:
Digital Biology | The Coming Revolution (2015) | TED Talk
Professor Geoffrey Hinton: Will digital intelligence replace biological intelligence? | Romaine lecture (2023)
No comments:
Post a Comment