Difference between revisions of "Virtual Reality and Perception"
(Created initial page based upon part of handout 5.)
m (Protected "Virtual Reality and Perception" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)))
Latest revision as of 07:58, 16 February 2012
Continuing an old question: I think that there is a tree (represented as a subset of information), and there are woods. I also think there is a "potential" sound, but yes, agree you need a listener. Well, what about an NPMR traveler that happens to go to the historical database to hear that?
Tom: Things come into PMR reality based on a measurement by those in PMR reality. An observer in NPMR does not cause the PMR wave function to collapse to a physical particle or happening within PMR. Only an observer, an actual participant in PMR can do that. What is in the PMR database was actualized by a PMR happening or event. The PMR virtual reality is set up to be consistent for those experiencing, measuring, observing within PMR. Historical consistency is required only within the data that resides within PMR. If certain constraining data disappear from PMR, then new future possibilities may open up due to the disappearance of those constraints. That the original data is part of the database in NPMR means nothing. Reality is not objective – the PMR VR must be self-consistent in terms of history and the rule set. VRs elsewhere (which are considered nonphysical by those in PMR) must also be self-consistent. Each VR is its own independent subset – there is no consistency requirements between VRs. Like there is no required consistency between World of Warcraft and EverQuest – even if both were manufactured by the same company. That doesn’t logically imply that there can be no consistency – consistency is allowed but not required. Again – reality is not objective. Our belief that it is objective (habit of thinking) causes us to make assumptions that a probabilistic reality does not support.
Return to the Central Linkage Page for Tom Campbell's Lectures